J S Krause1, K S Reed, J J McArdle. 1. Department of Health Sciences and Research, College of Health Professions, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC 29425, USA. krause@musc.edu
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Longitudinal. OBJECTIVE: We identified changes in the association of somatic and non-somatic symptoms (as measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, PHQ-9) between inpatient rehabilitation after spinal cord injury (SCI) and 1 year after discharge. SETTING: A specialty hospital in the Southeastern USA. METHODS: A total of 584 adults with traumatic SCI were administered the PHQ-9 during inpatient rehabilitation. Of them, 227 completed the PHQ-9 by survey at 1-year follow-up. We performed time-lagged regression between times of measurement for somatic and non-somatic factors of the PHQ-9. RESULTS: The non-somatic factor at baseline was significantly predictive of the non-somatic (r=0.67, P=0.002) and somatic factors at follow-up (r=0.53, P=0.019). The somatic factor did not significantly predict either the somatic (r=0.10, n.s.) or non-somatic factors at follow-up (r=-0.01, NS). Factor analysis also indicated changing factor structure between inpatient rehabilitation and follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Our results question the interpretation of somatic items during inpatient rehabilitation, as they are not predictive of either somatic or non-somatic symptoms at follow-up.
STUDY DESIGN: Longitudinal. OBJECTIVE: We identified changes in the association of somatic and non-somatic symptoms (as measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, PHQ-9) between inpatient rehabilitation after spinal cord injury (SCI) and 1 year after discharge. SETTING: A specialty hospital in the Southeastern USA. METHODS: A total of 584 adults with traumatic SCI were administered the PHQ-9 during inpatient rehabilitation. Of them, 227 completed the PHQ-9 by survey at 1-year follow-up. We performed time-lagged regression between times of measurement for somatic and non-somatic factors of the PHQ-9. RESULTS: The non-somatic factor at baseline was significantly predictive of the non-somatic (r=0.67, P=0.002) and somatic factors at follow-up (r=0.53, P=0.019). The somatic factor did not significantly predict either the somatic (r=0.10, n.s.) or non-somatic factors at follow-up (r=-0.01, NS). Factor analysis also indicated changing factor structure between inpatient rehabilitation and follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Our results question the interpretation of somatic items during inpatient rehabilitation, as they are not predictive of either somatic or non-somatic symptoms at follow-up.
Authors: Roni W Kobrosly; Christopher L Seplaki; Deborah A Cory-Slechta; Jan Moynihan; Edwin van Wijngaarden Journal: Int J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2012-09-07 Impact factor: 3.485