Alex J Mitchell1, Nick Meader, Paul Symonds. 1. Department of Cancer and Molecular Medicine, Leicester Royal Infirmary, University of Leicester LE1 5WW, United Kingdom. alex.mitchell@leicspart.nhs.uk
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the validity of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) in the identification of psychiatric complications of cancer, as defined by a robust criterion standard. METHODS: 50 analyses tested the depression subscale (HADS-D), anxiety subscale (HADS-A) or combined scales (HADS-T) against syndromal (clinical) depression (n=22), syndromal anxiety (n=4) or any mental ill health/distress (n=24), all defined by semi-structured psychiatric interview. RESULTS: The HADS and its subscales had both strengths and limitations. Overall it appeared to perform marginally better in non-palliative cancer settings. Specific findings for each subscale were as follows. In the identification of depression the HADS-T, HADS-D and HADS-A had a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 82.0%, 77.0%; 71.6%, 82.6% and 80.5%, 77.8%, respectively. All versions performed poorly in case-finding but well in a screening capacity. For anxiety there were no HADS-D studies. The HADS-T and HADS-A had a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 83.9%, 69.9% and 48.7%, 78.7%. They were poor at case-finding but good as screening instruments. For distress (any mental ill health) the HADS-T, HADS-D and HADS-A had a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 72.8%, 80.6%; 75.7%, 66.3% and 65.7%, 71.3%, respectively. When screening for distress and anxiety the HADS-T was the optimal subscale. CONCLUSION: For the identification of depression, anxiety or distress in cancer settings, the HADS (including subscales) is not recommended as a case-finding instrument but it may, subject to concerns about its length, be a suitable addition to screening programme.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the validity of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) in the identification of psychiatric complications of cancer, as defined by a robust criterion standard. METHODS: 50 analyses tested the depression subscale (HADS-D), anxiety subscale (HADS-A) or combined scales (HADS-T) against syndromal (clinical) depression (n=22), syndromal anxiety (n=4) or any mental ill health/distress (n=24), all defined by semi-structured psychiatric interview. RESULTS: The HADS and its subscales had both strengths and limitations. Overall it appeared to perform marginally better in non-palliative cancer settings. Specific findings for each subscale were as follows. In the identification of depression the HADS-T, HADS-D and HADS-A had a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 82.0%, 77.0%; 71.6%, 82.6% and 80.5%, 77.8%, respectively. All versions performed poorly in case-finding but well in a screening capacity. For anxiety there were no HADS-D studies. The HADS-T and HADS-A had a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 83.9%, 69.9% and 48.7%, 78.7%. They were poor at case-finding but good as screening instruments. For distress (any mental ill health) the HADS-T, HADS-D and HADS-A had a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 72.8%, 80.6%; 75.7%, 66.3% and 65.7%, 71.3%, respectively. When screening for distress and anxiety the HADS-T was the optimal subscale. CONCLUSION: For the identification of depression, anxiety or distress in cancer settings, the HADS (including subscales) is not recommended as a case-finding instrument but it may, subject to concerns about its length, be a suitable addition to screening programme.
Authors: Sylvie D Lambert; Julie F Pallant; Kerrie Clover; Benjamin Britton; Madeleine T King; Gregory Carter Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2014-04-01 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Kerrie Clover; Sylvie D Lambert; Christopher Oldmeadow; Benjamin Britton; Madeleine T King; Alex J Mitchell; Gregory Carter Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2018-02-08 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Kelly A Hyland; Aasha I Hoogland; Brian D Gonzalez; Ashley M Nelson; Suzanne Lechner; Dinorah Martinez Tyson; Anna Barata; Maria F Gomez; Michael H Antoni; Brent Small; Cathy D Meade; Paul B Jacobsen; Heather S L Jim Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2019-05-20 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Rebecca M Saracino; Mark I Weinberger; Andrew J Roth; Arti Hurria; Christian J Nelson Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2016-05-16 Impact factor: 3.894