T Roy1, C E Lloyd, F Pouwer, R I G Holt, N Sartorius. 1. Division of Social Research in Medicines and Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham Faculty of Health and Social Care, The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Depression is common in patients with Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes, has a strong negative impact on the quality of life of patients and is associated with poor outcomes and higher mortality rates. Several guidelines encourage screening of patients with diabetes for depression. It is unclear which depression screening tools are currently being used in people with diabetes and which are most appropriate. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to examine which depression screening instruments are currently being used in diabetes research, and the operating characteristics of these tools in diabetes populations. Literature searches for the period January 1970 to October 2010 were conducted using MEDLINE, PSYCH-INFO, ASSIA, SCOPUS, ACADEMIC SEARCH COMPLETE, CINAHL and SCIENCE DIRECT. RESULTS: Data are presented for the 234 published studies that were examined. The Beck Depression Inventory and the Centre for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale were the most popular screening tools (used in 24% and 21% of studies). Information on the cultural applicability of screening tools was mostly unavailable and, where reported, included only details of the language translation process. A small number of studies reported reliability data, most of which showed moderate-good sensitivity and specificity but a high rate of false positives. CONCLUSIONS: Although a range of depression screening tools have been used in research, there remains few data on their reliability and validity. Information on the cultural applicability of these instruments is even scantier. Further research is required in order to determine the suitability of screening tools for use in clinical practice and to address the increasing problem of co-morbid diabetes and depression.
BACKGROUND:Depression is common in patients with Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes, has a strong negative impact on the quality of life of patients and is associated with poor outcomes and higher mortality rates. Several guidelines encourage screening of patients with diabetes for depression. It is unclear which depression screening tools are currently being used in people with diabetes and which are most appropriate. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to examine which depression screening instruments are currently being used in diabetes research, and the operating characteristics of these tools in diabetes populations. Literature searches for the period January 1970 to October 2010 were conducted using MEDLINE, PSYCH-INFO, ASSIA, SCOPUS, ACADEMIC SEARCH COMPLETE, CINAHL and SCIENCE DIRECT. RESULTS: Data are presented for the 234 published studies that were examined. The Beck Depression Inventory and the Centre for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale were the most popular screening tools (used in 24% and 21% of studies). Information on the cultural applicability of screening tools was mostly unavailable and, where reported, included only details of the language translation process. A small number of studies reported reliability data, most of which showed moderate-good sensitivity and specificity but a high rate of false positives. CONCLUSIONS: Although a range of depression screening tools have been used in research, there remains few data on their reliability and validity. Information on the cultural applicability of these instruments is even scantier. Further research is required in order to determine the suitability of screening tools for use in clinical practice and to address the increasing problem of co-morbid diabetes and depression.
Authors: Sue M Penckofer; Carol Ferrans; Patricia Mumby; Mary Byrn; Mary Ann Emanuele; Patrick R Harrison; Ramon A Durazo-Arvizu; Patrick Lustman Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2012-10
Authors: Fang-Chi Hsu; Laura M Raffield; Christina E Hugenschmidt; Amanda Cox; Jianzhao Xu; J Jeffery Carr; Barry I Freedman; Joseph A Maldjian; Jeff D Williamson; Donald W Bowden Journal: Neuroepidemiology Date: 2015-07-14 Impact factor: 3.282
Authors: Molly L Tanenbaum; Marilyn D Ritholz; Deborah H Binko; Rachel N Baek; M S Erica Shreck; Jeffrey S Gonzalez Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2013-02-27 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: Jeffrey S Gonzalez; Naomi S Kane; Deborah H Binko; Amit Shapira; Claire J Hoogendoorn Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2016-10-17 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Fang-Chi Hsu; Mingxia Yuan; Donald W Bowden; Jianzhao Xu; S Carrie Smith; Lynne E Wagenknecht; Carl D Langefeld; Jasmin Divers; Thomas C Register; J Jeffrey Carr; Jeff D Williamson; Kaycee M Sink; Joseph A Maldjian; Barry I Freedman Journal: J Diabetes Complications Date: 2016-08-19 Impact factor: 2.852
Authors: Mark D Sullivan; Wayne J Katon; Laura C Lovato; Michael E Miller; Anne M Murray; Karen R Horowitz; R Nick Bryan; Hertzel C Gerstein; Santica Marcovina; Basil E Akpunonu; Janice Johnson; Jean Francois Yale; Jeff Williamson; Lenore J Launer Journal: JAMA Psychiatry Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 21.596