Annika M Thalén-Lindström1, Bengt G Glimelius, Birgitta B Johansson. 1. Author Affiliations: Experimental and Clinical Oncology, Department of Immunology, Genetics and Pathology (Drs Thalén-Lindström, Glimelius, and Johansson) and Neurosciences (Dr Thalén-Lindström), Uppsala University, Sweden.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Screening is recommended to identify cancer patients with distress, anxiety, and depression. The ability of current methods to identify distress in oncology patients is of high importance. OBJECTIVE: We compared the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) with a thorough clinical assessment. Furthermore, we explored the agreement of HADS with clinical assessment outcomes as a function of age, sex, and treatment intention. METHODS: One hundred forty-six oncology patients, representing both sexes, different ages (<65/≥ 65 years), and treatment intention (curative/palliative), completed the HADS before the clinical assessment. Two study team members (blind to the HADS results) completed clinical assessments of anxiety, depression, and distress analogous to categories used in the HADS. RESULTS: The HADS identified 49 participants and the clinical assessment 71 participants as having anxiety, depression, or distress. The overall agreement between the HADS and the clinical assessment was moderate. The greatest differences were found to be a function of participant sex and age. Agreement between the methods was better for females than for males in relation to distress and anxiety and better for the older (≥ 65 years) than younger participants in relation to depression. By treatment intention, agreement was equal for all domains. CONCLUSION: Especially male and young participants appear to have potential problems that the HADS fails to identify. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: When the HADS is used for screening, nurses must be aware of psychosocial problems perceived by patients that are not covered by the HADS. Many patients identified as having distress have resources to manage problems without additional support.
BACKGROUND: Screening is recommended to identify cancerpatients with distress, anxiety, and depression. The ability of current methods to identify distress in oncology patients is of high importance. OBJECTIVE: We compared the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) with a thorough clinical assessment. Furthermore, we explored the agreement of HADS with clinical assessment outcomes as a function of age, sex, and treatment intention. METHODS: One hundred forty-six oncology patients, representing both sexes, different ages (<65/≥ 65 years), and treatment intention (curative/palliative), completed the HADS before the clinical assessment. Two study team members (blind to the HADS results) completed clinical assessments of anxiety, depression, and distress analogous to categories used in the HADS. RESULTS: The HADS identified 49 participants and the clinical assessment 71 participants as having anxiety, depression, or distress. The overall agreement between the HADS and the clinical assessment was moderate. The greatest differences were found to be a function of participant sex and age. Agreement between the methods was better for females than for males in relation to distress and anxiety and better for the older (≥ 65 years) than younger participants in relation to depression. By treatment intention, agreement was equal for all domains. CONCLUSION: Especially male and young participants appear to have potential problems that the HADS fails to identify. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: When the HADS is used for screening, nurses must be aware of psychosocial problems perceived by patients that are not covered by the HADS. Many patients identified as having distress have resources to manage problems without additional support.
Authors: Yangjun Liu; Erik Pettersson; Anna Schandl; Sheraz Markar; Asif Johar; Pernilla Lagergren Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-09-04 Impact factor: 3.359
Authors: Susanne Mattsson; Erik Martin Gustaf Olsson; Maria Carlsson; Birgitta Beda Kristina Johansson Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2019-04-05 Impact factor: 5.428