Jennifer B Levin1, Michelle E Aebi2, Kathleen A Smyth3, Curtis Tatsuoka4, Johnny Sams5, Thomas Scheidemantel2, Martha Sajatovic6. 1. Department of Psychiatry, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH; Neurological and Behavioral Outcomes Center, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Cleveland, OH. Electronic address: Jennifer.levin@uhhospitals.org. 2. Department of Psychiatry, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH. 3. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH. 4. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH; Department of Neurology, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH; Neurological and Behavioral Outcomes Center, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Cleveland, OH. 5. Department of Psychiatry, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH; Neurological and Behavioral Outcomes Center, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Cleveland, OH. 6. Department of Psychiatry, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH; Department of Neurology, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH; Neurological and Behavioral Outcomes Center, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Cleveland, OH.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the utility of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measure Information System Depression Scale (PROMIS-8a) compared with selected "Legacy" depression scales, including the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS), and GDS-Short Form (GDS-SF). Additionally, the measures' properties were assessed across levels of cognitive functioning. METHODS: This cross-sectional analysis was extracted from a prospective cohort study. PROMIS-8a and Legacy depression measures were administered to individuals aged at least 70 years grouped by cognitive status based on the Saint Louis University Mental Status Examination. McNemar tests were run to determine if measures categorized the absence or presence of depression differently and item analysis evaluated classification discrepancies. RESULTS: Sample mean age was 78, and most participants were women (71%), white (79%), with at least a high school education (89%). The percentage of individuals with at least mild depression was similar across measures (20.7% PROMIS-8a, 19.0% MADRS, 17.9% GDS, 13.9% GDS-SF). PROMIS-8a total score correlated moderately with MADRS (r = 0.56, df = 295, p <0.01), GDS (r = 0.68, df = 291, p <0.01), and GDS-SF (r = 0.60, df = 291, p <0.01), and predictive validity of the measures was similar. There were no significant mean differences on depression measures by cognitive status. CONCLUSION: Although all measures identified a similar percent of depressed individuals, the classification differed by measure. Item analysis showed that PROMIS-8a was more likely to identify feelings of dysphoria while the MADRS and GDS were more likely to identify physiologic aspects of depression. Given the brevity and ease of administration of the PROMIS-8a, it appears to be a useful depression screen for community-dwelling older adults.
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the utility of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measure Information System Depression Scale (PROMIS-8a) compared with selected "Legacy" depression scales, including the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS), and GDS-Short Form (GDS-SF). Additionally, the measures' properties were assessed across levels of cognitive functioning. METHODS: This cross-sectional analysis was extracted from a prospective cohort study. PROMIS-8a and Legacy depression measures were administered to individuals aged at least 70 years grouped by cognitive status based on the Saint Louis University Mental Status Examination. McNemar tests were run to determine if measures categorized the absence or presence of depression differently and item analysis evaluated classification discrepancies. RESULTS: Sample mean age was 78, and most participants were women (71%), white (79%), with at least a high school education (89%). The percentage of individuals with at least mild depression was similar across measures (20.7% PROMIS-8a, 19.0% MADRS, 17.9% GDS, 13.9% GDS-SF). PROMIS-8a total score correlated moderately with MADRS (r = 0.56, df = 295, p <0.01), GDS (r = 0.68, df = 291, p <0.01), and GDS-SF (r = 0.60, df = 291, p <0.01), and predictive validity of the measures was similar. There were no significant mean differences on depression measures by cognitive status. CONCLUSION: Although all measures identified a similar percent of depressed individuals, the classification differed by measure. Item analysis showed that PROMIS-8a was more likely to identify feelings of dysphoria while the MADRS and GDS were more likely to identify physiologic aspects of depression. Given the brevity and ease of administration of the PROMIS-8a, it appears to be a useful depression screen for community-dwelling older adults.
Authors: Eric J Lenze; Richard Schulz; Lynn M Martire; Bozena Zdaniuk; Thomas Glass; Willem J Kop; Sharon A Jackson; Charles F Reynolds Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: K Jongenelis; A M Pot; A M H Eisses; D L Gerritsen; M Derksen; A T F Beekman; H Kluiter; M W Ribbe Journal: Int J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 3.485
Authors: K B Wells; A Stewart; R D Hays; M A Burnam; W Rogers; M Daniels; S Berry; S Greenfield; J Ware Journal: JAMA Date: 1989-08-18 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Kurt Kroenke; Timothy E Stump; Chen X Chen; Jacob Kean; Matthew J Bair; Teresa M Damush; Erin E Krebs; Patrick O Monahan Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2020-01-23 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: Ann T Farrell; Julie Panepinto; C Patrick Carroll; Deepika S Darbari; Ankit A Desai; Allison A King; Robert J Adams; Tabitha D Barber; Amanda M Brandow; Michael R DeBaun; Manus J Donahue; Kalpna Gupta; Jane S Hankins; Michelle Kameka; Fenella J Kirkham; Harvey Luksenburg; Shirley Miller; Patricia Ann Oneal; David C Rees; Rosanna Setse; Vivien A Sheehan; John Strouse; Cheryl L Stucky; Ellen M Werner; John C Wood; William T Zempsky Journal: Blood Adv Date: 2019-12-10
Authors: Benjamin L Brett; Zachary Y Kerr; Samuel R Walton; Avinash Chandran; J D Defreese; Rebekah Mannix; Ruben J Echemendia; William P Meehan; Kevin M Guskiewicz; Michael McCrea Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2021-10-18 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: Rabih Nayfe; Matthieu Chansard; Linda S Hynan; Eric M Mortensen; Thiru Annaswamy; Liana Fraenkel; Una E Makris Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2020-09-08 Impact factor: 2.362