Rebecca M Saracino1, Barry Rosenfeld2, Christian J Nelson3. 1. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 641 Lexington Avenue, NY, New York 10022, United States; Psychology Department, Fordham University, Dealy Hall 226, 441 East Fordham Road, Bronx, NY 10458, United States. Electronic address: jamesr@mskcc.org. 2. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 641 Lexington Avenue, NY, New York 10022, United States; Psychology Department, Fordham University, Dealy Hall 226, 441 East Fordham Road, Bronx, NY 10458, United States. 3. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 641 Lexington Avenue, NY, New York 10022, United States.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The potentially confounding influence of somatic symptoms in identifying depression in medically ill patients has long been of concern, resulting in several proposed alternative diagnostic approaches. These approaches have been compared in the cancer setting, but the strengths and weaknesses of the alternative approaches have rarely been examined. The purpose of the current study was to examine the performance of four approaches to depression assessment among ambulatory cancer patients. METHOD: Outpatients were recruited from a large cancer center (N = 611). Participants had to be 40 years or older, English-speaking, and have a cancer diagnosis. All participants completed a sociodemographic questionnaire and a modified Patient Health Questionnaire-9 with additional items targeting the Endicott and Cavanaugh substitutive criteria. RESULTS: Depression prevalence varied significantly by diagnostic approach, with the inclusive approach identifying the largest proportion as depressed (9.3%, n = 57), followed by the Endicott-substitutive (6.2%, n = 38), exclusive (4.6%, n = 28), and Cavanaugh-substitutive approach (1.8%, n = 11). Somatic items were significantly elevated across all four approaches. CONCLUSIONS: The inclusive approach that retains use of somatic symptoms is appropriate when screening cancer patients for depression. The fact that somatic symptoms were more prevalent across approaches suggests that they may not inflate the prevalence of depression as much as some have feared. Rather, somatic items may explain variance in depressive symptoms beyond that explained by the presence of cancer and its treatment. Additionally, the Endicott items appeared useful for capturing depressive symptoms that are not included in the existing DSM criteria, and may have a place in clinical and research settings.
OBJECTIVE: The potentially confounding influence of somatic symptoms in identifying depression in medically ill patients has long been of concern, resulting in several proposed alternative diagnostic approaches. These approaches have been compared in the cancer setting, but the strengths and weaknesses of the alternative approaches have rarely been examined. The purpose of the current study was to examine the performance of four approaches to depression assessment among ambulatory cancerpatients. METHOD: Outpatients were recruited from a large cancer center (N = 611). Participants had to be 40 years or older, English-speaking, and have a cancer diagnosis. All participants completed a sociodemographic questionnaire and a modified Patient Health Questionnaire-9 with additional items targeting the Endicott and Cavanaugh substitutive criteria. RESULTS:Depression prevalence varied significantly by diagnostic approach, with the inclusive approach identifying the largest proportion as depressed (9.3%, n = 57), followed by the Endicott-substitutive (6.2%, n = 38), exclusive (4.6%, n = 28), and Cavanaugh-substitutive approach (1.8%, n = 11). Somatic items were significantly elevated across all four approaches. CONCLUSIONS: The inclusive approach that retains use of somatic symptoms is appropriate when screening cancerpatients for depression. The fact that somatic symptoms were more prevalent across approaches suggests that they may not inflate the prevalence of depression as much as some have feared. Rather, somatic items may explain variance in depressive symptoms beyond that explained by the presence of cancer and its treatment. Additionally, the Endicott items appeared useful for capturing depressive symptoms that are not included in the existing DSM criteria, and may have a place in clinical and research settings.
Authors: Lesley Stafford; Fiona Judd; Penny Gibson; Angela Komiti; Michael Quinn; G Bruce Mann Journal: Gen Hosp Psychiatry Date: 2013-11-05 Impact factor: 3.238
Authors: William F Pirl; Jesse R Fann; Joseph A Greer; Ilana Braun; Teresa Deshields; Caryl Fulcher; Elizabeth Harvey; Jimmie Holland; Vicki Kennedy; Mark Lazenby; Lynne Wagner; Meghan Underhill; Deborah K Walker; James Zabora; Bradley Zebrack; Wayne A Bardwell Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-05-02 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Eric W de Heer; Marloes M J G Gerrits; Aartjan T F Beekman; Jack Dekker; Harm W J van Marwijk; Margot W M de Waal; Philip Spinhoven; Brenda W J H Penninx; Christina M van der Feltz-Cornelis Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-10-15 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Daniel C McFarland; Leah E Walsh; Rebecca Saracino; Christian J Nelson; William Breitbart; Barry Rosenfeld Journal: Palliat Support Care Date: 2021-06
Authors: Rebecca M Saracino; Ezgi Aytürk; Heining Cham; Barry Rosenfeld; Leah M Feuerstahler; Christian J Nelson Journal: Psychol Assess Date: 2019-08-08
Authors: Timothy J Williamson; Jamie S Ostroff; Chloé M Martin; Smita C Banerjee; Carma L Bylund; Heidi A Hamann; Megan Johnson Shen Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2020-08-11