Kyle R Lemay1, Heather E Tulloch, Andrew L Pipe, Jennifer L Reed. 1. Division of Cardiac Prevention and Rehabilitation, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (Mr Lemay and Drs Tulloch, Pipe, and Reed); Department of Psychology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (Mr Lemay and Dr Pipe); and Faculty of Medicine (Dr Tulloch) and Faculty of Health Sciences (Dr Reed), University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) is frequently used by clinicians to assess anxiety and depression in patients with cardiovascular disease; yet, its minimal clinically important difference (MCID) has not been established. The purpose of this study was to establish an MCID for the HADS in patients with cardiovascular disease. METHODS: A sample of 591 patients (74% male; ethnicity = 89% white; mean ± standard deviation [SD]: age = 63 ± 10 yr; and body mass index = 29.1 ± 5.6 kg/m) with cardiovascular disease enrolled in a 3-mo cardiac rehabilitation program were included in this study. The MCID for the HADS was estimated using distribution-based methods (ie, standard deviation, effect size, standard error of measurement, and minimal detectable change), anchor-based methods (ie, health transition question, correlation and linear regression, and receiver operating characteristic curve), and Delphi methodology (ie, clinical consensus). RESULTS: A total of 18 MCID values were calculated ranging from 0.81 to 5.21 (Anxiety subscale) and 0.5 to 5.57 (Depression subscale). The final MCID for the HADS, triangulated from the distribution-based, anchor-based, and Delphi-based findings, was 1.7 points. CONCLUSIONS: Our work provides the first estimates of an MCID by triangulating multiple methodologies for the HADS in patients with cardiovascular disease. This MCID may serve as an indicator of treatment success for clinicians and researchers and guide future interventions to improve the mental health of patients with cardiovascular disease.
PURPOSE: The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) is frequently used by clinicians to assess anxiety and depression in patients with cardiovascular disease; yet, its minimal clinically important difference (MCID) has not been established. The purpose of this study was to establish an MCID for the HADS in patients with cardiovascular disease. METHODS: A sample of 591 patients (74% male; ethnicity = 89% white; mean ± standard deviation [SD]: age = 63 ± 10 yr; and body mass index = 29.1 ± 5.6 kg/m) with cardiovascular disease enrolled in a 3-mo cardiac rehabilitation program were included in this study. The MCID for the HADS was estimated using distribution-based methods (ie, standard deviation, effect size, standard error of measurement, and minimal detectable change), anchor-based methods (ie, health transition question, correlation and linear regression, and receiver operating characteristic curve), and Delphi methodology (ie, clinical consensus). RESULTS: A total of 18 MCID values were calculated ranging from 0.81 to 5.21 (Anxiety subscale) and 0.5 to 5.57 (Depression subscale). The final MCID for the HADS, triangulated from the distribution-based, anchor-based, and Delphi-based findings, was 1.7 points. CONCLUSIONS: Our work provides the first estimates of an MCID by triangulating multiple methodologies for the HADS in patients with cardiovascular disease. This MCID may serve as an indicator of treatment success for clinicians and researchers and guide future interventions to improve the mental health of patients with cardiovascular disease.
Authors: Ting Bao; Raymond Baser; Connie Chen; Matthew Weitzman; Yi Lily Zhang; Christina Seluzicki; Qing Susan Li; Lauren Piulson; W Iris Zhi Journal: Oncologist Date: 2021-08-26
Authors: Erik D Hanson; Mohamdod Alzer; Jackson Carver; Cameron K Stopforth; Alexander R Lucas; Young E Whang; Matthew I Milowsky; David B Bartlett; Michael R Harrison; Rhonda L Bitting; Allison M Deal; Lee Stoner; A C Hackney; Claudio L Battaglini Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2022-03-19 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Robert Knoerl; Anita Giobbie-Hurder; Timothy S Sannes; Anees B Chagpar; Deborah Dillon; Laura Stewart Dominici; Elizabeth S Frank; Mehra Golshan; Anne McTiernan; Esther Rhei; Sara M Tolaney; Eric P Winer; Rachel L Yung; Melinda L Irwin; Jennifer A Ligibel Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-10-14 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Marie A Bakitas; J Nicholas Dionne-Odom; Deborah B Ejem; Rachel Wells; Andres Azuero; Macy L Stockdill; Konda Keebler; Elizabeth Sockwell; Sheri Tims; Sally Engler; Karen Steinhauser; Elizabeth Kvale; Raegan W Durant; Rodney O Tucker; Kathryn L Burgio; Jose Tallaj; Keith M Swetz; Salpy V Pamboukian Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Trine Bernholdt Rasmussen; Britt Borregaard; Pernille Palm; Rikke Elmose Mols; Anne Vinggaard Christensen; Knud Juel; Ola Ekholm; Charlotte Brun Thorup; Lars Thrysoee; Marie Gjengedal; Selina Kikkenborg Berg Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2021-07-22 Impact factor: 4.147