Kurt Kroenke1, Fitsum Baye2, Spencer G Lourens2. 1. VA HSR&D Center for Health Information and Communication, Roudebush VA Medical Center, Indianapolis, IN, United States; Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, United States; Regenstrief Institute, Inc., Indianapolis, IN, United States. Electronic address: kkroenke@regenstrief.org. 2. Department of Biostatistics, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Composite measures that assess the overall burden of anxiety and depressive symptoms have been infrequently evaluated in the same study. The objective of this study was to compare the validity and responsiveness of the Patient Health Questionnaire Anxiety-Depression Scale (PHQ-ADS) and other composite anxiety-depression measures. METHODS: The sample comprised 256 primary care patients enrolled in a telecare trial of chronic musculoskeletal pain and comorbid depression and/or anxiety. Measures included the PHQ-ADS; the 8-item and 4-item depression and anxiety scales from the PROMIS profiles; the PHQ-anxiety-depression scale (PHQ-4); the SF-36 Mental Health scale; and the SF-12 Mental Component Summary scale. Correlations among these measures and health-related quality of life measures were examined. Responsiveness was evaluated by standardized response means, area under the curve (AUC) analyses, and treatment effect sizes in the trial. RESULTS: Convergent and construct validity was supported by strong correlations of the composite depression-anxiety measures with one another and moderate correlations with health-related quality of life measures, respectively. All composite measures differentiated patients who were better at 3 months, whereas the PHQ-ADS and PHQ-4 also distinguished the subgroup that had worsened. AUCs for composite measures were generally similar, whereas treatment effect sizes were largest for the PHQ-ADS. LIMITATIONS: The study sample was predominantly male veterans enrolled from primary care who had chronic musculoskeletal pain and moderate levels of depression and anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: Composite depression and anxiety scales are valid and responsive measures that may be useful as outcomes in research and clinical practice.
BACKGROUND: Composite measures that assess the overall burden of anxiety and depressive symptoms have been infrequently evaluated in the same study. The objective of this study was to compare the validity and responsiveness of the Patient Health Questionnaire Anxiety-Depression Scale (PHQ-ADS) and other composite anxiety-depression measures. METHODS: The sample comprised 256 primary care patients enrolled in a telecare trial of chronic musculoskeletal pain and comorbid depression and/or anxiety. Measures included the PHQ-ADS; the 8-item and 4-item depression and anxiety scales from the PROMIS profiles; the PHQ-anxiety-depression scale (PHQ-4); the SF-36 Mental Health scale; and the SF-12 Mental Component Summary scale. Correlations among these measures and health-related quality of life measures were examined. Responsiveness was evaluated by standardized response means, area under the curve (AUC) analyses, and treatment effect sizes in the trial. RESULTS: Convergent and construct validity was supported by strong correlations of the composite depression-anxiety measures with one another and moderate correlations with health-related quality of life measures, respectively. All composite measures differentiated patients who were better at 3 months, whereas the PHQ-ADS and PHQ-4 also distinguished the subgroup that had worsened. AUCs for composite measures were generally similar, whereas treatment effect sizes were largest for the PHQ-ADS. LIMITATIONS: The study sample was predominantly male veterans enrolled from primary care who had chronic musculoskeletal pain and moderate levels of depression and anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: Composite depression and anxiety scales are valid and responsive measures that may be useful as outcomes in research and clinical practice.
Authors: Nicole E Lorenzo; Selin Zeytinoglu; Santiago Morales; Jamie Listokin; Alisa N Almas; Kathryn A Degnan; Heather Henderson; Andrea Chronis-Tuscano; Nathan A Fox Journal: J Youth Adolesc Date: 2021-01-25
Authors: Kurt Kroenke; Timothy E Stump; Chen X Chen; Jacob Kean; Teresa M Damush; Matthew J Bair; Erin E Krebs; Patrick O Monahan Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2021-02-04 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Markus W Haun; Justus Tönnies; Regina Krisam; Dorothea Kronsteiner; Michel Wensing; Joachim Szecsenyi; Markus Vomhof; Andrea Icks; Beate Wild; Mechthild Hartmann; Hans-Christoph Friederich Journal: Trials Date: 2021-05-05 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Isolde A R Kuijlaars; Lorynn Teela; Lize F D van Vulpen; Merel A Timmer; Michiel Coppens; Samantha C Gouw; Marjolein Peters; Marieke J H A Kruip; Marjon H Cnossen; Jelmer J Muis; Evelien S van Hoorn; Lotte Haverman; Kathelijn Fischer Journal: Res Pract Thromb Haemost Date: 2021-11-21
Authors: Caleb M Gulledge; D Grace Smith; Alexander Ziedas; Stephanie J Muh; Vasilios Moutzouros; Eric C Makhni Journal: JB JS Open Access Date: 2019-12-05
Authors: Orla McBride; Eimhear Bunting; Oisín Harkin; Sarah Butter; Mark Shevlin; Jamie Murphy; Liam Mason; Todd K Hartman; Ryan McKay; Philip Hyland; Liat Levita; Kate M Bennett; Thomas V A Stocks; Jilly Gibson-Miller; Anton P Martinez; Frédérique Vallières; Richard P Bentall Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-03-24 Impact factor: 3.240