Anne Toussaint1, Paul Hüsing2, Antje Gumz2, Katja Wingenfeld3, Martin Härter4, Elisabeth Schramm5, Bernd Löwe2. 1. Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, 20246 Hamburg, Germany. Electronic address: a.toussaint@uke.de. 2. Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, 20246 Hamburg, Germany. 3. Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt- Campus Benjamin Franklin, Berlin, Germany. 4. Department of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg- Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. 5. Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Effective treatment requires regular follow-up and monitoring of symptoms. We investigated sensitivity to change and minimal clinically important difference of the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD-7). METHODS: This study included all participants from a multisite trial of chronic depression. Baseline and follow-up (12 and 48 weeks) data were used to assess treatment response. Effect sizes (ES) and standardized response means (SRM) of pre- and post-GAD-7 mean changes were calculated for subgroups of patients, who did or did not improve according to ratings in the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD-24). RESULTS: N = 261 patients were included in the analyses. In the subgroup of patients who improved according to HRSD-24, GAD-7 scores were significantly lower after 12 weeks (t = -6.31, df = 120, p < .001; ES = -0.51, SRM = -0.57), and 48 weeks of treatment (t = -12.68, df = 141, p < .001; ES = -1.0, SRM = -1.7), when compared to admission. In the group who worsened, GAD-7 scores were significantly higher after 12 weeks (t = 2.96, df = 41, p = .005; ES = 0.30, SRM = 0.46), and increased after 48 weeks (t = 1.99, df = 21, p = .059; ES = 0.37, SRM = 0.43), when compared to baseline. The unchanged group showed no significant difference between baseline and follow-up. MCID was estimated 4 points on the GAD-7 total score. LIMITATIONS: Confirmation of these findings and further investigation of the GAD-7 in populations and trials focusing on anxiety-specific treatment is highly recommended. CONCLUSIONS: Results show that the GAD-7 is sensitive to detect change in psychopathology over the course of treatment.
BACKGROUND: Effective treatment requires regular follow-up and monitoring of symptoms. We investigated sensitivity to change and minimal clinically important difference of the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD-7). METHODS: This study included all participants from a multisite trial of chronic depression. Baseline and follow-up (12 and 48 weeks) data were used to assess treatment response. Effect sizes (ES) and standardized response means (SRM) of pre- and post-GAD-7 mean changes were calculated for subgroups of patients, who did or did not improve according to ratings in the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD-24). RESULTS: N = 261 patients were included in the analyses. In the subgroup of patients who improved according to HRSD-24, GAD-7 scores were significantly lower after 12 weeks (t = -6.31, df = 120, p < .001; ES = -0.51, SRM = -0.57), and 48 weeks of treatment (t = -12.68, df = 141, p < .001; ES = -1.0, SRM = -1.7), when compared to admission. In the group who worsened, GAD-7 scores were significantly higher after 12 weeks (t = 2.96, df = 41, p = .005; ES = 0.30, SRM = 0.46), and increased after 48 weeks (t = 1.99, df = 21, p = .059; ES = 0.37, SRM = 0.43), when compared to baseline. The unchanged group showed no significant difference between baseline and follow-up. MCID was estimated 4 points on the GAD-7 total score. LIMITATIONS: Confirmation of these findings and further investigation of the GAD-7 in populations and trials focusing on anxiety-specific treatment is highly recommended. CONCLUSIONS: Results show that the GAD-7 is sensitive to detect change in psychopathology over the course of treatment.
Authors: Anna L MacKinnon; Kaeley M Simpson; Marlee R Salisbury; Janelle Bobula; Lara Penner-Goeke; Lindsay Berard; Charlie Rioux; Gerald F Giesbrecht; Ryan Giuliano; Catherine Lebel; Jennifer L P Protudjer; Kristin Reynolds; Shannon Sauer-Zavala; Melanie Soderstrom; Lianne M Tomfohr-Madsen; Leslie E Roos Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2022-06-24 Impact factor: 5.435
Authors: Kate H Bentley; Hitoshi Sakurai; Kelsey L Lowman; Lisa Rines-Toth; James McKowen; Paola Pedrelli; A Eden Evins; Amy M Yule Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2021-01-07 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: Rebecca Robillard; Alexander R Daros; Jennifer L Phillips; Meggan Porteous; Mysa Saad; Marie-Helene Pennestri; Tetyana Kendzerska; Jodi D Edwards; Elizaveta Solomonova; Rajiv Bhatla; Roger Godbout; Zachary Kaminsky; Addo Boafo; Lena C Quilty Journal: Can J Psychiatry Date: 2021-01-19 Impact factor: 4.356
Authors: Abdallah Badahdah; Faryal Khamis; Nawal Al Mahyijari; Marwa Al Balushi; Hashil Al Hatmi; Issa Al Salmi; Zakariya Albulushi; Jaleela Al Noomani Journal: Int J Soc Psychiatry Date: 2020-07-08
Authors: Meenu Minhas; Kyla Belisario; Alba González-Roz; Jillian Halladay; James G Murphy; James MacKillop Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2021-06-03 Impact factor: 3.928
Authors: Kerstin Bauer; Sandra Schild; Helene Sauer; Martin Teufel; Andreas Stengel; Katrin Elisabeth Giel; Philipp Schellhorn; Florian Junne; Andreas Nieß; Stephan Zipfel; Isabelle Mack Journal: Obes Facts Date: 2021-09-14 Impact factor: 3.942
Authors: Alexandria Harris; Jinhong Li; Karley Atchison; Christine Harrison; Daniel Hall; Tyler VanderWeele; Jonas T Johnson; Marci L Nilsen Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2022-03-11 Impact factor: 4.711