Situational anxiety in head and neck cancer: Rates, patterns and clinical management interventions in a regional cancer setting.

INTRODUCTION: Research indicates that the immobilisation mask required for radiation therapy (RT) for head and neck cancers can provoke intense anxiety. However, little is known about the rates of this anxiety, whether it changes over a course of treatment and how it is managed in clinical practice. This study aimed to describe the rates and patterns of situational anxiety in patients undergoing RT for head and neck cancer and the use of anxiety management interventions in current clinical practice in a major regional cancer setting in New South Wales, Australia. METHODS: Situational anxiety rates and patterns were assessed at five time points using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory prior to treatment planning (SIM), the first three treatment sessions (Tx 1, Tx 2 and Tx 3) and treatment 20 (Tx 20). Sessions were observed to record the use of general supportive interventions (music and support person) and anxiety-specific interventions (break from the mask, relaxation techniques and anxiolytic medication). Sociodemographic and clinical information was extracted from the medical record. RESULTS: One hundred and one patients were recruited. One-third had clinically significant anxiety at any of the first three time points (33.3-40%), and a quarter at Tx 3 (26.4%) and Tx 20 (23.4%). Of the sample, 55.4% had available data for categorisation into one of four pattern groups: 'No Anxiety' (46.4%); 'Decreasing Anxiety' (35.7%); 'Increasing Anxiety' (7.1%); and 'Stable High Anxiety' (10.7%). Most participants had social support present at SIM (53.5%) and listened to music during treatment (86.7-92.9%). Few participants received relaxation techniques alone (1.2-2.3%). Anxiolytic medication was provided for 10% of patients at some stage during the treatment journey and 5% required a break from the mask at SIM, with frequency decreasing throughout the treatment course. CONCLUSIONS: In this regional cancer setting, situational anxiety was common, but generally decreased throughout treatment. Some patients experience persistent or increasing anxiety, with up to 10% of patients receiving specific anxiety management interventions.

A systematic review of nonpharmacological interventions to reduce procedural anxiety among patients undergoing radiation therapy for cancer.

Procedural anxiety is a concern for a number of patients undergoing radiation therapy. While procedural anxiety is often treated pharmacologically, there is a clinical need for effective alternative strategies for patients who are contraindicated from medication use, and those who prefer not to take unnecessary medications. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to assess the efficacy of nonpharmacological interventions delivered to adults with cancer, in the radiation oncology department, just prior to, or during radiation therapy, in reducing levels of self-reported procedural anxiety. The secondary objectives were to assess the efficacy of these interventions in reducing physiological symptoms of procedural anxiety and anxiety-related treatment disruptions. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched from inception up until February 2022. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Population: Adult patients with cancer undergoing external beam radiation therapy. INTERVENTION: Nonpharmacological interventions delivered within the radiation therapy department. Comparison: standard care controls, or standard care plus an alternative intervention. OUTCOMES: level of self-reported procedural anxiety (primary), physiological symptoms of anxiety (secondary) and measures of anxiety-related treatment disruptions (secondary). DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data. A meta-analysis was originally planned but deemed not feasible as the studies could not be confidently pooled for meta-analysis, due to the variability in the interventions, study designs and the generally low number of studies. Therefore, a narrative synthesis is presented. RESULTS: Screening of 2363 records identified nine studies that met inclusion criteria: six studies of music interventions, two of video-based patient education and one of aromatherapy. Overall, three studies received a global rating of strong methodological quality and low risk of bias. Three studies reported a significant effect of the intervention on reducing the primary outcome of self-reported procedural anxiety: two music interventions (both strong methodological quality), and one video-based patient education (moderate methodological quality). One of the studies (a music intervention) also reported a significant reduction in the secondary outcome of physiological symptoms of procedural anxiety (systolic blood pressure). CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for nonpharmacological interventions delivered to adults with cancer just prior to, or during radiation therapy, in reducing levels of self-reported procedural anxiety is limited, with very few well-designed studies. There is a need for interventions for procedural anxiety during radiation therapy to be evaluated through rigorous randomised controlled trials.

'Having the mask on didn't worry me until they clamped my head down so I wouldn't move': A qualitative study exploring anxiety in patients with head and neck cancer during radiation therapy.

INTRODUCTION: More than 20% of patients undergoing radiation therapy for head and neck cancer report anxiety specifically related to the immobilisation mask, a tight-fighting mask patients are required to wear for the duration of each treatment session. However, limited research has investigated this from the patient perspective. The aim of this study was to better understand patient experiences of mask anxiety during head and neck cancer radiation therapy and to explore patient attitudes toward potential strategies that may reduce mask anxiety during this treatment. METHODS: Five patients with head and neck cancer, who had self-reported mask anxiety during radiation therapy, participated in semi-structured, qualitative interviews exploring their experiences of anxiety and suggestions for reducing anxiety. A codebook thematic analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Six main themes were identified: (1) triggers of anxiety; (2) adjusting to radiation therapy; (3) education about the mask; (4) coping; (5) motivation and (6) improving the patient experience. CONCLUSION: Findings from these interviews provide valuable insight into how and when healthcare providers may be able to assist patients to manage mask anxiety. Recommendations include increased communication from health care providers; delivery of visual information to improve patient preparedness; exposure/opportunities to interact with the masks prior to treatment commencing and increased control of music/soundtrack selection. However, a limitation of this study is the small sample size and further research is warranted.

Comparison of the accuracy of the 7-item HADS Depression subscale and 14-item total HADS for screening for major depression: A systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis.

The seven-item Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale Depression subscale (HADS-D) and the total score of the 14-item HADS (HADS-T) are both used for major depression screening. Compared to the HADS-D, the HADS-T includes anxiety items and requires more time to complete. We compared the screening accuracy of the HADS-D and HADS-T for major depression detection. We conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis and fit bivariate random effects models to assess diagnostic accuracy among participants with both HADS-D and HADS-T scores. We identified optimal cutoffs, estimated sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals, and compared screening accuracy across paired cutoffs via two-stage and individual-level models. We used a 0.05 equivalence margin to assess equivalency in sensitivity and specificity. 20,700 participants (2,285 major depression cases) from 98 studies were included. Cutoffs of ≥7 for the HADS-D (sensitivity 0.79 [0.75, 0.83], specificity 0.78 [0.75, 0.80]) and ≥15 for the HADS-T (sensitivity 0.79 [0.76, 0.82], specificity 0.81 [0.78, 0.83]) minimized the distance to the top-left corner of the receiver operating characteristic curve. Across all sets of paired cutoffs evaluated, differences of sensitivity between HADS-T and HADS-D ranged from -0.05 to 0.01 (0.00 at paired optimal cutoffs), and differences of specificity were within 0.03 for all cutoffs (0.02-0.03). The pattern was similar among outpatients, although the HADS-T was slightly (not nonequivalently) more specific among inpatients. The accuracy of HADS-T was equivalent to the HADS-D for detecting major depression. In most settings, the shorter HADS-D would be preferred. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Convergent and criterion validity of PROMIS anxiety measures relative to six legacy measures and a structured diagnostic interview for anxiety in cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Detecting anxiety in oncology patients is important, requiring valid yet brief measures. One increasingly popular approach is the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS); however, its validity is not well established in oncology. We assessed the convergent and criterion validity of PROMIS anxiety measures in an oncology sample. METHODS: 132 oncology/haematology outpatients completed the PROMIS Anxiety Computer Adaptive Test (PROMIS-A-CAT) and the 7 item (original) PROMIS Anxiety Short Form (PROMIS-A-SF) along with six well-established measures: Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Anxiety (HADS-A); Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7); Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale-Anxiety (DASS-A) and Stress (DASS-S); Distress Thermometer (DT) and PSYCH-6. Correlations, area under the curve (AUC) and diagnostic accuracy statistics were calculated with Structured Clinical Interview as the reference standard. RESULTS: Both PROMIS measures correlated with all legacy measures at p < .001 (Rho = .56-.83). AUCs (> .80) were good for both PROMIS measures and comparable to or better than all legacy measures. At the recommended mild cut-point (55), PROMIS-A-SF had sensitivity (.67) comparable to or better than all the legacy measures, whereas PROMIS-A-CAT sensitivity (.59) was lower than GAD-7 (.67) and HADS-A (.62), but comparable to PSYCH-6 and higher than DASS-A, DASS-S and DT. Sensitivity for both was .79. A reduced cut-point of 51 on both PROMIS measures improved sensitivity (.83-.84) although specificity was only adequate (.61-.62). CONCLUSIONS: The convergent and criterion validity of the PROMIS anxiety measures in cancer populations was confirmed as equivalent, but not superior to, established measures (GAD-7 and HADS-A). The PROMIS-A-CAT did not demonstrate clear advantages over PROMIS-A-SF.

Biofeedback Enabled CALM (BeCALM)-the feasibility of biofeedback on procedural anxiety during radiation therapy: study protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Patients undergoing treatment for cancer who require radiation therapy (RT) report anxiety specifically relating to the RT procedure. Procedural anxiety can be detrimental to treatment delivery, causing disruptions to treatment sessions, or treatment avoidance. Acute procedural anxiety is most commonly managed with anxiolytic medication. There is a need for effective, non-pharmacological interventions for patients not suitable for, or who prefer to avoid, anxiolytic medication. The primary objectives of this pilot trial are to evaluate the: (1) feasibility of conducting the Biofeedback Enabled CALM (BeCALM) intervention during RT treatment sessions; (2) acceptability of the BeCALM intervention among patients; and (3) acceptability of the BeCALM intervention among radiation therapists. The secondary objective of this pilot trial is to examine the potential effectiveness of the BeCALM intervention delivered by radiation therapists to reduce procedural anxiety during RT. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a pilot randomised controlled trial. A researcher will recruit adult patients with cancer (3-month recruitment period) scheduled to undergo RT and meeting eligibility criteria for procedural anxiety at the Calvary Mater Hospital, Newcastle (NSW), Australia. Participants will be randomly assigned to receive treatment as usual or the BeCALM intervention (biofeedback plus brief breathing techniques). The primary outcomes are feasibility (measured by recruitment, retention rates and percentage of treatment sessions in which the intervention was successfully delivered); radiation therapists perceived feasibility and acceptability (survey responses); and patient perceived acceptability (survey responses). Secondary outcome is potential effectiveness of the intervention (as measured by the State Trait Anxiety Inventory-State subscale; the Distress Thermometer; and an analysis of treatment duration). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol has received approval from Hunter New England Health Human Research Ethics Committee (2021/ETH11356). The results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, as well as presentation at relevant conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12621001742864.

Depression prevalence using the HADS-D compared to SCID major depression classification: An individual participant data meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Validated diagnostic interviews are required to classify depression status and estimate prevalence of disorder, but screening tools are often used instead. We used individual participant data meta-analysis to compare prevalence based on standard Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale - depression subscale (HADS-D) cutoffs of ≥8 and ≥11 versus Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID) major depression and determined if an alternative HADS-D cutoff could more accurately estimate prevalence. METHODS: We searched Medline, Medline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations via Ovid, PsycINFO, and Web of Science (inception-July 11, 2016) for studies comparing HADS-D scores to SCID major depression status. Pooled prevalence and pooled differences in prevalence for HADS-D cutoffs versus SCID major depression were estimated. RESULTS: 6005 participants (689 SCID major depression cases) from 41 primary studies were included. Pooled prevalence was 24.5% (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 20.5%, 29.0%) for HADS-D ≥8, 10.7% (95% CI: 8.3%, 13.8%) for HADS-D ≥11, and 11.6% (95% CI: 9.2%, 14.6%) for SCID major depression. HADS-D ≥11 was closest to SCID major depression prevalence, but the 95% prediction interval for the difference that could be expected for HADS-D ≥11 versus SCID in a new study was -21.1% to 19.5%. CONCLUSIONS: HADS-D ≥8 substantially overestimates depression prevalence. Of all possible cutoff thresholds, HADS-D ≥11 was closest to the SCID, but there was substantial heterogeneity in the difference between HADS-D ≥11 and SCID-based estimates. HADS-D should not be used as a substitute for a validated diagnostic interview.

Non-pharmacological approaches to procedural anxiety reduction for patients undergoing radiotherapy for cancer: systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Procedural anxiety relates to an affective state of anxiety or fear in relation to a medical procedure. Various treatment-related factors may elicit anxiety among oncology patients, including fear of diagnostic imaging (such as MRI scans) and impending treatment and medical procedures (such as chemotherapy and radiotherapy). It is common in oncology settings to manage acute anxiety relating to medical procedures with anxiolytic medication. However, pharmacological approaches are not suitable for many patients. Despite this, non-pharmacological interventions are infrequently used. The aim of this systematic review is to determine whether non-pharmacological interventions delivered prior to, or during, radiotherapy are effective in reducing procedural anxiety. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Data sources will include the bibliographic databases CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials (CENTRAL) (from inception onward). Eligible studies will include adult patients with cancer undergoing radiotherapy treatment. Included studies will be those which employ a non-pharmacological intervention, delivered within existing radiotherapy appointments, with the aim of reducing procedural anxiety related to radiotherapy. All research designs with a control or other comparison group will be included. The primary outcome will be change in levels of self-reported procedural anxiety. Secondary outcomes will be changes in scores on physiological measures of anxiety and/or changes in treatment completion and/or changes in treatment duration and/or changes in psychological distress. Two investigators will independently complete title and abstract screening, full-text screening, data extraction and assessment of methodological quality. If appropriate, a meta-analyses will be performed. Any important amendments to this protocol will be updated in the PROSPERO registration and documented in the resulting review publication. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical issues are anticipated from this review. The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication and at conferences by presentation. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: CRD42019112941.

Accuracy of the PHQ-2 Alone and in Combination With the PHQ-9 for Screening to Detect Major Depression: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: The Patient Health Questionnaire depression module (PHQ-9) is a 9-item self-administered instrument used for detecting depression and assessing severity of depression. The Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2) consists of the first 2 items of the PHQ-9 (which assess the frequency of depressed mood and anhedonia) and can be used as a first step to identify patients for evaluation with the full PHQ-9. Objective: To estimate PHQ-2 accuracy alone and combined with the PHQ-9 for detecting major depression. Data Sources: MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO, and Web of Science (January 2000-May 2018). Study Selection: Eligible data sets compared PHQ-2 scores with major depression diagnoses from a validated diagnostic interview. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Individual participant data were synthesized with bivariate random-effects meta-analysis to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity of the PHQ-2 alone among studies using semistructured, fully structured, or Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) diagnostic interviews separately and in combination with the PHQ-9 vs the PHQ-9 alone for studies that used semistructured interviews. The PHQ-2 score ranges from 0 to 6, and the PHQ-9 score ranges from 0 to 27. Results: Individual participant data were obtained from 100 of 136 eligible studies (44 318 participants; 4572 with major depression [10%]; mean [SD] age, 49 [17] years; 59% female). Among studies that used semistructured interviews, PHQ-2 sensitivity and specificity (95% CI) were 0.91 (0.88-0.94) and 0.67 (0.64-0.71) for cutoff scores of 2 or greater and 0.72 (0.67-0.77) and 0.85 (0.83-0.87) for cutoff scores of 3 or greater. Sensitivity was significantly greater for semistructured vs fully structured interviews. Specificity was not significantly different across the types of interviews. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.88 (0.86-0.89) for semistructured interviews, 0.82 (0.81-0.84) for fully structured interviews, and 0.87 (0.85-0.88) for the MINI. There were no significant subgroup differences. For semistructured interviews, sensitivity for PHQ-2 scores of 2 or greater followed by PHQ-9 scores of 10 or greater (0.82 [0.76-0.86]) was not significantly different than PHQ-9 scores of 10 or greater alone (0.86 [0.80-0.90]); specificity for the combination was significantly but minimally higher (0.87 [0.84-0.89] vs 0.85 [0.82-0.87]). The area under the curve was 0.90 (0.89-0.91). The combination was estimated to reduce the number of participants needing to complete the full PHQ-9 by 57% (56%-58%). Conclusions and Relevance: In an individual participant data meta-analysis of studies that compared PHQ scores with major depression diagnoses, the combination of PHQ-2 (with cutoff ≥2) followed by PHQ-9 (with cutoff ≥10) had similar sensitivity but higher specificity compared with PHQ-9 cutoff scores of 10 or greater alone. Further research is needed to understand the clinical and research value of this combined approach to screening.

Patient Health Questionnaire-9 scores do not accurately estimate depression prevalence: individual participant data meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Depression symptom questionnaires are not for diagnostic classification. Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores ≥10 are nonetheless often used to estimate depression prevalence. We compared PHQ-9 ≥10 prevalence to Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (SCID) major depression prevalence and assessed whether an alternative PHQ-9 cutoff could more accurately estimate prevalence. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Individual participant data meta-analysis of datasets comparing PHQ-9 scores to SCID major depression status. RESULTS: A total of 9,242 participants (1,389 SCID major depression cases) from 44 primary studies were included. Pooled PHQ-9 ≥10 prevalence was 24.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 20.8%, 28.9%); pooled SCID major depression prevalence was 12.1% (95% CI: 9.6%, 15.2%); and pooled difference was 11.9% (95% CI: 9.3%, 14.6%). The mean study-level PHQ-9 ≥10 to SCID-based prevalence ratio was 2.5 times. PHQ-9 ≥14 and the PHQ-9 diagnostic algorithm provided prevalence closest to SCID major depression prevalence, but study-level prevalence differed from SCID-based prevalence by an average absolute difference of 4.8% for PHQ-9 ≥14 (95% prediction interval: -13.6%, 14.5%) and 5.6% for the PHQ-9 diagnostic algorithm (95% prediction interval: -16.4%, 15.0%). CONCLUSION: PHQ-9 ≥10 substantially overestimates depression prevalence. There is too much heterogeneity to correct statistically in individual studies.

Probability of major depression diagnostic classification based on the SCID, CIDI and MINI diagnostic interviews controlling for Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale - Depression subscale scores: An individual participant data meta-analysis of 73 primary studies.

OBJECTIVE: Two previous individual participant data meta-analyses (IPDMAs) found that different diagnostic interviews classify different proportions of people as having major depression overall or by symptom levels. We compared the odds of major depression classification across diagnostic interviews among studies that administered the Depression subscale of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS-D). METHODS: Data accrued for an IPDMA on HADS-D diagnostic accuracy were analysed. We fit binomial generalized linear mixed models to compare odds of major depression classification for the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID), Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI), and Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), controlling for HADS-D scores and participant characteristics with and without an interaction term between interview and HADS-D scores. RESULTS: There were 15,856 participants (1942 [12%] with major depression) from 73 studies, including 15,335 (97%) non-psychiatric medical patients, 164 (1%) partners of medical patients, and 357 (2%) healthy adults. The MINI (27 studies, 7345 participants, 1066 major depression cases) classified participants as having major depression more often than the CIDI (10 studies, 3023 participants, 269 cases) (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.70 (0.84, 3.43)) and the semi-structured SCID (36 studies, 5488 participants, 607 cases) (aOR = 1.52 (1.01, 2.30)). The odds ratio for major depression classification with the CIDI was less likely to increase as HADS-D scores increased than for the SCID (interaction aOR = 0.92 (0.88, 0.96)). CONCLUSION: Compared to the SCID, the MINI may diagnose more participants as having major depression, and the CIDI may be less responsive to symptom severity.

A cross-sectional audit of current practices and areas for improvement of distress screening and management in Australian cancer services: is there a will and a way to improve?

BACKGROUND: It is unknown how many distressed patients receive the additional supportive care recommended by Australian evidence-based distress management guidelines. The study identifies the (1) distress screening practices of Australian cancer services; (2) barriers to improving practices; and (3) implementation strategies which are acceptable to service representatives interested in improving screening practices. METHOD: Clinic leads from 220 cancer services were asked to nominate an individual involved in daily patient care to complete a cross-sectional survey on behalf of the service. Questions related to service characteristics; screening and management processes; and implementation barriers. Respondents indicated which implementation strategies were suitable for their health service. RESULTS: A total of 122 representatives participated from 83 services (51%). The majority of respondents were specialist nurses or unit managers (60%). Approximately 38% of representatives' services never or rarely screen; 52% who screen do so for all patients; 55% use clinical interviewing only; and 34% follow referral protocols. The most common perceived barriers were resources to action screening results (74%); lack of time (67%); and lack of staff training (66%). Approximately 65% of representatives were interested in improving practices. Of the 8 implementation strategies, workshops (85%) and educational materials (69%) were commonly selected. Over half (59%) indicated a multicomponent implementation program was preferable. CONCLUSIONS: Although critical gaps across all guideline components were reported, there is a broad support for screening and willingness to improve. Potential improvements include additional services to manage problems identified by screening, more staff time for screening, additional staff training, and use of patient-report measures.

The Accuracy of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 Algorithm for Screening to Detect Major Depression: An Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Screening for major depression with the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) can be done using a cutoff or the PHQ-9 diagnostic algorithm. Many primary studies publish results for only one approach, and previous meta-analyses of the algorithm approach included only a subset of primary studies that collected data and could have published results. OBJECTIVE: To use an individual participant data meta-analysis to evaluate the accuracy of two PHQ-9 diagnostic algorithms for detecting major depression and compare accuracy between the algorithms and the standard PHQ-9 cutoff score of ≥10. METHODS: Medline, Medline In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO, Web of Science (January 1, 2000, to February 7, 2015). Eligible studies that classified current major depression status using a validated diagnostic interview. RESULTS: Data were included for 54 of 72 identified eligible studies (n participants = 16,688, n cases = 2,091). Among studies that used a semi-structured interview, pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% confidence interval) were 0.57 (0.49, 0.64) and 0.95 (0.94, 0.97) for the original algorithm and 0.61 (0.54, 0.68) and 0.95 (0.93, 0.96) for a modified algorithm. Algorithm sensitivity was 0.22-0.24 lower compared to fully structured interviews and 0.06-0.07 lower compared to the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview. Specificity was similar across reference standards. For PHQ-9 cutoff of ≥10 compared to semi-structured interviews, sensitivity and specificity (95% confidence interval) were 0.88 (0.82-0.92) and 0.86 (0.82-0.88). CONCLUSIONS: The cutoff score approach appears to be a better option than a PHQ-9 algorithm for detecting major depression.

Shortening self-report mental health symptom measures through optimal test assembly methods: Development and validation of the Patient Health Questionnaire-Depression-4.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to develop and validate a short form of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), a self-report questionnaire for assessing depressive symptomatology, using objective criteria. METHODS: Responses on the PHQ-9 were obtained from 7,850 English-speaking participants enrolled in 20 primary diagnostic test accuracy studies. PHQ unidimensionality was verified using confirmatory factor analysis, and an item response theory model was fit. Optimal test assembly (OTA) methods identified a maximally precise short form for each possible length between one and eight items, including and excluding the ninth item. The final short form was selected based on prespecified validity, reliability, and diagnostic accuracy criteria. RESULTS: A four-item short form of the PHQ (PHQ-Dep-4) was selected. The PHQ-Dep-4 had a Cronbach's alpha of 0.805. Sensitivity and specificity of the PHQ-Dep-4 were 0.788 and 0.837, respectively, and were statistically equivalent to the PHQ-9 (sensitivity = 0.761, specificity = 0.866). The correlation of total scores with the full PHQ-9 was high (r = 0.919). CONCLUSION: The PHQ-Dep-4 is a valid short form with minimal loss of information of scores when compared to the full-length PHQ-9. Although OTA methods have been used to shorten patient-reported outcome measures based on objective, prespecified criteria, further studies are required to validate this general procedure for broader use in health research. Furthermore, due to unexamined heterogeneity, there is a need to replicate the results of this study in different patient populations.

Probability of major depression diagnostic classification using semi-structured versus fully structured diagnostic interviews.

BACKGROUND: Different diagnostic interviews are used as reference standards for major depression classification in research. Semi-structured interviews involve clinical judgement, whereas fully structured interviews are completely scripted. The Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), a brief fully structured interview, is also sometimes used. It is not known whether interview method is associated with probability of major depression classification.AimsTo evaluate the association between interview method and odds of major depression classification, controlling for depressive symptom scores and participant characteristics. METHOD: Data collected for an individual participant data meta-analysis of Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) diagnostic accuracy were analysed and binomial generalised linear mixed models were fit. RESULTS: A total of 17 158 participants (2287 with major depression) from 57 primary studies were analysed. Among fully structured interviews, odds of major depression were higher for the MINI compared with the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) (odds ratio (OR) = 2.10; 95% CI = 1.15-3.87). Compared with semi-structured interviews, fully structured interviews (MINI excluded) were non-significantly more likely to classify participants with low-level depressive symptoms (PHQ-9 scores ≤6) as having major depression (OR = 3.13; 95% CI = 0.98-10.00), similarly likely for moderate-level symptoms (PHQ-9 scores 7-15) (OR = 0.96; 95% CI = 0.56-1.66) and significantly less likely for high-level symptoms (PHQ-9 scores ≥16) (OR = 0.50; 95% CI = 0.26-0.97). CONCLUSIONS: The MINI may identify more people as depressed than the CIDI, and semi-structured and fully structured interviews may not be interchangeable methods, but these results should be replicated.Declaration of interestDrs Jetté and Patten declare that they received a grant, outside the submitted work, from the Hotchkiss Brain Institute, which was jointly funded by the Institute and Pfizer. Pfizer was the original sponsor of the development of the PHQ-9, which is now in the public domain. Dr Chan is a steering committee member or consultant of Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Lilly, MSD and Pfizer. She has received sponsorships and honorarium for giving lectures and providing consultancy and her affiliated institution has received research grants from these companies. Dr Hegerl declares that within the past 3 years, he was an advisory board member for Lundbeck, Servier and Otsuka Pharma; a consultant for Bayer Pharma; and a speaker for Medice Arzneimittel, Novartis, and Roche Pharma, all outside the submitted work. Dr Inagaki declares that he has received grants from Novartis Pharma, lecture fees from Pfizer, Mochida, Shionogi, Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma, Daiichi-Sankyo, Meiji Seika and Takeda, and royalties from Nippon Hyoron Sha, Nanzando, Seiwa Shoten, Igaku-shoin and Technomics, all outside of the submitted work. Dr Yamada reports personal fees from Meiji Seika Pharma Co., Ltd., MSD K.K., Asahi Kasei Pharma Corporation, Seishin Shobo, Seiwa Shoten Co., Ltd., Igaku-shoin Ltd., Chugai Igakusha and Sentan Igakusha, all outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests. No funder had any role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis and interpretation of the data; preparation, review or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

PROMIS depression measures perform similarly to legacy measures relative to a structured diagnostic interview for depression in cancer patients.

PURPOSE: To assess the convergent validity of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) depression measures relative to legacy measures and criterion validity against a structured diagnostic interview for depression in an oncology sample. METHODS: 132 oncology/haematology outpatients completed the PROMIS Depression Computer Adaptive Test (PROMIS-D-CAT) and PROMIS Depression Short Form (PROMIS-D-SF) along with seven legacy measures: Beck Depression Inventory (BDI); Centre for Epidemiological Studies Depression (CES-D); Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale; Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; Patient Health Questionnaire; Distress Thermometer and PSYCH-6. Correlations, area under the curve (AUC) and diagnostic accuracy statistics were calculated with Structured Clinical Interview as the gold standard. RESULTS: Both PROMIS measures correlated with all legacy measures at p < .001 (ρ = 0.589-0.810) and all AUCs (> 0.800) were comparable. At the cut-off points for mild depression of 53, the PROMIS measures had sensitivity (0.83 for PROMIS-D-CAT and 0.80 for PROMIS-D-SF) similar to or better than 6/7 legacy measures with high negative predictive value (> 90%). At cut-off points of 60 for moderate depression, PROMIS measures had specificity > 90%, similar to or better than all legacy measures and positive predictive value ≥ 0.50 (similar to 5/7 legacy measures). CONCLUSIONS: The convergent and criterion validity of the PROMIS depression measures in cancer populations was confirmed, although the optimal cut-off points are not established. PROMIS measures were briefer than BDI-II and CES-D but do not offer any advance in terms of diagnostic accuracy, reduced response burden or cost over other legacy measures of depression in oncology patients.

Which items on the distress thermometer problem list are the most distressing?

PURPOSE: The importance of distress identification and management in oncology has been established. We examined the relationship between distress and unmet bio-psychosocial needs, applying advanced statistical techniques, to identify which needs have the closest relationship to distress. METHODS: Oncology outpatients (n = 1066) undergoing QUICATOUCH screening in an Australian cancer centre completed the distress thermometer (DT) and problem list (PL). Principal component analysis (PCA), logistic regression and classification and regression tree (CART) analyses tested the relationship between DT score (at a cut-off point of 4) and PL items. RESULTS: Sixteen items were reported by <5 % of participants. PCA analysis identified four major components. Logistic regression analysis indicated three of these component scores, and four individual items (20 items in total) demonstrated a significant independent relationship with distress. The best CART model contained only two PL items: 'worry' and 'depression'. CONCLUSIONS: The DT and PL function as intended, quantifying negative emotional experience (distress) and identifying bio-psychosocial sources of distress. We offer two suggestions to minimise PL response time whilst targeting PL items most related to distress, thereby increasing clinical utility. To identify patients who might require specialised psychological services, we suggest the DT followed by a short, case-finding instrument for patients over threshold on the DT. To identify other important sources of distress, we suggest using a modified PL of 14 key items, with the 15th item 'any other problem' as a simple safety net question. Shorter times for patient completion and clinician response to endorsed PL items will maximise acceptance and clinical utility.

Making Sense of Variations in Prevalence Estimates of Depression in Cancer: A Co-Calibration of Commonly Used Depression Scales Using Rasch Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The use of different depression self-report scales warrants co-calibration studies to establish relationships between scores from 2 or more scales. The goal of this study was to examine variations in measurement across 5 commonly used scales to measure depression among patients with cancer: Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Depression subscale (HADS-D), Centre for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II), and Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale-Depression subscale (DASS-D). METHODS: The depression scales were completed by 162 patients with cancer. Participants were also assessed by the major depressive episode module of the Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition. Rasch analysis and receiver operating characteristic curves were performed. RESULTS: Rasch analysis of the 5 scales indicated that these all measured depression. The HADS and BDI-II had the widest measurement range, whereas the DASS-D had the narrowest range. Co-calibration revealed that the cutoff scores across the scales were not equivalent. The mild cutoff score on the PHQ-9 was easier to meet than the mild cutoff score on the CES-D, BDI-II, and DASS-D. The HADS-D possible cutoff score was equivalent to cutoff scores for major to severe depression on the other scales. Optimal cutoff scores for clinical assessment of depression were in the mild to moderate depression range for most scales. CONCLUSIONS: The labels of depression associated with the different scales are not equivalent. Most markedly, the HADS-D possible case cutoff score represents a much higher level of depression than equivalent scores on other scales. Therefore, use of different scales will lead to different estimates of prevalence of depression when used in the same sample.

Everybody wants it done but nobody wants to do it: an exploration of the barrier and enablers of critical components towards creating a clinical pathway for anxiety and depression in cancer.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to explore barriers to and enablers for future implementation of a draft clinical pathway for anxiety and depression in cancer patients in the Australian context. METHODS: Health professionals reviewed a draft clinical pathway and participated in qualitative interviews about the delivery of psychosocial care in their setting, individual components of the draft pathway, and barriers and enablers for its future implementation. RESULTS: Five interrelated themes were identified: ownership; resources and responsibility; education and training; patient reluctance; and integration with health services beyond oncology. CONCLUSIONS: The five themes were perceived as both barriers and enablers and provide a basis for an implementation plan that includes strategies to overcome barriers. The next steps are to design and deliver the clinical pathway with specific implementation strategies that address team ownership, endorsement by leaders, education and training modules designed for health professionals and patients and identify ways to integrate the pathway into existing cancer services.

Wellbeing during Active Surveillance for localised prostate cancer: a systematic review of psychological morbidity and quality of life.

BACKGROUND: Active Surveillance (AS) is recommended for the treatment of localised prostate cancer; however this option may be under-used, at least in part because of expectations of psychological adverse events in those offered or accepting AS. OBJECTIVE: (1) Determine the impact on psychological wellbeing when treated with AS (non-comparative studies). (2) Compare AS with active treatments for the impact on psychological wellbeing (comparative studies). METHOD: We used the PRISMA guidelines and searched Medline, PsychInfo, EMBASE, CINHAL, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Scopus for articles published January 2000-2014. Eligible studies reported original quantitative data on any measures of psychological wellbeing. RESULTS: We identified 34 eligible articles (n=12,497 individuals); 24 observational, eight RCTs, and two other interventional studies. Studies came from North America (16), Europe (14) Australia (3) and North America/Europe (1). A minority (5/34) were rated as high quality. Most (26/34) used validated instruments, whilst a substantial minority (14/34) used watchful waiting or no active treatment rather than Active Surveillance. There was modest evidence of no adverse impact on psychological wellbeing associated with Active Surveillance; and no differences in psychological wellbeing compared to active treatments. CONCLUSION: Patients can be informed that Active Surveillance involves no greater threat to their psychological wellbeing as part of the informed consent process, and clinicians need not limit access to Active Surveillance based on an expectation of adverse impacts on psychological wellbeing.