WHO-5 and BDI-II are acceptable screening instruments for depression in people with diabetes.

AIMS: To investigate the acceptability of two questionnaires, the five item WHO Well-being Index (WHO-5) and the Beck Depression Inventory II (BDI-II), which differ in length and focus, by comparing three screening groups: (1) WHO-5, (2) BDI-II and (3) WHO-5 and BDI-II. METHODS: A total of 699 individuals with diabetes were approached to participate in the study, of whom 95 completed the WHO-5, 254 completed the BDI-II and 350 completed both the WHO-5 and the BDI-II questionnaires. Five facets of acceptability were compared, including objective aspects (response rate and completion level) and subjective aspects (appreciation, agreeableness and accuracy of the screening questionnaire). Data were analysed using logistic regression analysis and (multivariate) analysis of covariance. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 65% (453 out of 699). No differences between the three groups were found with respect to the response rate (WHO-5: 66%; BDI-II: 63%; WHO-5 and BDI-II: 66%; P ≥ 0.19) and completion level (WHO-5: 99.5%; BDI-II: 97.8%; WHO-5 and BDI-II: 98.7%; P=0.45). The three groups did differ significantly in their scores on two of the three subjective indicators (P<0.03), i.e. appreciation (P=0.002) and agreeableness (P=0.035), with those completing only the WHO-5 reporting greater appreciation and agreeableness. CONCLUSIONS: A brief well-being questionnaire, such as the WHO-5, results in greater appreciation of mood screening and appreciation of completing the questionnaire, but this does not result in a better response rate and higher questionnaire completion. Given these results, either or both questionnaires can be used to screen for depressive symptoms in people with diabetes in clinical practice.

Screening for depression and diabetes-related distress in a diabetes outpatient clinic.

AIMS: To investigate: (1) the willingness of patients with diabetes to participate in a screening programme; (2) the extent to which patients with diabetes who screen positive endorse need for psychosocial care; (3) the rate of referral to psychosocial care during screening vs. usual care. METHODS: Four hundred and ninety-nine patients with diabetes were invited to complete the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression and the Problem Areas in Diabetes questionnaires. Patients screening positive on either instrument were invited for an interview. One year after screening was withdrawn, rates of referral to psychosocial care were assessed from physician reports of patient referrals. RESULTS: In total, 349/499 (70%) patients with diabetes completed the questionnaire. Patients who did not take up the screening were younger, smoked more often and had higher HbA(1c) values. 'No-shows' for clinical appointments accounted for 74% of non-participation. Of the 104 (30% of 349) patients screening positive, 45 accepted an invitation for an interview. Finally, 36/104 (35%) would like a referral for psychological care. Seven per cent of patients were referred to psychological care during screening compared with 1% when screening was withdrawn. CONCLUSIONS: Results raise questions as to whether screening is the most efficient way to identify patients with psychological problems. Many patients did not take up the screening, especially those with low adherence to diabetes care in general. Furthermore, few patients screening positive wanted to be referred. Screening should be evaluated in the context of consideration of alternative ways to identify at-risk patients, including providing resources to deal with patients with already known adjustment and adherence problems.

Is type of depressive symptoms associated with patient-perceived need for professional psychological care in depressed individuals with diabetes?

AIMS: The objective of this study is to investigate whether type of depressive symptoms (i.e. cognitive-affective or somatic) is related to a patient-perceived need for professional psychological care in individuals with diabetes. METHODS: In total 2266 participants were recruited as part of the screening procedure for a multi-center randomized controlled trial on the treatment of depressive symptoms among individuals with diabetes. Individuals were invited to complete Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II). Patients with elevated depressive symptoms (BDI-II ≥14) were interviewed about their psychological care need. Based on their care needs patients were categorized into: unmet need, no need, met need and unclear need. These groups were compared on type of depressive symptoms, as categorized into cognitive-affective symptoms and somatic symptoms. RESULTS: 568 eligible individuals had elevated depressive symptoms, of whom 519 were reached. Among these depressed individuals, 19.7% (102 of 519) had an unmet need for psychological care. Participants with an unmet need were younger (p<0.001) and had higher total depression scores compared to the group with no need (p<0.001). They also scored higher on cognitive-affective symptoms (p<0.001), whereas somatic symptoms did not significantly differ (p = 0.232). Logistic regression revealed that cognitive-affective symptoms predicted an unmet need (p = 0.001). However, overall predictive capacity of type of depressive symptoms on care needs was weak. CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive-affective symptoms of depression-but not somatic symptoms-were associated with an unmet need for psychological care among depressed individuals with diabetes. Future research is needed to reveal better predictors explaining the discrepancy between distress and low care needs in order to optimize screening procedures.