Displaying all 3 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Rajandram RK, Jenewein J, McGrath CP, Zwahlen RA
    Oral Oncol, 2010 Nov;46(11):791-4.
    PMID: 20850373 DOI: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2010.08.010
    Recently the importance of posttraumatic growth (PTG), a phenomenon of positive psychological growth beyond baseline values, has been discovered in the field of oncology. An evidence based review of the literature regarding PTG was performed, both to support its understanding and to consider its application within the research field of oral cavity (OC) cancer. A Pubmed, Medline, PsycINFO search from the earliest date until April 2010 was carried out. Full articles meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria were reviewed. The search yielded 852 papers, 91 'potentially relevant papers' and 29 'effective papers', the latter of which formed the basis of this review. PTG was assessed in twenty-eight studies with the Posttraumatic Growth Inventory and in only one study with the Perceived Benefits Scale (PBS). PTG in cancer patients has been reported in five main domains (i) appreciation of life, (ii) relating to others, (iii) increased personal sense, (iv) sense of new possibilities and (v) positive spiritual change. Socio-demographic factors, stressor characteristics and coping strategies influence and predict the development PTG. In the past decade an increasing interest in the concept of PTG in the field of oncology has emerged. This evidence based review presents PTG to the research community in the field of OC cancer, appraises its modification capacity of the treatment outcome in other cancer research fields and hypothesizes its eventual benefit in the field of OC cancer research.
  2. Wu Y, Levis B, Daray FM, Ioannidis JPA, Patten SB, Cuijpers P, et al.
    Psychol Assess, 2023 Feb;35(2):95-114.
    PMID: 36689386 DOI: 10.1037/pas0001181
    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).
  3. Wu Y, Levis B, Sun Y, Krishnan A, He C, Riehm KE, et al.
    J Psychosom Res, 2020 02;129:109892.
    PMID: 31911325 DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2019.109892
    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.

Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links