268
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The minimal important difference of the hospital anxiety and depression scale in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Interpretation of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), commonly used to assess anxiety and depression in COPD patients, is unclear. Since its minimal important difference has never been established, our aim was to determine it using several approaches.

          Methods

          88 COPD patients with FEV 1 ≤ 50% predicted completed the HADS and other patient-important outcome measures before and after an inpatient respiratory rehabilitation. For the anchor-based approach we determined the correlation between the HADS and the anchors that have an established minimal important difference (Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire [CRQ] and Feeling Thermometer). If correlations were ≥ 0.5 we performed linear regression analyses to predict the minimal important difference from the anchors. As distribution-based approach we used the Effect Size approach.

          Results

          Based on CRQ emotional function and mastery domain as well as on total scores, the minimal important difference was 1.41 (95% CI 1.18–1.63) and 1.57 (1.37–1.76) for the HADS anxiety score and 1.68 (1.48–1.87) and 1.60 (1.38–1.82) for the HADS total score. Correlations of the HADS depression score and CRQ domain and Feeling Thermometer scores were < 0.5. Based on the Effect Size approach the MID of the HADS anxiety and depression score was 1.32 and 1.40, respectively.

          Conclusion

          The minimal important difference of the HADS is around 1.5 in COPD patients corresponding to a change from baseline of around 20%. It can be used for the planning and interpretation of trials.

          Related collections

          Most cited references23

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          International experiences with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale--a review of validation data and clinical results.

          More than 200 published studies from most medical settings worldwide have reported experiences with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) which was specifically developed by Zigmond and Snaith for use with physically ill patients. Although introduced in 1983, there is still no comprehensive documentation of its psychometric properties. The present review summarizes available data on reliability and validity and gives an overview of clinical studies conducted with this instrument and their most important findings. The HADS gives clinically meaningful results as a psychological screening tool, in clinical group comparisons and in correlational studies with several aspects of disease and quality of life. It is sensitive to changes both during the course of diseases and in response to psychotherapeutic and psychopharmacological intervention. Finally, HADS scores predict psychosocial and possibly also physical outcome.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Self-administration and interviewer-administration of the German Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire: instrument development and assessment of validity and reliability in two randomised studies

            Background Assessment of health-related quality of life (HRQL) is important in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Despite the high prevalence of COPD in Germany, Switzerland and Austria there is no validated disease-specific instrument available. The objective of this study was to translate the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ), one of the most widely used respiratory HRQL questionnaires, into German, develop an interviewer- and self-administered version including both standardised and individualised dyspnoea questions, and validate these versions in two randomised studies. Methods We recruited three groups of patients with COPD in Switzerland, Germany and Austria. The 44 patients of the first group completed the CRQ during pilot testing to adapt the CRQ to German-speaking patients. We then recruited 80 patients participating in pulmonary rehabilitation programs to assess internal consistency reliability and cross-sectional validity of the CRQ. The third group consisted of 38 patients with stable COPD without an intervention to assess test-retest reliability. To compare the interviewer- and self-administered versions, we randomised patients in groups 2 and 3 to the interviewer- or self-administered CRQ. Patients completed both the standardised and individualised dyspnoea questions. Results For both administration formats and all domains, we found good internal consistency reliability (Crohnbach's alpha between 0.73 and 0.89). Cross-sectional validity tended to be better for the standardised compared to the individualised dyspnoea questions and cross-sectional validity was slightly better for the self-administered format. Test-retest reliability was good for both the interviewer-administered CRQ (intraclass correlation coefficients for different domains between 0.81 and 0.95) and the self-administered format (intraclass correlation coefficients between 0.78 and 0.86). Lower within-person variability was responsible for the higher test-retest reliability of the interviewer-administered format while between person variability was similar for both formats. Conclusions Investigators in German-speaking countries can choose between valid and reliable self-and interviewer-administered CRQ formats.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures.

              One can classify ways to establish the interpretability of quality-of-life measures as anchor based or distribution based. Anchor-based measures require an independent standard or anchor that is itself interpretable and at least moderately correlated with the instrument being explored. One can further classify anchor-based approaches into population-focused and individual-focused measures. Population-focused approaches are analogous to construct validation and rely on multiple anchors that frame an individual's response in terms of the entire population (eg, a group of patients with a score of 40 has a mortality of 20%). Anchors for population-based approaches include status on a single item, diagnosis, symptoms, disease severity, and response to treatment. Individual-focused approaches are analogous to criterion validation. These methods, which rely on a single anchor and establish a minimum important difference in change in score, require 2 steps. The first step establishes the smallest change in score that patients consider, on average, to be important (the minimum important difference). The second step estimates the proportion of patients who have achieved that minimum important difference. Anchors for the individual-focused approach include global ratings of change within patients and global ratings of differences between patients. Distribution-based methods rely on expressing an effect in terms of the underlying distribution of results. Investigators may express effects in terms of between-person standard deviation units, within-person standard deviation units, and the standard error of measurement. No single approach to interpretability is perfect. Use of multiple strategies is likely to enhance the interpretability of any particular instrument.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Health Qual Life Outcomes
                Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
                BioMed Central
                1477-7525
                2008
                2 July 2008
                : 6
                : 46
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Horten Centre for patient-oriented research, University Hospital of Zurich, Switzerland
                [2 ]Klinik Barmelweid, Barmelweid, Switzerland
                [3 ]Department of Psychiatry, University Hospital of Zurich, Switzerland
                [4 ]Clarity Research Group, Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
                [5 ]Department of Epidemiology, Italian National Cancer Institute Regina Elena, Rome, Italy
                Article
                1477-7525-6-46
                10.1186/1477-7525-6-46
                2459149
                18597689
                a8dac3c9-c2ea-4b35-9a1e-4b2924ab78b3
                Copyright © 2008 Puhan et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 21 January 2008
                : 2 July 2008
                Categories
                Research

                Health & Social care
                Health & Social care

                Comments

                Comment on this article