4.5 Article

Validation of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and the Perceived Stress Scale and psychological features in patients with periodontitis

期刊

JOURNAL OF PERIODONTOLOGY
卷 92, 期 11, 页码 1601-1612

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/JPER.20-0756

关键词

anxiety; depression; periodontitis; stress

资金

  1. Program for Innovation Team Building at Institutions of Higher Education in Chongqing
  2. Chongqing Municipal Key Laboratory of Oral Biomedical Engineering of Higher Education, Chongqing, China

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that HADS and PSS-10 can be used for psychological assessment in patients with periodontitis, and the severity of periodontitis, age, smoking history, and comorbidities can affect psychological manifestations in patients with periodontitis.
Background: To investigate the psychometric properties of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and 10-item Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10) in patients with periodontitis and to evaluate the psychological features of patients with periodontitis. Methods: Overall, 460 individuals with periodontitis were enrolled. The HADS and the PSS-10 were administered to all patients. Methodology testing included the exploratory factor analysis, the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), test-retest reliability, as well as internal consistency. Results: Regarding the CFA results of the HADS, as well as the PSS-10, a bifactor model fitted the data best. The Cronbach alpha value, as well as the intra-class correlation coefficients value of the two measures were all >0.70. The anxiety, depression, distress manifestations, and moderate-to-high perceived stress prevalence were 35.2%, 18.2%, 24.6%, and 43.9%, respectively. Severity of periodontitis, age, smoking, and disease comorbidities were identified as independent prognosticators of the presence of psychological manifestations in periodontitis. Conclusion: The HADS and the PSS-10 can be used as general measures for psychological assessment in patients with periodontitis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据