4.5 Article

Performance of depression rating scales in patients with chronic kidney disease: an item response theory-based analysis

期刊

GENERAL HOSPITAL PSYCHIATRY
卷 42, 期 -, 页码 60-66

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2016.07.005

关键词

Depression; Chronic kidney disease; Comorbidity; Screening; Assessment

资金

  1. Veterans Affairs MERIT grant [CX000217-01]
  2. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK, NIH) [R01DK085512]
  3. NIMH [K23MH104768]
  4. Hersh Foundation
  5. Center for Depression Research and Clinical Care

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Because there is overlap between somatic symptoms of depression and symptoms of chronic kidney disease (CKD), it is unclear if self-reported depression rating scales can be used accurately in predialysis CKD patients, especially if CKD and other comorbidities are symptomatic. We assessed the performance of two depression scales - the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) and the Quick Inventory of Depression Symptomatology (QIDS-SR16) - by CKD stage, diagnosis of diabetes and total medical comorbidity burden using item response theory (IRT) in a sample of 272 predialysis CKD patients. Methods: We performed IRT by low versus high CKD stage, diabetes versus no diabetes and high (>3 diagnoses) versus low medical comorbidity burden. Results: IRT models of each rating scale were affected in a limited way by CKD stage, diabetes and medical comorbidity burden. Sleep disturbances on the QIDS-SR16 were more discriminatory for depression in diabetics and those with high comorbidity burden. Pessimism and guilt from the BDI compared to QIDS-SR16 were more discriminatory of depression in the high CKD and high comorbidity groups, respectively. Conclusions: Overall item differences were modest, and chronic disease severity by CKD stage, diabetes mellitus or other medical comorbidities did not appreciably contribute to differences in scale performance. (C) 2016 Published by Elsevier Inc.

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