Accuracy of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale Depression subscale (HADS-D) to screen for major depression:Systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy of the depression subscale of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS-D) to screen for major depression among people with physical health problems. DESIGN: Systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Medline In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycInfo, and Web of Science (from inception to 25 October 2018). REVIEW METHODS: Eligible datasets included HADS-D scores and major depression status based on a validated diagnostic interview. Primary study data and study level data extracted from primary reports were combined. For HADS-D cut-off thresholds of 5-15, a bivariate random effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity, separately, in studies that used semi-structured diagnostic interviews (eg, Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), fully structured interviews (eg, Composite International Diagnostic Interview), and the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview. One stage meta-regression was used to examine whether accuracy was associated with reference standard categories and the characteristics of participants. Sensitivity analyses were done to assess whether including published results from studies that did not provide raw data influenced the results. RESULTS: Individual participant data were obtained from 101 of 168 eligible studies (60%; 25 574 participants (72% of eligible participants), 2549 with major depression). Combined sensitivity and specificity was maximised at a cut-off value of seven or higher for semi-structured interviews, fully structured interviews, and the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview. Among studies with a semi-structured interview (57 studies, 10 664 participants, 1048 with major depression), sensitivity and specificity were 0.82 (95% confidence interval 0.76 to 0.87) and 0.78 (0.74 to 0.81) for a cut-off value of seven or higher, 0.74 (0.68 to 0.79) and 0.84 (0.81 to 0.87) for a cut-off value of eight or higher, and 0.44 (0.38 to 0.51) and 0.95 (0.93 to 0.96) for a cut-off value of 11 or higher. Accuracy was similar across reference standards and subgroups and when published results from studies that did not contribute data were included. CONCLUSIONS: When screening for major depression, a HADS-D cut-off value of seven or higher maximised combined sensitivity and specificity. A cut-off value of eight or higher generated similar combined sensitivity and specificity but was less sensitive and more specific. To identify medically ill patients with depression with the HADS-D, lower cut-off values could be used to avoid false negatives and higher cut-off values to reduce false positives and identify people with higher symptom levels. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42015016761

Data-driven methods distort optimal cutoffs and accuracy estimates of depression screening tools: a simulation study using individual participant data

To evaluate, across multiple sample sizes, the degree that data-driven methods result in (1) optimal cutoffs different from population optimal cutoff and (2) bias in accuracy estimates.NIMH -National Institute of Mental Health(13/00

Accuracy of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 for screening to detect major depression : updated systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis

Objective: To update a previous individual participant data meta-analysis and determine the accuracy of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), the most commonly used depression screening tool in general practice, for detecting major depression overall and by study or participant subgroups. Design: Systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis. Data sources: Medline, Medline In-Process, and Other Non-Indexed Citations via Ovid, PsycINFO, Web of Science searched through 9 May 2018. Review methods: Eligible studies administered the PHQ-9 and classified current major depression status using a validated semistructured diagnostic interview (designed for clinician administration), fully structured interview (designed for lay administration), or the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI; a brief interview designed for lay administration). A bivariate random effects meta-analytic model was used to obtain point and interval estimates of pooled PHQ-9 sensitivity and specificity at cut-off values 5-15, separately, among studies that used semistructured diagnostic interviews (eg, Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual), fully structured interviews (eg, Composite International Diagnostic Interview), and the MINI. Meta-regression was used to investigate whether PHQ-9 accuracy correlated with reference standard categories and participant characteristics. Results: Data from 44 503 total participants (27 146 additional from the update) were obtained from 100 of 127 eligible studies (42 additional studies; 79% eligible studies; 86% eligible participants). Among studies with a semistructured interview reference standard, pooled PHQ-9 sensitivity and specificity (95% confidence interval) at the standard cut-off value of ≥10, which maximised combined sensitivity and specificity, were 0.85 (0.79 to 0.89) and 0.85 (0.82 to 0.87), respectively. Specificity was similar across reference standards, but sensitivity in studies with semistructured interviews was 7-24% (median 21%) higher than with fully structured reference standards and 2-14% (median 11%) higher than with the MINI across cut-off values. Across reference standards and cut-off values, specificity was 0-10% (median 3%) higher for men and 0-12 (median 5%) higher for people aged 60 or older. Conclusions: Researchers and clinicians could use results to determine outcomes, such as total number of positive screens and false positive screens, at different PHQ-9 cut-off values for different clinical settings using the knowledge translation tool at www.depressionscreening100.com/phq. Study registration: PROSPERO CRD42014010673

Overestimation of Postpartum Depression Prevalence Based on a 5-item Version of the EPDS:Systematic Review and Individual Participant Data Meta-analysis

Objective:The Maternal Mental Health in Canada, 2018/2019, survey reported that 18% of 7,085 mothers who recently gave birth reported "feelings consistent with postpartum depression" based on scores >= 7 on a 5-item version of the Edinburgh Postpartum Depression Scale (EPDS-5). The EPDS-5 was designed as a screening questionnaire, not to classify disorders or estimate prevalence; the extent to which EPDS-5 results reflect depression prevalence is unknown. We investigated EPDS-5 >= 7 performance relative to major depression prevalence based on a validated diagnostic interview, the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID).Methods:We searched Medline, Medline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO, and the Web of Science Core Collection through June 2016 for studies with data sets with item response data to calculate EPDS-5 scores and that used the SCID to ascertain depression status. We conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis to estimate pooled percentage of EPDS-5 >= 7, pooled SCID major depression prevalence, and the pooled difference in prevalence.Results:A total of 3,958 participants from 19 primary studies were included. Pooled prevalence of SCID major depression was 9.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.0% to 13.7%), pooled percentage of participants with EPDS-5 >= 7 was 16.2% (95% CI 10.7% to 23.8%), and pooled difference was 8.0% (95% CI 2.9% to 13.2%). In the 19 included studies, mean and median ratios of EPDS-5 to SCID prevalence were 2.1 and 1.4 times.Conclusions:Prevalence estimated based on EPDS-5 >= 7 appears to be substantially higher than the prevalence of major depression. Validated diagnostic interviews should be used to establish prevalence

Depression prevalence using the HADS-D compared to SCID major depression classification:An individual participant data meta-analysis

Objectives: Validated diagnostic interviews are required to classify depression status and estimate prevalence of disorder, but screening tools are often used instead. We used individual participant data meta-analysis to compare prevalence based on standard Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale – depression subscale (HADS-D) cutoffs of ≥8 and ≥11 versus Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID) major depression and determined if an alternative HADS-D cutoff could more accurately estimate prevalence. Methods: We searched Medline, Medline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations via Ovid, PsycINFO, and Web of Science (inception-July 11, 2016) for studies comparing HADS-D scores to SCID major depression status. Pooled prevalence and pooled differences in prevalence for HADS-D cutoffs versus SCID major depression were estimated. Results: 6005 participants (689 SCID major depression cases) from 41 primary studies were included. Pooled prevalence was 24.5% (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 20.5%, 29.0%) for HADS-D ≥8, 10.7% (95% CI: 8.3%, 13.8%) for HADS-D ≥11, and 11.6% (95% CI: 9.2%, 14.6%) for SCID major depression. HADS-D ≥11 was closest to SCID major depression prevalence, but the 95% prediction interval for the difference that could be expected for HADS-D ≥11 versus SCID in a new study was −21.1% to 19.5%. Conclusions: HADS-D ≥8 substantially overestimates depression prevalence. Of all possible cutoff thresholds, HADS-D ≥11 was closest to the SCID, but there was substantial heterogeneity in the difference between HADS-D ≥11 and SCID-based estimates. HADS-D should not be used as a substitute for a validated diagnostic interview.This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR, KRS-144045 & PCG 155468). Ms. Neupane was supported by a G.R. Caverhill Fellowship from the Faculty of Medicine, McGill University. Drs. Levis and Wu were supported by Fonds de recherche du Québec - Santé (FRQS) Postdoctoral Training Fellowships. Mr. Bhandari was supported by a studentship from the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre. Ms. Rice was supported by a Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarship. Dr. Patten was supported by a Senior Health Scholar award from Alberta Innovates, Health Solutions. The primary study by Scott et al. was supported by the Cumming School of Medicine and Alberta Health Services through the Calgary Health Trust, and funding from the Hotchkiss Brain Institute. The primary study by Amoozegar et al. was supported by the Alberta Health Services, the University of Calgary Faculty of Medicine, and the Hotchkiss Brain Institute. The primary study by Cheung et al. was supported by the Waikato Clinical School, University of Auckland, the Waikato Medical Research Foundation and the Waikato Respiratory Research Fund. The primary study by Cukor et al. was supported in part by a Promoting Psychological Research and Training on Health-Disparities Issues at Ethnic Minority Serving Institutions Grants (ProDIGs) awarded to Dr. Cukor from the American Psychological Association. The primary study by De Souza et al. was supported by Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health Foundation Trust. The primary study by Honarmand et al. was supported by a grant from the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada. The primary study by Fischer et al. was supported as part of the RECODEHF study by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (01GY1150). The primary study by Gagnon et al. was supported by the Drummond Foundation and the Department of Psychiatry, University Health Network. The primary study by Akechi et al. was supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for Cancer Research (11−2) from the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare and a Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B) from the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. The primary study by Kugaya et al. was supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for Cancer Research (9–31) and the Second-Term Comprehensive 10-year Strategy for Cancer Control from the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. The primary study Ryan et al. was supported by the Irish Cancer Society (Grant CRP08GAL). The primary study by Keller et al. was supported by the Medical Faculty of the University of Heidelberg (grant no. 175/2000). The primary study by Love et al. (2004) was supported by the Kathleen Cuningham Foundation (National Breast Cancer Foundation), the Cancer Council of Victoria and the National Health and Medical Research Council. The primary study by Love et al. (2002) was supported by a grant from the Bethlehem Griffiths Research Foundation. The primary study by Löwe et al. was supported by the medical faculty of the University of Heidelberg, Germany (Project 121/2000). The primary study by Navines et al. was supported in part by the Spanish grants from the Fondo de Investigación en Salud, Instituto de Salud Carlos III (EO PI08/90869 and PSIGEN-VHC Study: FIS-E08/00268) and the support of FEDER (one way to make Europe). The primary study by O'Rourke et al. was supported by the Scottish Home and Health Department, Stroke Association, and Medical Research Council. The primary study by Sanchez-Gistau et al. was supported by a grant from the Ministry of Health of Spain (PI040418) and in part by Catalonia Government, DURSI 2009SGR1119. The primary study by Gould et al. was supported by the Transport Accident Commission Grant. The primary study by Rooney et al. was supported by the NHS Lothian Neuro-Oncology Endowment Fund. The primary study by Schwarzbold et al. was supported by PRONEX Program (NENASC Project) and PPSUS Program of Fundaçao de Amparo a esquisa e Inovacao do Estado de Santa Catarina (FAPESC) and the National Science and Technology Institute for Translational Medicine (INCT-TM). The primary study by Simard et al. was supported by IDEA grants from the Canadian Prostate Cancer Research Initiative and the Canadian Breast Cancer Research Alliance, as well as a studentship from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The primary study by Singer et al. (2009) was supported by a grant from the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (no. 01ZZ0106). The primary study by Singer et al. (2008) was supported by grants from the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (# 7DZAIQTX) and of the University of Leipzig (# formel. 1–57). The primary study by Meyer et al. was supported by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). The primary study by Stone et al. was supported by the Medical Research Council, UK and Chest Heart and Stroke, Scotland. The primary study by Turner et al. was supported by a bequest from Jennie Thomas through Hunter Medical Research Institute. The primary study by Walterfang et al. was supported by Melbourne Health. Drs. Benedetti and Thombs were supported by FRQS researcher salary awards. No other authors reported funding for primary studies or for their work on this study. No funder had any role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication

Overestimation of Postpartum Depression Prevalence Based on a 5-item Version of the EPDS: Systematic Review and Individual Participant Data Meta-analysis

Objective:The Maternal Mental Health in Canada, 2018/2019, survey reported that 18% of 7,085 mothers who recently gave birth reported "feelings consistent with postpartum depression" based on scores >= 7 on a 5-item version of the Edinburgh Postpartum Depression Scale (EPDS-5). The EPDS-5 was designed as a screening questionnaire, not to classify disorders or estimate prevalence; the extent to which EPDS-5 results reflect depression prevalence is unknown. We investigated EPDS-5 >= 7 performance relative to major depression prevalence based on a validated diagnostic interview, the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID).Methods:We searched Medline, Medline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO, and the Web of Science Core Collection through June 2016 for studies with data sets with item response data to calculate EPDS-5 scores and that used the SCID to ascertain depression status. We conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis to estimate pooled percentage of EPDS-5 >= 7, pooled SCID major depression prevalence, and the pooled difference in prevalence.Results:A total of 3,958 participants from 19 primary studies were included. Pooled prevalence of SCID major depression was 9.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.0% to 13.7%), pooled percentage of participants with EPDS-5 >= 7 was 16.2% (95% CI 10.7% to 23.8%), and pooled difference was 8.0% (95% CI 2.9% to 13.2%). In the 19 included studies, mean and median ratios of EPDS-5 to SCID prevalence were 2.1 and 1.4 times.Conclusions:Prevalence estimated based on EPDS-5 >= 7 appears to be substantially higher than the prevalence of major depression. Validated diagnostic interviews should be used to establish prevalence

Patient Health Questionnaire-9 scores do not accurately estimate depression prevalence: individual participant data meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Depression symptom questionnaires are not for diagnostic classification. Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores ≥10 are nonetheless often used to estimate depression prevalence. We compared PHQ-9 ≥10 prevalence to Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (SCID) major depression prevalence and assessed whether an alternative PHQ-9 cutoff could more accurately estimate prevalence. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Individual participant data meta-analysis of datasets comparing PHQ-9 scores to SCID major depression status. RESULTS: A total of 9,242 participants (1,389 SCID major depression cases) from 44 primary studies were included. Pooled PHQ-9 ≥10 prevalence was 24.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 20.8%, 28.9%); pooled SCID major depression prevalence was 12.1% (95% CI: 9.6%, 15.2%); and pooled difference was 11.9% (95% CI: 9.3%, 14.6%). The mean study-level PHQ-9 ≥10 to SCID-based prevalence ratio was 2.5 times. PHQ-9 ≥14 and the PHQ-9 diagnostic algorithm provided prevalence closest to SCID major depression prevalence, but study-level prevalence differed from SCID-based prevalence by an average absolute difference of 4.8% for PHQ-9 ≥14 (95% prediction interval: -13.6%, 14.5%) and 5.6% for the PHQ-9 diagnostic algorithm (95% prediction interval: -16.4%, 15.0%). CONCLUSION: PHQ-9 ≥10 substantially overestimates depression prevalence. There is too much heterogeneity to correct statistically in individual studies

Comparison of major depression diagnostic classification probability using the SCID, CIDI, and MINI diagnostic interviews among women in pregnancy or postpartum: An individual participant data meta‐analysis

OBJECTIVES: A previous individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA) identified differences in major depression classification rates between different diagnostic interviews, controlling for depressive symptoms on the basis of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9. We aimed to determine whether similar results would be seen in a different population, using studies that administered the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) in pregnancy or postpartum. METHODS: Data accrued for an EPDS diagnostic accuracy IPDMA were analysed. Binomial generalised linear mixed models were fit to compare depression classification odds for the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI), and Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID), controlling for EPDS scores and participant characteristics. RESULTS: Among fully structured interviews, the MINI (15 studies, 2,532 participants, 342 major depression cases) classified depression more often than the CIDI (3 studies, 2,948 participants, 194 major depression cases; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 3.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.21, 11.43]). Compared with the semistructured SCID (28 studies, 7,403 participants, 1,027 major depression cases), odds with the CIDI (interaction aOR = 0.88, 95% CI [0.85, 0.92]) and MINI (interaction aOR = 0.95, 95% CI [0.92, 0.99]) increased less as EPDS scores increased. CONCLUSION: Different interviews may not classify major depression equivalently

Correlates of institutional deliveries among teenage and non-teenage mothers in Nepal.

INTRODUCTION:Globally, maternal age is identified as an important predictor of institutional service utilization during delivery. This study aims to assess the correlates of institutional delivery among teenage and non-teenage mothers in Nepal by using the data from Nepal Demographic and Health Survey 2011. METHODS:The study population consisted of 5391 women of reproductive age (15-49 years) who had given birth to a child within five years before the survey. Out of them, 381 (7.07%) were teenage mothers. The association between the background characteristics and institutional delivery was assessed separately for the teenage and non-teenage mothers using chi-square test and multiple logistic regression analysis. RESULTS:After adjusting for background characteristics, teenage mothers were found more likely to deliver at a health facility [AOR: 2.25; 95% CI: 1.10 4.59] in comparison to the non-teenage mothers. Place of residence, occupation, socioeconomic status, and frequency of ANC visits were associated with institutional delivery in both the teenage and non-teenage mothers. However, educational status, parity, birth preparedness and women autonomy had statistically significant association with institutional delivery among the non-teenage mothers only. None of the background characteristics were significantly associated with institutional delivery in teenage mothers only. CONCLUSIONS:This study identified a significant difference in institutional delivery service utilization among the teenage and non-teenage mothers. While the association of most of the background characteristics with institutional delivery was uniform for both teenage and non-teenage mothers, the association with educational status, parity, birth preparedness and women autonomy was significant only for non-teenage mothers. Considering this difference in the interaction of women's background characteristics with institutional delivery between teenage and non-teenage mothers might help in identifying the pain points and devise targeted interventions to encourage institutional delivery in teenage mothers or non-teenage mothers or both