Predictor variables and screening protocol for depressive and anxiety disorders in cancer outpatients

Background Cancer patients are at increased risk of persistent depressive and anxiety symptoms and disorders compared to the general population. However, these issues are not always identified, which may worsen the prognosis and increase morbidity and mortality. Therefore, the objectives of this study are to identify predictor variables (demographic and clinical) for the development of mood and anxiety disorders in cancer outpatients and to propose a probabilistic screening protocol considering these variables and certain standardized screening instruments. Methods A total of 1,385 adults, of both genders, receiving outpatient cancer care were evaluated using a questionnaire and screening instruments. Thereafter, 400 of these subjects responded to the Structured Clinical Interview for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (SCID-IV) by telephone to confirm or rule out the presence of a Current Major Depressive Episode (CMDE) or Anxiety Disorder (AD). Results Of the patients surveyed, 64% met the criteria for CMDE and 41% for AD. Female gender was found to be a risk factor for both disorders, and the presence of previous psychiatric history and marital status (divorced and widowed) were risk factors for anxiety disorders. When scoring above the recommended cutoff score, the screening instruments also indicated a risk of the studied disorders. Based on these findings, a screening protocol and nomograms were created for the quantification, combination and probabilistic estimate of risk, with accuracy indicators >0.68. Conclusion The prevalence rates for the disorders under study are extremely high in cancer patients. The use of the proposed protocol and nomogram can facilitate rapid and wide screening, thus refining triage and supporting the establishment of criteria for referral to mental health professionals, so that patients can be properly diagnosed and treated.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

A cross-sectional and semantic investigation of self-rated health in the northern Sweden MONICA-study

Background: Self-Rated Health (SRH) correlates with risk of illness and death. But how are different questions of SRH to be interpreted? Does it matter whether one asks: “How would you assess your general state of health?”(General SRH) or “How would you assess your general state of health compared to persons of your own age?”(Comparative SRH)? Does the context in a questionnaire affect the answers? The aim of this paper is to examine the meaning of two questions on self-rated health, the statistical distribution of the answers, and whether the context of the question in a questionnaire affects the answers. Methods: Statistical and semantic methodologies were used to analyse the answers of two different SRH questions in a cross-sectional survey, the MONICA-project of northern Sweden. Results: The answers from 3504 persons were analysed. The statistical distributions of answers differed. The most common answer to the General SRH was “good”, while the most common answer to the Comparative SRH was “similar”. The semantic analysis showed that what is assessed in SRH is not health in a medical and lexical sense but fields of association connected to health, for example health behaviour, functional ability, youth, looks, way of life. The meaning and function of the two questions differ – mainly due to the comparing reference in Comparative SRH. The context in the questionnaire may have affected the statistics. Conclusions: Health is primarily assessed in terms of its sense-relations (associations) and Comparative SRH and General SRH contain different information on SRH. Comparative SRH is semantically more distinct. The context of the questions in a questionnaire may affect the way self-rated health questions are answered. Comparative SRH should not be eliminated from use in questionnaires. Its usefulness in clinical encounters should be investigated