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.

Psychiatric Morbidity in Chinese Adults with Type 1 Diabetes in Hong Kong

OBJECTIVES

To determine the prevalence of psychiatric morbidity and identify the correlates, as well as to evaluate the effectiveness of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and the 12-item General Health Questionnaire to screen for psychiatric morbidity in Chinese adults with type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

Subjects were recruited from a local public diabetes specialist outpatient clinic from August 2013 to January 2014. Demographic and clinical factors were recorded. Psychiatric diagnosis was established using the Chinese-bilingual version of the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM-IV Axis I disorders. Scores for the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and the 12-item General Health Questionnaire were compared with the psychiatric diagnosis.

RESULTS

Of the 136 patients, the point prevalence of overall psychiatric, depressive, and anxiety disorders was 39.7%, 23.5%, and 25.7%, respectively. Family history of mental illness, smoking status, history of mental illness, presence of social problems, perceived absence of confidant, presence of neuropathy and hyperlipidaemia, as well as higher level of glycosylated haemoglobin were found to be the associated factors.

CONCLUSION

Psychiatric disorders were common in Chinese adults with type 1 diabetes. Finding out associated factors and using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and the 12-item General Health Questionnaire as a screening tool helped to identify patients in a diabetes clinic with psychiatric disorders.