...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Supportive care in cancer: official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer >A review and recommendations for optimal outcome measures of anxiety, depression and general distress in studies evaluating psychosocial interventions for English-speaking adults with heterogeneous cancer diagnoses.
【24h】

A review and recommendations for optimal outcome measures of anxiety, depression and general distress in studies evaluating psychosocial interventions for English-speaking adults with heterogeneous cancer diagnoses.

机译：评估焦虑，抑郁和一般困扰的最佳结果的研究的回顾和建议，这些研究评估了患有异种癌症诊断的英语成年人的社会心理干预措施。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this paper is to inform choice of optimal patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of anxiety, depression and general distress for studies evaluating psychosocial interventions for English-speaking adults with heterogenous cancer diagnoses. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to identify all PROMs used to assess anxiety, depression and general distress in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of psychosocial interventions for people with cancer published between 1999 and May 2009. Candidate PROMs were evaluated for content, evidence of reliability and validity, clinical meaningfulness, comparison data, efficiency, ease of administration, cognitive burden and track record in identifying treatment effects in RCTs of psychosocial interventions. Property ratings were weighted and summed to give an overall score out of 100. RESULTS: The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) scored highest overall (weighted score = 77.5), followed by the unofficial short-form of the Profile of Mood States (POMS), the POMS-37 (weighted score = 60), and the Centre for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) and original POMS (weighted score = 55 each). CONCLUSIONS: The HADS' efficiency and substantial track record recommend its use where anxiety, mixed affective disorders or general distress are outcomes of interest. However, continuing controversy concerning the HADS depression scale cautions against dependence where depressive disorders are of primary interest. Where cost is a concern, the POMS-37 is recommended to measure anxiety or mixed affective disorders but does not offer a suitable index of general distress and, like the HADS, emphasises anhedonia in measuring depression. Where depression is the sole focus, the CES-D is recommended.
机译：目的：本文旨在为焦虑，抑郁和一般窘迫的患者报告最佳的预后评估指标（PROM）的选择提供信息，以评估对英语为英语的患有异质性癌症的成年人进行社会心理干预的研究。方法：进行了系统的审查，以鉴定1999年至2009年5月发表的针对癌症患者的社会心理干预随机对照试验（RCT）中用于评估焦虑，抑郁和一般困扰的所有PROM。对候选PROM的内容，证据进行了评估。可靠性和有效性，临床意义，比较数据，效率，易用性，认知负担和在确定社会心理干预的RCT中的治疗效果方面的记录。对财产权重进行加权和求和，得出总分100分。结果：医院焦虑和抑郁量表（HADS）总体得分最高（加权分= 77.5），其次是情绪状态概况的非正式非正式形式（ POMS），POMS-37（加权分数= 60），流行病学研究中心抑郁量表（CES-D）和原始POMS（每个加权分数= 55）。结论：HADS的效率和丰富的往绩记录建议将其用于焦虑，混合情感障碍或一般困扰的结果。然而，关于HADS抑郁量表的持续争议提醒人们，在主要关注抑郁症的人群中，不要依赖于依赖性。在需要考虑成本的情况下，建议使用POMS-37来测量焦虑症或混合性情感障碍，但不能提供适当的一般困扰指标，并且像HADS一样，在评估抑郁症时要强调快感。如果抑郁症是唯一的重点，建议使用CES-D。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号