Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Qual Life Res. 2018 May;27(5):1357-1367. doi: 10.1007/s11136-018-1803-x. Epub 2018 Feb 8.

PROMIS depression measures perform similarly to legacy measures relative to a structured diagnostic interview for depression in cancer patients.

Author information

1
Psycho-Oncology Service, Calvary Mater Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, 2298, Australia. kerrie.clover@calvarymater.org.au.
2
Centre for Translational Neuroscience and Mental Health, Faculty of Health and Medicine, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, 2308, Australia. kerrie.clover@calvarymater.org.au.
3
Ingram School of Nursing, McGill University & St. Marys' Research Centre, Wilson Hall, 3506 Sherbrooke Street, Montreal, QC, H3A 2A7, Canada.
4
Clinical Research Design, Information Technology and Statistical Support (CReDITSS) Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, NSW, Australia.
5
Psycho-Oncology Service, Calvary Mater Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, 2298, Australia.
6
School of Psychology and Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Level 6 North, Chris O'Brien Lifehouse (C39Z), Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
7
University of Leicester, Cancer & Molecular Medicine, University Road, Leicester, LE1 5WW, UK.
8
Centre for Translational Neuroscience and Mental Health, Faculty of Health and Medicine, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, 2308, Australia.

Abstract

PURPOSE:

To assess the convergent validity of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) depression measures relative to legacy measures and criterion validity against a structured diagnostic interview for depression in an oncology sample.

METHODS:

132 oncology/haematology outpatients completed the PROMIS Depression Computer Adaptive Test (PROMIS-D-CAT) and PROMIS Depression Short Form (PROMIS-D-SF) along with seven legacy measures: Beck Depression Inventory (BDI); Centre for Epidemiological Studies Depression (CES-D); Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale; Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; Patient Health Questionnaire; Distress Thermometer and PSYCH-6. Correlations, area under the curve (AUC) and diagnostic accuracy statistics were calculated with Structured Clinical Interview as the gold standard.

RESULTS:

Both PROMIS measures correlated with all legacy measures at p < .001 (ρ = 0.589-0.810) and all AUCs (> 0.800) were comparable. At the cut-off points for mild depression of 53, the PROMIS measures had sensitivity (0.83 for PROMIS-D-CAT and 0.80 for PROMIS-D-SF) similar to or better than 6/7 legacy measures with high negative predictive value (> 90%). At cut-off points of 60 for moderate depression, PROMIS measures had specificity > 90%, similar to or better than all legacy measures and positive predictive value ≥ 0.50 (similar to 5/7 legacy measures).

CONCLUSIONS:

The convergent and criterion validity of the PROMIS depression measures in cancer populations was confirmed, although the optimal cut-off points are not established. PROMIS measures were briefer than BDI-II and CES-D but do not offer any advance in terms of diagnostic accuracy, reduced response burden or cost over other legacy measures of depression in oncology patients.

KEYWORDS:

Cancer; Depression; Psycho-oncology; Questionnaire development

PMID:
29423755
DOI:
10.1007/s11136-018-1803-x

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Springer
Loading ...
Support Center