We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This study sought to compare the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Subscale (HADS-D) and Brief Edinburgh Depression Scale (BEDS) as case-finding tools of major depressive disorder in patients with advanced cancer in a palliative care service.
Methods
An observational study was performed which included patients with advanced cancer who attended the palliative care service at the National Institute of Cancer in Mexico. Patients were asked to fill out the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and BEDS and were then assessed by a psychiatrist to evaluate major depressive disorder (MDD) as per the DSM-5 criteria. The case-finding capability of each scale was determined using receiver operating characteristic curves, assessing the area under the curve (AUC) in comparison to the clinical diagnosis.
Results
Eighty-nine patients were included; median age was 57 years, and 71% were female. Among these, 19 patients were diagnosed with MDD during the interview. When comparing the self-reported scales, BEDS had a better performance compared with HADS-D (AUC 0.8541 vs. 0.7665). Limitations include a heterogeneous population and a limited sample size.
Significance of results
The BEDS outperformed the HADS-D tool in discriminating patients with and without depression. A BEDS cutoff value of ≥5 is suggested as a case-finding score for depression in this population.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.