Article2001

Screening for anxiety, depressive and somatoform disorders in rehabilitationvalidity of HADS and GHQ-12 in patients with musculoskeletal disease

113 citations0/0 files storedDisability and Rehabilitation

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation Mental Health Treatment and Access

Abstract

PURPOSE: The detection of patients with comorbid mental illness is of high clinical importance in orthopaedic rehabilitation. To simplify detection of cases, screening instruments are recommended. The study investigated the discriminant validity of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) to identify patients with comorbid mental disorders, specifically anxiety, depressive and somatoform disorders. METHOD: Two hundred and six patients with musculoskeletal disease from four orthopaedic rehabilitation clinics participated in a two-stage survey: (1) patients were assessed with the GHQ-12 and HADS; and (2) they were examined for DSM-IV mental disorders by clinical standardized interview (CIDI). Validity of the two instruments regarding the detection of mental disorders was compared using ROC-analysis and CIDI-diagnoses as criteria. RESULTS: The HADS sumscale performed better in all analyses compared to the GHQ-12, specifically in detecting depressive and anxiety disorders. Best results are achieved for depressive disorders with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.79, a sensitivity of 78% and a specificity of 71% (cut off point= 16). The positive predictive value (PPV) is best for the detection of any mental disorder with a cut-off point of 16 (46%). CONCLUSION: The HADS can be used as a screening instrument for the detection of comorbid depressive and anxiety disorders in patients with musculoskeletal disorders. Limitations in performance of screening instruments are due to: (1) different methodological approaches of tests (dimensional approach) and criterion (categorical approach); and (2) difficulties in diagnosing mental disorders in patients with prominent physical illness.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 113 citations exist upstream.

References

1983The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale 1988A user's guide to the General Health Questionnaire 1997International experiences with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-A review of validation data and clinical results 1994Reliability and validity studies of the WHO-Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI): A critical review 1997A validation study of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) in different groups of Dutch subjects 1998Test-retest reliability of the computerized DSM-IV version of the Munich-Composite International Diagnostic Interview (M-CIDI)1988Psychiatric disorder in a sample of the general population with and without chronic medical conditions 1998Why GHQ threshold varies from one place to another

Cited by

2011Case identification of depression in patients with chronic physical health problems: a diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis of 113 studies 2016The Adjustment Disorder–New Module 20 as a Screening Instrument: Cluster Analysis and Cut-off Values 2005Validity and reliability of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale in a hypertrophic cardiomyopathy clinic: the HADS in a cardiomyopathy population 2005Screening for mental disorders in cancer, cardiovascular and musculoskeletal diseases

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.