Volume 27, Issue 7 pp. 1840-1846
PAPER

A cross-sectional study of agreement between the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and patient- and radiation oncologist–reported single-item assessment of depression and anxiety

Lisa Mackenzie

Corresponding Author

Lisa Mackenzie

Health Behaviour Research Collaborative, School of Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Health and Medicine, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia

Priority Research Centre for Health Behaviour, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia

Hunter Medical Research Institute, Newcastle, NSW, Australia

Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan

Correspondence

Lisa Mackenzie, Health Behaviour Research Collaborative, School of Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Health and Medicine, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.

Email: [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author
Mariko Carey

Mariko Carey

Health Behaviour Research Collaborative, School of Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Health and Medicine, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia

Priority Research Centre for Health Behaviour, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia

Hunter Medical Research Institute, Newcastle, NSW, Australia

Search for more papers by this author
Eiji Suzuki

Eiji Suzuki

Breast Surgery, Kyoto University Hospital, Kyoto, Japan

Search for more papers by this author
Michio Yoshimura

Michio Yoshimura

Department of Radiation Oncology and Image-Applied Therapy, Kyoto University Hospital, Kyoto, Japan

Search for more papers by this author
Masakazu Toi

Masakazu Toi

Breast Surgery, Kyoto University Hospital, Kyoto, Japan

Search for more papers by this author
Catherine D'Este

Catherine D'Este

National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Research School of Population Health, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia

Search for more papers by this author
Rob Sanson-Fisher

Rob Sanson-Fisher

Health Behaviour Research Collaborative, School of Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Health and Medicine, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia

Priority Research Centre for Health Behaviour, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia

Hunter Medical Research Institute, Newcastle, NSW, Australia

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 16 April 2018
Citations: 5

Abstract

Objective

To describe among radiation oncology patients: (1) the proportion likely to be experiencing symptoms of depression and anxiety as identified by (a) the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS; standardised tool), (b) patient-reported single items (ultrashort tool), and (c) radiation oncologist–reported single items (clinician judgement); (2) preferences for being offered psychological support; and (3) agreement between single-item measures and the HADS.

Methods

Adult cancer patients (n = 152; consent rate 58%) receiving radiotherapy completed a touchscreen tablet survey assessing symptoms of anxiety and depression (HADS and a single-item tool) and support preferences. Each participant's treating radiation oncologist completed a survey assessing his or her perception of whether the patient was anxious or depressed.

Results

Prevalence estimates for likely depression (6.9-18%) and anxiety (17-33%) overlapped across the 3 measures. Overall, only 9.9% of patients (95% CI, 5.6%-16%) wanted to be offered psychological support. For depression, agreement between the HADS and ultrashort tool was fair (κ = 0.37, P < 0.0001); agreement between the HADS and clinician judgement was slight (κ = 0.14, P < 0.05). For anxiety, agreement between the HADS and clinician judgement was not significantly greater than chance alone (κ = 0.04, P = 0.33), and agreement between the HADS and ultrashort tool was moderate (κ = 0.49, P < 0.0001).

Conclusions

These findings highlight the important role that oncology consultations play in interpreting assessment tool results and responding to individual patient's history and preferences for psychological support.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

All authors declare that they have no competing interests.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.