Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-6mz5d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-20T03:13:45.070Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Comparing the hospital anxiety and depression scale to the Brief Edinburgh Depression Scale for identifying cases of major depressive disorder in advanced cancer palliative patients

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2020

Oscar Rodríguez-Mayoral*
Affiliation:
Palliative Care Service, Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, Mexico City, Mexico Facultad de Estudios Superiores “Iztacala”, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico
Adriana Peña-Nieves
Affiliation:
Palliative Care Service, Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, Mexico City, Mexico
Silvia Allende-Pérez
Affiliation:
Palliative Care Service, Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, Mexico City, Mexico
Mari Lloyd-Williams
Affiliation:
Academic Palliative and Supportive Care Studies Group (APSCSG), Institute of Psychology Health and Society, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, Merseyside, UK
*
Author for correspondence: Oscar Rodríguez-Mayoral, Palliative Care Service, Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, Av. San Fernando No. 22 Col. Sección XVI. Tlalpan, 14080 Mexico City, Mexico. E-mail: oscroma@gmail.com, orodriguezm@incan.edu.mx

Abstract

Objective

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.

Information

Type
Original Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable