The Generalized Anxiety Disorder Screener (GAD-7) and the anxiety module of the Hospital and Depression Scale (HADS-A) as screening tools for generalized anxiety disorder among cancer patients

Standard

The Generalized Anxiety Disorder Screener (GAD-7) and the anxiety module of the Hospital and Depression Scale (HADS-A) as screening tools for generalized anxiety disorder among cancer patients. / Esser, Peter; Hartung, Tim J; Friedrich, Michael; Johansen, Christoffer; Wittchen, Hans-Ulrich; Faller, Hermann; Koch, Uwe; Härter, Martin; Keller, Monika; Schulz, Holger; Wegscheider, Karl; Weis, Joachim; Mehnert, Anja.

In: PSYCHO-ONCOLOGY, Vol. 27, No. 6, 06.2018, p. 1509-1516.

Research output: SCORING: Contribution to journalSCORING: Journal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Bibtex

@article{6d3aaff2ed9f4cd5975d5232a140dc4c,
title = "The Generalized Anxiety Disorder Screener (GAD-7) and the anxiety module of the Hospital and Depression Scale (HADS-A) as screening tools for generalized anxiety disorder among cancer patients",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE: Anxiety in cancer patients may represent a normal psychological reaction. To detect patients with pathological levels, appropriate screeners with established cut-offs are needed. Given that previous research is sparse, we investigated the diagnostic accuracy of 2 frequently used screening tools in detecting generalized anxiety disorder (GAD).METHODS: We used data of a multicenter study including 2141 cancer patients. Diagnostic accuracy was investigated for the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Screener (GAD-7) and the anxiety module of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS-A). GAD, assessed with the Composite International Diagnostic Interview for Oncology, served as a reference standard. Overall accuracy was measured with the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC). The AUC of the 2 screeners were statistically compared. We also calculated accuracy measures for selected cut-offs.RESULTS: Diagnostic accuracy could be interpreted as adequate for both screeners, with an identical AUC of .81 (95% CI: .79-.82). Consequently, the 2 screeners did not differ in their performance (P = .86). The best balance between sensitivity and specificity was found for cut-offs ≥7 (GAD-7) and ≥8 (HADS-A). The officially recommended thresholds for the GAD-7 (≥ 10) and the HADS-A (≥11) showed low sensitivities of 55% and 48%, respectively.CONCLUSIONS: The GAD-7 and HADS-A showed AUC of adequate diagnostic accuracy and hence are applicable for GAD screening in cancer patients. Nevertheless, the choice of optimal cut-offs should be carefully evaluated.",
keywords = "Journal Article",
author = "Peter Esser and Hartung, {Tim J} and Michael Friedrich and Christoffer Johansen and Hans-Ulrich Wittchen and Hermann Faller and Uwe Koch and Martin H{\"a}rter and Monika Keller and Holger Schulz and Karl Wegscheider and Joachim Weis and Anja Mehnert",
note = "This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.",
year = "2018",
month = jun,
doi = "10.1002/pon.4681",
language = "English",
volume = "27",
pages = "1509--1516",
journal = "PSYCHO-ONCOLOGY",
issn = "1057-9249",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Ltd",
number = "6",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Generalized Anxiety Disorder Screener (GAD-7) and the anxiety module of the Hospital and Depression Scale (HADS-A) as screening tools for generalized anxiety disorder among cancer patients

AU - Esser, Peter

AU - Hartung, Tim J

AU - Friedrich, Michael

AU - Johansen, Christoffer

AU - Wittchen, Hans-Ulrich

AU - Faller, Hermann

AU - Koch, Uwe

AU - Härter, Martin

AU - Keller, Monika

AU - Schulz, Holger

AU - Wegscheider, Karl

AU - Weis, Joachim

AU - Mehnert, Anja

N1 - This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

PY - 2018/6

Y1 - 2018/6

N2 - OBJECTIVE: Anxiety in cancer patients may represent a normal psychological reaction. To detect patients with pathological levels, appropriate screeners with established cut-offs are needed. Given that previous research is sparse, we investigated the diagnostic accuracy of 2 frequently used screening tools in detecting generalized anxiety disorder (GAD).METHODS: We used data of a multicenter study including 2141 cancer patients. Diagnostic accuracy was investigated for the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Screener (GAD-7) and the anxiety module of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS-A). GAD, assessed with the Composite International Diagnostic Interview for Oncology, served as a reference standard. Overall accuracy was measured with the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC). The AUC of the 2 screeners were statistically compared. We also calculated accuracy measures for selected cut-offs.RESULTS: Diagnostic accuracy could be interpreted as adequate for both screeners, with an identical AUC of .81 (95% CI: .79-.82). Consequently, the 2 screeners did not differ in their performance (P = .86). The best balance between sensitivity and specificity was found for cut-offs ≥7 (GAD-7) and ≥8 (HADS-A). The officially recommended thresholds for the GAD-7 (≥ 10) and the HADS-A (≥11) showed low sensitivities of 55% and 48%, respectively.CONCLUSIONS: The GAD-7 and HADS-A showed AUC of adequate diagnostic accuracy and hence are applicable for GAD screening in cancer patients. Nevertheless, the choice of optimal cut-offs should be carefully evaluated.

AB - OBJECTIVE: Anxiety in cancer patients may represent a normal psychological reaction. To detect patients with pathological levels, appropriate screeners with established cut-offs are needed. Given that previous research is sparse, we investigated the diagnostic accuracy of 2 frequently used screening tools in detecting generalized anxiety disorder (GAD).METHODS: We used data of a multicenter study including 2141 cancer patients. Diagnostic accuracy was investigated for the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Screener (GAD-7) and the anxiety module of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS-A). GAD, assessed with the Composite International Diagnostic Interview for Oncology, served as a reference standard. Overall accuracy was measured with the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC). The AUC of the 2 screeners were statistically compared. We also calculated accuracy measures for selected cut-offs.RESULTS: Diagnostic accuracy could be interpreted as adequate for both screeners, with an identical AUC of .81 (95% CI: .79-.82). Consequently, the 2 screeners did not differ in their performance (P = .86). The best balance between sensitivity and specificity was found for cut-offs ≥7 (GAD-7) and ≥8 (HADS-A). The officially recommended thresholds for the GAD-7 (≥ 10) and the HADS-A (≥11) showed low sensitivities of 55% and 48%, respectively.CONCLUSIONS: The GAD-7 and HADS-A showed AUC of adequate diagnostic accuracy and hence are applicable for GAD screening in cancer patients. Nevertheless, the choice of optimal cut-offs should be carefully evaluated.

KW - Journal Article

U2 - 10.1002/pon.4681

DO - 10.1002/pon.4681

M3 - SCORING: Journal article

C2 - 29473255

VL - 27

SP - 1509

EP - 1516

JO - PSYCHO-ONCOLOGY

JF - PSYCHO-ONCOLOGY

SN - 1057-9249

IS - 6

ER -