General hospital psychiatry · 2022
The Demoralization Interview: Reliability and validity of a new brief diagnostic measure among medically ill patients.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bobevski Irene, Kissane David, McKenzie Dean, Murphy Genevieve, Perera Chelsea, Payne Isobel, Lennon Jonathon, Michael Natasha, Grossman Christopher, Franco Michael
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Demoralization is a state of low morale and poor coping that is being increasingly recognized in stressful circumstances, such as illness. Meta-analyses show prevalence of 30% in the medically and 50% in the mentally ill. A brief structured diagnostic interview is needed to assess for and diagnose demoralization.
METHODS: The Demoralization Interview (DI) was designed from items of the Demoralization Scale-II (DS-II) and common items used in other clinical interviews. The resultant 26 items were administered to 264 patients with serious progressive medical illnesses, together with the DS-II, measures of depression, anxiety, and quality of life. Rasch analysis was used to co-calibrate the DI against the DS-II. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) were assessed. Concurrent validation was conducted against measures of anxiety, depression, and quality of life.
RESULTS: A 14-item Demoralization Interview (DI) with a diagnostic threshold of 6 symptoms generated sensitivity of 78.0%, specificity of 90.9%, and AUROC of 0.84 against the DS-II. Unidimensionality was indicated, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.81. For respondents with 6 or more symptoms on the DI, 98% recognized a current stressor and 66% described significant distress or functional impairment. Demoralized respondents carried significantly lower quality of life, higher physical disability, and higher depressive and anxiety symptoms.
CONCLUSIONS: The DI has good reliability and validity, with a threshold of 6 symptoms supporting a diagnosis of demoralization. It could be used as a stand-alone diagnosis, or as a specifier for adjustment disorder or depression.
METHODS: The Demoralization Interview (DI) was designed from items of the Demoralization Scale-II (DS-II) and common items used in other clinical interviews. The resultant 26 items were administered to 264 patients with serious progressive medical illnesses, together with the DS-II, measures of depression, anxiety, and quality of life. Rasch analysis was used to co-calibrate the DI against the DS-II. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) were assessed. Concurrent validation was conducted against measures of anxiety, depression, and quality of life.
RESULTS: A 14-item Demoralization Interview (DI) with a diagnostic threshold of 6 symptoms generated sensitivity of 78.0%, specificity of 90.9%, and AUROC of 0.84 against the DS-II. Unidimensionality was indicated, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.81. For respondents with 6 or more symptoms on the DI, 98% recognized a current stressor and 66% described significant distress or functional impairment. Demoralized respondents carried significantly lower quality of life, higher physical disability, and higher depressive and anxiety symptoms.
CONCLUSIONS: The DI has good reliability and validity, with a threshold of 6 symptoms supporting a diagnosis of demoralization. It could be used as a stand-alone diagnosis, or as a specifier for adjustment disorder or depression.