Epidemiology and psychiatric sciences · 2026
Cross-cultural validity of the generalized anxiety disorder 7-item scale (GAD-7): a systematic review and standardized assessment.
Систематический обзорСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Mantzari Anastasia, Botella-Juan Lorena, Yadav Prateek, Lavelle Grace, Henriques Ana, Munblit Daniel, Ronaldson Amy, Dregan Alex, Bakolis Ioannis, Pinto da Costa Mariana, Viana Maria Carmen, Marcos-Delgado Alba, Molina Antonio J, Martín Vicente, Valderas Jose M, Vilagut Gemma, Alonso Jordi, Arias de la Torre Jorge
Аннотация
AIMS: The Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-Item Scale (GAD-7) is a brief self-reported measure for screening for anxiety symptoms. However, the evidence about its cross-cultural validity is fragmentary and usually focused on specific settings. Therefore, we aimed to critically review and synthesize the existing evidence about the cross-cultural validity of the GAD-7.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of studies assessing the cross-cultural validity of the GAD-7 in following the PRISMA guidelines. Additionally, the quality of the studies was assessed following the COSMIN guidelines, and the quality of the evidence was assessed with the GRADE. Data were synthesized narratively.
RESULTS: Out of 1,965 unique records, 9 unique studies were deemed eligible for the COSMIN appraisal and the narrative synthesis (total sample: 11,894, 53.7% females and 20 different cultural groups). Most studies (7) had adequate quality and showed evidenced of the unitary structure of the GAD-7 across cultural groups. In 4 studies also assessing possible cultural bias, the effect on the general score was deemed negligible.
CONCLUSIONS: The evidence about the cross-cultural validity of the GAD-7 is very limited. Although more research is needed, the evidence available shows that the GAD-7 could be a cross-culturally valid tool for the assessment of anxiety symptoms in clinical contexts and epidemiological studies. Until new high-quality evidence will be available, these results would constitute a key first step for supporting the use of the GAD-7 in multi-cultural clinical settings and to inform clinical, public health and global health decision making in relation to anxiety.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of studies assessing the cross-cultural validity of the GAD-7 in following the PRISMA guidelines. Additionally, the quality of the studies was assessed following the COSMIN guidelines, and the quality of the evidence was assessed with the GRADE. Data were synthesized narratively.
RESULTS: Out of 1,965 unique records, 9 unique studies were deemed eligible for the COSMIN appraisal and the narrative synthesis (total sample: 11,894, 53.7% females and 20 different cultural groups). Most studies (7) had adequate quality and showed evidenced of the unitary structure of the GAD-7 across cultural groups. In 4 studies also assessing possible cultural bias, the effect on the general score was deemed negligible.
CONCLUSIONS: The evidence about the cross-cultural validity of the GAD-7 is very limited. Although more research is needed, the evidence available shows that the GAD-7 could be a cross-culturally valid tool for the assessment of anxiety symptoms in clinical contexts and epidemiological studies. Until new high-quality evidence will be available, these results would constitute a key first step for supporting the use of the GAD-7 in multi-cultural clinical settings and to inform clinical, public health and global health decision making in relation to anxiety.