General hospital psychiatry · 2016
Distribution-based estimates of minimal important difference for hospital anxiety and depression scale and impact of event scale-revised in survivors of acute respiratory failure.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание 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.
Chan Kitty S, Aronson Friedman Lisa, Bienvenu O Joseph, Dinglas Victor D, Cuthbertson Brian H, Porter Richard, Jones Christina, Hopkins Ramona O, Needham Dale M
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This study will estimate distribution-based minimal important difference (MID) for the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale anxiety (HADS-A) and depression (HADS-D) subscales, and the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R) in survivors of acute respiratory failure (ARF).
METHODS: Secondary analyses of data from two US and three UK studies of ARF survivors (total N=1223). HADS-D and HADS-A were used to assess depression and anxiety symptoms. IES-R assessed post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms. Standard error of measurement, minimal detectable change90, 0.5 standard deviation (S.D.), and 0.2 S.D. were used to estimate MID for the combined sample, by studies, 6- and 12-month follow-ups, country and mental health condition.
RESULTS: Overall, MID estimates converged to 2.0-2.5 for the HADS-A, 1.9-2.3 for the HADS-D and 0.17-0.18 for the IES-R. MID estimates were comparable across studies, follow-up, country and mental health condition.
CONCLUSION: Among ARF survivors, 2.0-2.5 is a reasonable range for the MID for both HADS subscales, and 0.2 is reasonable for IES-R. Until anchor-based MIDs for these instruments are available, these distribution-based estimates can help researchers plan future studies and interpret the clinical importance of findings in ARF patient populations.
METHODS: Secondary analyses of data from two US and three UK studies of ARF survivors (total N=1223). HADS-D and HADS-A were used to assess depression and anxiety symptoms. IES-R assessed post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms. Standard error of measurement, minimal detectable change90, 0.5 standard deviation (S.D.), and 0.2 S.D. were used to estimate MID for the combined sample, by studies, 6- and 12-month follow-ups, country and mental health condition.
RESULTS: Overall, MID estimates converged to 2.0-2.5 for the HADS-A, 1.9-2.3 for the HADS-D and 0.17-0.18 for the IES-R. MID estimates were comparable across studies, follow-up, country and mental health condition.
CONCLUSION: Among ARF survivors, 2.0-2.5 is a reasonable range for the MID for both HADS subscales, and 0.2 is reasonable for IES-R. Until anchor-based MIDs for these instruments are available, these distribution-based estimates can help researchers plan future studies and interpret the clinical importance of findings in ARF patient populations.