Get access

Identifying psychological morbidity among people with cancer using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: time to revisit first principles?

Authors

  • Mariko Carey,

    Corresponding author
    • Priority Research Centre for Health Behaviour, Faculty of Health, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Natasha Noble,

    1. Priority Research Centre for Health Behaviour, Faculty of Health, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Robert Sanson-Fisher,

    1. Priority Research Centre for Health Behaviour, Faculty of Health, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Lisa Mackenzie

    1. Priority Research Centre for Health Behaviour, Faculty of Health, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia
    Search for more papers by this author

Priority Research Centre for Health Behaviour, Faculty of Health, The University of Newcastle, Room 266 David Maddison Building, University Drive Callaghan NSW 2308 Australia. E-mail: Mariko.Carey@newcastle.edu.au

Abstract

Background

The aim of this review was to describe the findings and methodological quality of studies, which sought to validate the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) against the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM in cancer populations. We also sought to compare the cut points recommended by these validation studies with the way in which the HADS is currently used to determine prevalence of psychological morbidity in cancer populations.

Methods

An electronic database search was conducted of Medline from 1983 to October 2010 for validation studies of the HADS in cancer populations. Reference lists of HADS reviews were hand searched. To examine which cut points are commonly used in cancer specific literature to identify the prevalence of psychological disorders, studies published in 2009 were identified via an electronic database search of Medline.

Results

Ten studies, which validated the HADS against the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM in cancer patient populations, were found and examined in detail. None met all methodological criteria associated with the selection of a screening instrument. Recommendations for optimal HADS thresholds varied substantially across these studies. The most commonly used threshold for determining caseness in the 2009 literature on prevalence of psychological distress among patients with cancer was a subscale score of ≥ 8. This threshold was poorly supported by the results of the 10 cancer HADS validation studies examined.

Conclusions

Caution is warranted in interpreting the results of prevalence studies using the HADS. There is a need to develop evidence about the optimal thresholds for defining caseness using the HADS. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Ancillary