Search

Administration mode of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) may influence responses. We assessed if Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale - Depression subscale (HADS-D) item responses and scores were associated with administration mode. We compared (1) self-administration versus interview-administration; within self-administration (2) research or medical setting versus private; and (3) pen-and-paper versus electronic; and within interview-administration (4) in-person versus phone. We analysed individual participant data meta-analysis datasets with item-level data for the PHQ-9 (N = 34,529), EPDS (N = 16,813), and HADS-D (N = 16,768). We used multiple indicator multiple cause models to assess differential item functioning (DIF) by administration mode. We found statistically significant DIF for most items on all measures due to large samples, but influence on total scores was negligible. In 10 comparisons conducted across the PHQ-9, EPDS, and HADS-D, Pearson's correlations and intraclass correlation coefficients between latent depression symptom scores from models that did or did not account for DIF were between 0.995 and 1.000. Total PHQ-9, EPDS, and HADS-D scores did not differ materially across administration modes. Researcher and clinicians who evaluate depression symptoms with these questionnaires can select administration methods based on patient preferences, feasibility, or cost., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest All authors have completed the ICJME uniform disclosure form. Dr. Vigod declares that she receives royalties from UpToDate, outside the submitted work. Dr. Beck CT declares that she receives royalties for her Postpartum Depression Screening Scale published by Western Psychological Services. Dr. Bernstein declares that he has consulted to Abbvie Canada, Amgen Canada, Bristol Myers Squibb Canada, Eli Lilly, Ferring Canada, JAMP Pharmaceuticals, Janssen Canada, Pendopharm Canada, Pfizer Canada, Sandoz Canada, Takeda Canada. He has also received unrestricted educational grants from Abbvie Canada, Bristol Myers Squibb Canada, Eli Lilly, Ferring Canada, Organon Canada, Janssen Canada, Pfizer Canada, and Takeda Canada; as well as been on speaker's bureau of Abbvie Canada, Janssen Canada, Takeda Canada and Pfizer Canada, all outside the submitted work. Dr. Chan J CN is a steering committee member and/or consultant of Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Lilly, MSD and Pfizer. She has received sponsorships and honorarium for giving lectures and providing consultancy and her affiliated institution has received research grants from these companies. Dr. Chan LF declares personal fees and non-financial support from Otsuka, Lundbeck, and Johnson and Johnson; and non-financial support from Ortho-McNeil-Janssen, and Menarini, outside the submitted work. Dr. Hegerl declares that within the last three years, he was an advisory board member for Janssen and received a research grant from Medice, all outside the submitted work. Dr. Howard declares that she has received personal fees from NICE Scientific Advice, outside the submitted work. Dr. Inagaki declares that he has received personal fees from Meiji, Mochida, Takeda, Novartis, Yoshitomi, Pfizer, Eisai, Otsuka, MSD, Sumitomo Dainippon, Janssen, and Eli Lilly, all outside of the submitted work. Dr. Marrie declares that she is a co-investigator on a study funded in part by Biogen Idec and Roche (no funds to her), outside the submitted work. Dr. Pugh declares that she received salary support from Pfizer-Astella and Millennium, outside the submitted work. Dr. Sultan declares funding from Sanofi-Aventis Corporation, during conduct of the primary study. Dr. Sundström-Poromaa declares that she has served on advisory boards and acted as invited speaker at scientific meetings for MSD, Novo Nordisk, Bayer Health Care, and Lundbeck A/S. Dr. Lynne Wagner declares that she receives personal fees from Celgene, outside the submitted work. Dr. Yonkers declares that she receives royalties from UpTodate, outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no support from any organization for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years; and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To determine whether students' self-reported race/ethnicity and sex were associated with grades earned in 7 core clerkships. A person-centered approach was used to group students based on observed clerkship grade patterns. Predictors of group membership and predictive bias by race/ethnicity and sex were investigated., Method: Using data from 6 medical student cohorts at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine (JHUSOM), latent class analysis was used to classify students based on clerkship grades. Multinomial logistic regression was employed to investigate if preclerkship measures and student demographic characteristics predicted clerkship performance-level groups. Marginal effects for United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE) Step 1 scores were obtained to assess the predictive validity of the test on group membership by race/ethnicity and sex. Predictive bias was examined by comparing multinomial logistic regression prediction errors across racial/ethnic groups., Results: Three clerkship performance-level groups emerged from the data: low, middle, and high. Significant predictors of group membership were race/ethnicity, sex, and USMLE Step 1 scores. Black or African American students were more likely (odds ratio [OR] = 4.26) to be low performers than White students. Black or African American (OR = 0.08) and Asian students (OR = 0.41) were less likely to be high performers than White students. Female students (OR = 2.51) were more likely to be high performers than male students. Patterns of prediction errors observed across racial/ethnic groups showed predictive bias when using USMLE Step 1 scores to predict clerkship performance-level groups., Conclusions: Disparities in clerkship grades associated with race/ethnicity were found among JHUSOM students, which persisted after controlling for USMLE Step 1 scores, sex, and other preclerkship performance measures. Differential predictive validity of USMLE Step 1 exam scores and systematic error predictions by race/ethnicity show predictive bias when using USMLE Step 1 scores to predict clerkship performance across racial/ethnic groups., (Copyright © 2024 the Association of American Medical Colleges.)

Depression questionnaire cutoffs are calibrated for screening accuracy and not to assess prevalence, but the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-15) is often used to estimate diagnostic prevalence among older adults, most commonly with scores of ≥ 5. We conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis to compare depression prevalence based on GDS-15 ≥ 5 to Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (SCID) diagnoses and assessed whether an alternative cutoff could be more accurate. We used generalized linear mixed models to estimate prevalence. Data from 14 studies (3602 participants, 434 SCID major depression) were included. Pooled GDS-15 ≥ 5 prevalence was 34.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 27.5-41.6%), and pooled SCID prevalence was 14.8% (95% CI 10.0-21.5%; difference of 17.6%, 95% CI 11.6-23.6%). GDS-15 ≥ 8 provided the closest estimate to SCID with mean difference of - 0.3% (95% prediction interval - 17.0-16.5%). Prevalence estimate differences were not associated with study or participant characteristics. In sum, GDS-15 ≥ 5 substantially overestimated depression prevalence. A cutoff of ≥ 8 was accurate overall, but heterogeneity was too high for implementation in practice. Validated diagnostic interviews should be used to estimate major depression prevalence among older adults., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objective: To use individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA) to estimate the minimal detectable change (MDC) of the Geriatric Depression Scale-15 (GDS-15) and to examine whether MDC may differ based on participant characteristics and study-level variables., Study Design and Setting: This was a secondary analysis of data from an IPDMA on the depression screening accuracy of the GDS. Datasets from studies published in any language were eligible for the present study if they included GDS-15 scores for participants aged 60 or older. MDC of the GDS-15 was estimated via random-effects meta-analysis using 2.77 (MDC95) and 1.41 (MDC67) standard errors of measurement (SEM). Subgroup analyses were used to evaluate differences in MDC by participant age and sex. Meta-regression was conducted to assess for differences based on study-level variables, including mean age, proportion male, proportion with major depression, and recruitment setting., Results: 5,876 participants (mean age 76 years, 40% male, 11% with major depression) from 21 studies were included. The MDC95 was 3.81 points (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.59, 4.04), and MDC67 was 1.95 (95% CI 1.83, 2.03). The difference in MDC95 was 0.26 points (95% CI 0.04, 0.48) between ≥ 80-year-olds and < 80-year-olds; MDC95 was similar for females and males (0.05, 95% CI -0.12, 0.22). The MDC95 increased by 0.29 points (95% CI 0.17, 0.41) per 10% increase in proportion of participants with major depression; mean age had a small association (0.04 points, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.09) with MDC95, but sex and recruitment setting were not significantly associated., Conclusions: The MDC95 was 3.81 points and MDC67 was 1.95 points. MDC95 increased with the proportion of participants with major depression. Results can be used to evaluate individual changes in depression symptoms and as a threshold for assessing minimal clinical important difference estimates., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Purpose: The Johns Hopkins Physician-Scientist Training Program (PSTP) was implemented to overcome well-documented challenges in training and retaining physician-scientists by providing physician-scientist pathway training for residents and clinical fellows. The program's core tenets include monthly seminars, individualized feedback on project proposals, access to mentors, and institutional funding opportunities. This study evaluated the effectiveness and outcomes of the PTSP and provides a framework for replication., Method: A query of institutional demographic data and bibliometric variables of the PSTP participants (2017-2020) at a single academic medical center was conducted in 2021. In addition, a voluntary survey collected personal and program evaluation information., Results: Of 145 PSTP scholars, 59 (41%) were women, and 41 (31%), 8 (6%), and 6 (5%) of scholars self-identified as Asian, Hispanic, and Black, respectively. Thirty-three (23%) scholars received PSTP research support or career development microgrants. Of 66 PSTP graduates, 29 (44%) remained at Johns Hopkins as clinical fellows or faculty. Of 48 PSTP graduates in a post-training position, 42 (88%) were in academia, with the majority, 29 (76%), holding the rank of assistant professor. Fifty-nine of 140 available participants responded to the survey (42% response rate). The top-cited reason for joining the PSTP was exposure to mentors and administration (50/58 respondents, 86%), followed by seeking scholarly opportunities (37/58 respondents, 64%). Most scholars intended to continue a career as a physician-scientist., Conclusions: The PSTP provides internal research support and institutional oversight. Although establishing close mentor-mentee relationships requires individualized approaches, the PSTP provided structured academic pathways that enhanced participating scholars' ability to apply for grants and jobs. The vast majority continued their careers as physician-scientists after training. In light of the national evidence of a "leaky physician-scientist pipeline," programs such as the PSTP can be critical to entry into early academic career positions and institutional retention., (Copyright © 2024 the Association of American Medical Colleges.)

Abstract: The recent decisions of several medical schools to no longer participate in the rankings published annually by U.S. News & World Report have added greater visibility to the issues surrounding medical school rankings than ever before. While these announcements garnered significant attention in academic medicine and from the lay public, the authors believe these events are unlikely to eliminate rankings in medical education. In this article, the authors outline the potential harms of rankings in higher education, provide a rationale for why they will likely endure despite recent scrutiny, and offer suggestions for prospective students and the academic medical community to engage with rankings in a more productive way. Criticisms of medical school rankings have been noted for decades, including their use of subjective information and data with questionable relevance to the quality of students' education or the outcomes of their educational experience, methodological concerns, and the potential harms of ranking systems (such as schools diverting their focus and resources away from initiatives that benefit students to improve their ranking). At the same time, rankings are ubiquitous in today's culture and are powerful in human decision-making, so there is reason to believe that medical school rankings may weather the current storm. Given these concerns, the authors suggest students continue to use a variety of resources to obtain information about medical schools and consider how each school fits with their own educational needs. The authors also encourage medical schools, medical education organizations, and governing medical bodies to suggest different metrics that reflect quality in medical education and that are of importance to applicants., (Copyright © 2023 the Association of American Medical Colleges.)

Objective: To examine the proportion of eligible primary studies that contributed data, study characteristics associated with data contribution, and reasons for non-contribution using diagnostic test accuracy individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA) datasets from the DEPRESsion Screening Data project., Study Design and Setting: We reviewed dataset contributions from four IPDMAs. A multivariable logistic regression model was fitted to evaluate study factors associated with data contribution., Results: Of 456 eligible studies from four included IPDMAs, 295 (65%) contributed data. More recent year of publication and higher journal impact factor were associated with greater odds of data contribution. Studies conducted in Europe (excluding the United Kingdom), Oceania, Canada, the Middle East, Africa, Central or South America (reference=the United States), recruited in inpatient care or non-medical settings (reference=outpatient), reported screening accuracy results, or drew negative conclusions (reference=positive conclusions) were more likely to contribute data. Studies of the Geriatric Depression Scale (reference=the Patient Health Questionnaire) or lacking funding information were negatively associated with data contribution. Over 80% of non-contributions were due to authors being unreachable or data being unavailable., Conclusion: The study identified factors associated with data contribution that may support future research to promote data contribution to IPDMAs., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Item 10 of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) is intended to assess thoughts of intentional self-harm but may also elicit concerns about accidental self-harm. It does not specifically address suicide ideation but, nonetheless, is sometimes used as an indicator of suicidality. The 9-item version of the EPDS (EPDS-9), which omits item 10, is sometimes used in research due to concern about positive endorsements of item 10 and necessary follow-up. We assessed the equivalence of total score correlations and screening accuracy to detect major depression using the EPDS-9 versus full EPDS among pregnant and postpartum women. We searched Medline, Medline In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO, and Web of Science from database inception to October 3, 2018 for studies that administered the EPDS and conducted diagnostic classification for major depression based on a validated semi-structured or fully structured interview among women aged 18 or older during pregnancy or within 12 months of giving birth. We conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis. We calculated Pearson correlations with 95% prediction interval (PI) between EPDS-9 and full EPDS total scores using a random effects model. Bivariate random-effects models were fitted to assess screening accuracy. Equivalence tests were done by comparing the confidence intervals (CIs) around the pooled sensitivity and specificity differences to the equivalence margin of δ = 0.05. Individual participant data were obtained from 41 eligible studies (10,906 participants, 1407 major depression cases). The correlation between EPDS-9 and full EPDS scores was 0.998 (95% PI 0.991, 0.999). For sensitivity, the EPDS-9 and full EPDS were equivalent for cut-offs 7-12 (difference range - 0.02, 0.01) and the equivalence was indeterminate for cut-offs 13-15 (all differences - 0.04). For specificity, the EPDS-9 and full EPDS were equivalent for all cut-offs (difference range 0.00, 0.01). The EPDS-9 performs similarly to the full EPDS and can be used when there are concerns about the implications of administering EPDS item 10.Trial registration: The original IPDMA was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42015024785)., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

The seven-item Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale Depression subscale (HADS-D) and the total score of the 14-item HADS (HADS-T) are both used for major depression screening. Compared to the HADS-D, the HADS-T includes anxiety items and requires more time to complete. We compared the screening accuracy of the HADS-D and HADS-T for major depression detection. We conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis and fit bivariate random effects models to assess diagnostic accuracy among participants with both HADS-D and HADS-T scores. We identified optimal cutoffs, estimated sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals, and compared screening accuracy across paired cutoffs via two-stage and individual-level models. We used a 0.05 equivalence margin to assess equivalency in sensitivity and specificity. 20,700 participants (2,285 major depression cases) from 98 studies were included. Cutoffs of ≥7 for the HADS-D (sensitivity 0.79 [0.75, 0.83], specificity 0.78 [0.75, 0.80]) and ≥15 for the HADS-T (sensitivity 0.79 [0.76, 0.82], specificity 0.81 [0.78, 0.83]) minimized the distance to the top-left corner of the receiver operating characteristic curve. Across all sets of paired cutoffs evaluated, differences of sensitivity between HADS-T and HADS-D ranged from -0.05 to 0.01 (0.00 at paired optimal cutoffs), and differences of specificity were within 0.03 for all cutoffs (0.02-0.03). The pattern was similar among outpatients, although the HADS-T was slightly (not nonequivalently) more specific among inpatients. The accuracy of HADS-T was equivalent to the HADS-D for detecting major depression. In most settings, the shorter HADS-D would be preferred. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Objective: As part of a quality improvement project, we developed and employed an observation checklist to measure patient-centered behaviors during daily rounds to assess the frequency of patient-centered behaviors among a patient-centered care (PCC) team and standard team (ST) rounds., Patients and Methods: On four general medicine service (GMS) teaching teams at an urban academic medical center in which housestaff rotate, we utilized an observation checklist to assess the occurrence of eight behaviors on inpatient daily rounds. The checklist covered domains of patient-centered communication, etiquette-based behaviors, and shared decision-making. One GMS team is guided by a PCC curriculum that emphasizes patient-centered communication strategies, but not specifically behaviors during bedside rounds., Results: Between August 2018 and May 2019 a trained observer completed 448 observations of patient rounding encounters using the checklist. Across all teams, 46.0% of the 8 behaviors were performed when possible, with more done on the PCC team (58.0%) than ST (42.0%), p < 0.01., Conclusions: Performance of patient-centered behaviors during daily rounds was low overall. Despite having no specific instruction on daily rounds, patient-centered behaviors were more frequent among the teams which were part of a PCC curriculum. However, the frequency of observed behaviors was modest, suggesting that more explicit efforts to change rounding behaviors are needed. Our observational checklist may be a tool to assist in future interventions to improve patient-centered behaviors on daily rounds.

Shortened versions of self-reported questionnaires may be used to reduce respondent burden. When shortened screening tools are used, it is desirable to maintain equivalent diagnostic accuracy to full-length forms. This manuscript presents a case study that illustrates how external data and individual participant data meta-analysis can be used to assess the equivalence in diagnostic accuracy between a shortened and full-length form. This case study compares the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and a 4-item shortened version (PHQ-Dep-4) that was previously developed using optimal test assembly methods. Using a large database of 75 primary studies (34,698 participants, 3,392 major depression cases), we evaluated whether the PHQ-Dep-4 cutoff of ≥ 4 maintained equivalent diagnostic accuracy to a PHQ-9 cutoff of ≥ 10. Using this external validation dataset, a PHQ-Dep-4 cutoff of ≥ 4 maximized the sum of sensitivity and specificity, with a sensitivity of 0.88 (95% CI 0.81, 0.93), 0.68 (95% CI 0.56, 0.78), and 0.80 (95% CI 0.73, 0.85) for the semi-structured, fully structured, and MINI reference standard categories, respectively, and a specificity of 0.79 (95% CI 0.74, 0.83), 0.85 (95% CI 0.78, 0.90), and 0.83 (95% CI 0.80, 0.86) for the semi-structured, fully structured, and MINI reference standard categories, respectively. While equivalence with a PHQ-9 cutoff of ≥ 10 was not established, we found the sensitivity of the PHQ-Dep-4 to be non-inferior to that of the PHQ-9, and the specificity of the PHQ-Dep-4 to be marginally smaller than the PHQ-9., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)