Search

Stroke is a leading cause of death and disability worldwide. Early and comprehensive risk identification is essential for identifying individuals at high risk for stroke. This study aimed to evaluate each question in the new Stroke Risk Screening Scales (SRSS) and assess the domains for content relevance and representativeness. Initially, six stroke experts were invited to evaluate the SRSS questions. The content validity index (CVI), including the item-CVI (I-CVI) and the average-CVI (Ave-CVI), was then calculated. In our study, the acceptable standards for I-CVI and Ave-CVI were ≥0.78 and ≥0.9, respectively. The results showed that all invited experts accepted the invitation and evaluated the SRSS questions. The previous version of the SRSS consisted of 33 questions. Of these, 30 questions reached an I-CVI of ≥0.78, indicating good content validity. Three questions had an I-CVI of 0.67 and were considered invalid; thus, they were deleted. The overall instrument achieved an Ave-CVI of 0.95. Comprehensive SRSS are essential for effective stroke prevention planning. By facilitating the early identification of individuals at high risk for stroke, these scales help reduce the incidence and impact of stroke. The high content validity found in this study supports the reliability of the SRSS as a screening tool. In the future, implementing such validated scales in clinical practice can improve early intervention strategies, ultimately enhancing health outcomes and optimizing the use of healthcare resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Depression is often difficult to detect in long-term care (LTC) patients with major neurocognitive disorders (MNCD), and an observer-rated screening scale could facilitate assessments. This study aimed to establish the external validity and reliability of the Nursing Homes Short Depression Inventory (NH-SDI) in LTC patients with MNCD and to compare its estimates to the Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia (CSDD), the most used scale for depression in MNCD. Methods: A focus discussion group of experts assessed the content validity of the NH-SDI. Then, a convenience sample of 93 LTC patients with MNCD was observer-rated by trained nurses with the NH-SDI and CSDD. For 57 patients, a medical assessment of depression was obtained, and screening accuracy estimates were generated. Results: The prevalence of depression was 8.8% as per reference standard. NH-SDI's content validity was judged acceptable with minor item wording modifications and specifications. The NH-SDI (cut-off ≥3) achieved 100% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 46–100%) sensitivity, 83% (95% CI: 69–91%) specificity, and 36% (95% CI: 14–64%) positive predictive value (PPV). The CSDD (cut-off ≥3) achieved 100% (95% CI: 46–100%) sensitivity, 75% (95% CI: 61–86%) specificity, and 28% (95% CI: 11–54%) PPV. No significant differences in areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve were found between scales. The NH-SDI and CSDD were highly correlated (rs = 0.913; p < 0.001) and reliable (ICC = 0.77; p < 0.001). Conclusion: The NH-SDI appears valid and reliable in LTC patients with MNCD and quicker than the CSDD to rule out depression in a busy or short-staffed setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Depression is often under-detected in long-term care (LTC) patients with major neurocognitive disorders (MNCD) and is associated with important morbidity, mortality, and costs. Observer-rated outcome measures (ObsROMs) could help resolve this problematic; however, evidence on their accuracy is scattered in the literature. This systematic review aimed at summarizing this evidence. Methods: A literature search was conducted in 7 databases using keywords, MeSHs, and bibliographic searches. We included studies published before January 2022 and reporting on the accuracy of a depression ObsROM used in LTC patients with MNCD. Data extraction, analysis, synthesis, and study methodological quality assessments were done by two authors, and discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Results: Among 9,660 articles retrieved, 8 studies reporting on 11 depression measures were included. Scales were classified as patient-reported outcome measures used as Obs-ROMs or true ObsROMs. Among the first category, the Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia (CSDD) and the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) performed best (area under the curve [AUC]: 0.73–0.87), although both presented with low positive predictive values and high negative predictive values. Among the second category, the Nursing Homes Short Depression Inventory (NH-SDI) performed best, with an AUC of 0.93 and ≥85% sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values. Conclusion: The CSDD and MADRS may be useful to rule out depression in LTC patients with MNCD, whereas the NH-SDI may be useful to rule in and out depression within this same population. Before recommending their use, adequately powered studies to further examine their accuracy in different contexts are necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Increasingly pregnancy-related anxiety is acknowledged as a distinct anxiety type, characterised by specific fears/worries. The Pregnancy-related Anxiety Scale (PrAS) screens for this distinct anxiety and refinements to the scale have prompted further validity examination. This study aims to: replicate findings that distinguished pregnancy-related anxiety from general anxiety/depression using the PrAS; confirm the PrAS's factor structure, and examine the validity of the PrAS subscales: Acceptance of Pregnancy, Avoidance and Worry About Self.Methods: Pregnant women (N = 608) were recruited online and completed the PrAS, Pregnancy Acceptance Questionnaire, Ways of Coping Questionnaire, Cambridge Worry Scale, Parenting Sense of Competence Scale, State Trait Anxiety Inventory and the Edinburgh Depression Scale.Results: Multiple regression analysis confirmed general anxiety/depression contributed little to the PrAS's variance, supporting the scale's validity and distinctiveness of pregnancy-related anxiety. Structural equation modelling confirmed the PrAS's factor structure, and the three PrAS subscales generally correlated more highly with convergent measures than the discriminant measures.Limitations: Limitations included the cross-sectional design of the study and the use of some convergent/discriminant measures that lacked validity evidence for prenatal use.Conclusions: This study provides evidence of the distinctiveness of pregnancy-related anxiety from state/trait anxiety and depression and also adds to the psychometric properties of the PrAS. The PrAS is a useful screening scale that can be used for antenatal screening potentially reducing the risk of adverse outcomes associated with pregnancy-related anxiety. The PrAS is also a useful research tool providing a more comprehensive assessment of pregnancy-related anxiety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate the validity and reliability of 16-item self-report version of the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS-SR16) scale in comparison with BDI-ll-Turkish (BDI-II-T) in a young sample of Turkish university students. Methods: A slightly modified version of the QIDS-SR16-Turkish (QIDS-SR16-T) available at www.ids-qids.org, along with the BDI-II-T, was administered to 628 young Turkish university students who attended the Family Health Center in Uludag University Campus between February and April 2010. Descriptive analyses, Student's t-test, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, and confirmatory factor analyses were used in the study. Results: The mean age of the participants was 21.1±2.16 (SD) years; 67.8% were female and 32.2% were male. Cronbach's α coefficient for internal consistency of the QIDS-SR16-T was found to be 0.769. The mean item-total correlation was 0.45, ranging from 0.29 to 0.71. The correlation between the BDI-II-T and QIDS-SR16-T was 0.72. ROC curve analysis suggested 9 as the optimal cut-off for a clinical depression level for the QIDS-SR16-T. Conclusion: We observed that the QIDS-SR16-T demonstrated good psychometric properties in a sample of young Turkish students and has convergent validity with the BDI-II-T, a widely used scale for depression. It is essential to diagnose reliably the major depressive disorder and to follow up the patients by valid screening instruments in primary care setting. The internal consistencies of the QIDS determined in studies from the United States were greater than our Cronbach's α coefficient, but there was no statistically significant difference between them (z=0.55, p>0.05). The QIDS-SR16-T can be reliably used in primary care settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]