Reasons for attending support groups and organizational preferences: the European scleroderma support group members survey.

PURPOSE: The objectives were to identify reasons why patients attend scleroderma support groups and to ascertain preferences for how meetings are best organized. METHODS: The survey included 30-items on reasons for attending and nine items on organizational preferences. Patients were recruited through European patient organizations. Exploratory factor analysis was used to group reasons for attendance thematically. RESULTS: About 213 scleroderma patients (192 women) completed the survey. A three-factor model best described reasons for attending [χ2(348) = 586.1, p < 0.001; Comparative Fit Index = 0.98; Tucker Lewis Index = 0.97; Root Mean Square Error of Approximation = 0.06] with themes that included: (1) obtaining interpersonal and social support, (2) learning about treatment and symptom management strategies, and (3) discussing other aspects of scleroderma. Among organizational preferences, respondents emphasized that meetings should include educational aspects and the opportunity to share information and support. CONCLUSION: People with scleroderma attend support groups to give and obtain social support and for education about managing their disease and other aspects of living with scleroderma. Support groups should be structured to facilitate both educational and informational aspects and to provide opportunities for sharing and support between members. Implications for rehabilitation Local peer-led support groups are an important support and informational resource for patients living with scleroderma. People with scleroderma attend support groups in order to: (1) obtain interpersonal and social support, (2) learn about disease treatment and symptom management strategies, and (3) discuss other aspects of living with scleroderma outside of symptom management. Most support group members prefer groups with a trained facilitator, that include family members or loved ones in the groups, that include between 11and 20 members, that last between 1 and 2 h, and that meet once every 1-3 months. Rehabilitation professionals can support the formation and management of local support groups or can refer patients to national scleroderma patient organizations for information on support groups that they may be able to access.

Training and support needs of scleroderma support group facilitators: the North American Scleroderma Support Group Facilitators Survey.

Purpose: Peer-facilitated support groups are an important resource for people with scleroderma, but little is known about challenges faced by support group facilitators. The objective was to identify training and support needs of scleroderma support group facilitators to inform the development of an educational training program. Methods: A 32-item survey assessed confidence of support group facilitators to execute tasks necessary for successfully facilitating support groups. Survey items were grouped into seven themes using content analysis. Results: Eighty North American scleroderma support group facilitators completed the survey. Facilitators were generally confident in their ability to complete tasks related to: (1) Organizing, Structuring, and Facilitating the group; (2) Addressing Individual Member Needs and Diversity of the Group; (3) Helping Members Cope with Grief and Loss; and (4) Attaining and Responding to Member Feedback. They were less confident in their ability to perform tasks related to (1) Managing Difficult Group Dynamics; (2) Promoting and Sustaining the Group; and (3) Balancing Personal and Group Needs. Conclusion: Results suggest that a training program for scleroderma support group facilitators should address a broad range of topics, including managing difficult group interactions, promotion and maintaining the group, and balancing personal and support group needs. Implications for Rehabilitation Many patients with the rare autoimmune connective tissue disease scleroderma depend on peer-facilitated support groups for disease-related education and peer support, but the lack of training for facilitators is a barrier to forming and sustaining groups. Rehabilitation professionals can support the formation and management of local support groups by providing education and support to peer group facilitators or by referring them to national scleroderma organizations who are developing training resources. Training for support group facilitators should focus on areas where facilitators were least confident in their abilities, including managing difficult group dynamics, promoting and sustaining the group, and balancing personal and group needs.

Reasons for Not Participating in Scleroderma Patient Support Groups: A Cross-Sectional Study.

OBJECTIVE: Peer-led support groups are an important resource for many people with scleroderma (systemic sclerosis; SSc). Little is known, however, about barriers to participation. The objective of this study was to identify reasons why some people with SSc do not participate in SSc support groups. METHODS: A 21-item survey was used to assess reasons for nonattendance among SSc patients in Canada and the US. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted, using the software MPlus 7, to group reasons for nonattendance into themes. RESULTS: A total of 242 people (202 women) with SSc completed the survey. EFA results indicated that a 3-factor model best described the data (χ2 [150] = 302.7; P < 0.001; Comparative Fit Index = 0.91, Tucker-Lewis Index = 0.88, root mean square error of approximation = 0.07, factor intercorrelations 0.02-0.43). The 3 identified themes, reflecting reasons for not attending SSc support groups were personal reasons (9 items; e.g., already having enough support), practical reasons (7 items; e.g., no local support groups available), and beliefs about support groups (5 items; e.g., support groups are too negative). On average, respondents rated 4.9 items as important or very important reasons for nonattendance. The 2 items most commonly rated as important or very important were 1) already having enough support from family, friends, or others, and 2) not knowing of any SSc support groups offered in my area. CONCLUSION: SSc organizations may be able to address limitations in accessibility and concerns about SSc support groups by implementing online support groups, better informing patients about support group activities, and training support group facilitators.

Understanding coping strategies among people living with scleroderma: a focus group study.

PURPOSE: Systemic sclerosis or scleroderma is a chronic, rare connective tissue disease with negative physical and psychological implications. Coping strategies used by scleroderma patients have not been studied in-depth. The objective of the present study was to gain a greater understanding of the coping strategies employed by people living with scleroderma. METHOD: Three semi-structured focus group discussions were conducted with a total of 22 people with scleroderma. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using content analysis. Coping strategies discussed were analyzed through Lazarus and Folkman's theoretical model of coping, including: (1) problem-focused, (2) emotion-focused, and (3) meaning-focused coping. RESULTS: Participants reported using a combination of problem-focused (e.g., professional help; seeking disease-related information), emotion-focused (e.g., social support; adaptive distraction techniques), and meaning-focused coping strategies (e.g., benefit finding; goal reappraisal) to help them to cope with and manage their disease. However, many patients reported having difficulty in accessing support services. CONCLUSIONS: Scleroderma patients use similar coping strategies as patients with more common diseases, but they may not have access to the same level of support services. Accessible interventions, including self-management programs, aimed at improving problem- and emotion-focused coping are needed. Further, increased access to support groups may provide patients with opportunities to obtain social support and enhance coping.

Development and preliminary validation of the Scleroderma Support Group Leader Self-efficacy Scale.

Support groups are an important resource for people living with systemic sclerosis (SSc; scleroderma). Peer support group leaders play an important role in the success and sustainability of SSc support groups, but face challenges that include a lack of formal training. An SSc support group leader training program could improve leader self-efficacy to carry out important leadership tasks, including the management of group dynamics. However, no measures exist to assess self-efficacy among SSc support group leaders. The objective of this study was to develop and provide preliminary evidence on the reliability and validity of the Scleroderma Support Group Leader Self-efficacy Scale (SSGLSS). The SSGLSS was administered to two sets of SSc support group leaders from North America, Europe, and Australia. Study 1 participants (n = 102) completed the SSGLSS only. Study 2 participants (n = 55) completed the SSGLSS and the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory (OLBI). For both studies, we evaluated internal consistency reliability using Cronbach's coefficient alpha. Convergent validity was assessed in Study 2 using Pearson correlations of the SSGLSS with the OLBI exhaustion and disengagement subscales. Cronbach's alpha was 0.96 in Study 1 and 0.95 in Study 2. Consistent with our hypotheses, there was a small negative correlation between SSGLSS scores and the OLBI exhaustion subscale (r = -0.25, p<0.01) and a moderate negative correlation between SSGLSS scores and the disengagement subscale (r = -0.38, p<0.01). These results suggest that the SSGLSS is a reliable and valid measure of self-efficacy for carrying out support group leadership tasks.

Perceived Benefits and Factors that Influence the Ability to Establish and Maintain Patient Support Groups in Rare Diseases: A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Support groups are an important resource for many people living with rare diseases. The perceived benefits of participating in support groups for people with rare diseases and factors that may influence the ability to successfully establish and maintain these groups are not well understood. Thus, the objective of this scoping review was to provide a mapping of the available evidence on the (1) benefits or perceived benefits of participating in rare disease support groups and (2) barriers and facilitators of establishing and maintaining these groups. METHODS: CINAHL and PubMed were searched from January 2000 to August 2015, with no language restrictions. Publications that described the benefits or perceived benefits of participating in rare disease support groups or the barriers and facilitators of establishing and maintaining them were eligible for inclusion. Two investigators independently evaluated titles/abstracts and full-text publications for eligibility, and extracted data from each included publication. RESULTS: Ten publications were included in the scoping review. There was no trial evidence on support group benefits. All ten publications reported on the perceived benefits of participating in rare disease support groups. Three reported on barriers and facilitators of establishing and maintaining them. Overall, seven different perceived benefits of participating in rare disease support groups were identified: (1) meeting and befriending other people with the same rare disease and similar experiences; (2) learning about the disease and related treatments; (3) giving and receiving emotional support; (4) having a place to speak openly about the disease and one's feelings; (5) learning coping skills; (6) feeling empowered and hopeful; and (7) advocating to improve healthcare for other rare disease patients. Several facilitators (e.g., meeting via teleconference) and barriers (e.g., getting patients and/or family members to lead the group) of establishing and maintaining these groups were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Rare disease support groups are an important source of emotional and practical support for many patients. There is no trial evidence on the benefits of these groups and limited evidence on the perceived benefits and barriers and facilitators to establishing and maintaining them.

Effect of support group peer facilitator training programmes on peer facilitator and support group member outcomes: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Peer facilitators play an important role in determining the success of many support groups for patients with medical illnesses. However, many facilitators do not receive training for their role and report a number of challenges in fulfilling their responsibilities. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the effects of training and support programmes for peer facilitators of support groups for people with medical illnesses on (1) the competency and self-efficacy of group facilitators and (2) self-efficacy for disease management, health outcomes and satisfaction with support groups among group members. METHODS: Searches included the CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Web of Science databases from inception through 8 April 2016; reference list reviews; citation tracking of included articles; and trial registry reviews. Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in any language that evaluated the effects of training programmes for peer facilitators compared with no training or alternative training formats on (1) competency or self-efficacy of peer facilitators, and (2) self-efficacy for disease management, health outcomes and satisfaction with groups of group members. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used to assess risk of bias. RESULTS: There were 9757 unique titles/abstracts and 2 full-text publications reviewed. 1 RCT met inclusion criteria. The study evaluated the confidence and self-efficacy of cancer support group facilitators randomised to 4 months access to a website and discussion forum (N=23; low resource) versus website, discussion forum and 2-day training workshop (N=29). There were no significant differences in facilitator confidence (Hedges' g=0.16, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.71) or self-efficacy (Hedges' g=0.31, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.86). Risk of bias was unclear or high for 4 of 6 domains. CONCLUSIONS: Well-designed and well-conducted, adequately powered trials of peer support group facilitator training programmes for patients with medical illnesses are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42014013601.

Reasons for non-participation in scleroderma support groups.

OBJECTIVES: Peer-led support groups are an important resource for people living with many rare diseases, including scleroderma (systemic sclerosis, SSc). Little is known, however, about the accessibility of SSc support groups and factors that may discourage people from participating in these groups. The objective of this study was to identify reasons why people with SSc do not participate in SSc support groups. METHODS: Canadians with SSc were recruited to complete the Canadian Scleroderma Patient Survey of Health Concerns and Research Priorities. Data from respondents who answered the question "Have you participated in SSc support groups?" with "No" were analyzed. Frequencies of participants who responded (1) I'm not interested, (2) None are easily available, and (3) Other (please specify) were tallied. A content analysis approach was used to code the open-ended responses to this question. RESULTS: A total of 280 respondents provided a reason for non-participation in SSc support groups. Key reasons for not participating in support groups included: (1) Not interested or no perceived need (36%); (2) No local support group available (35%); (3) Lack of awareness of the existence of SSc support groups (13%); (4) Practical barriers (6%); (5) Emotional factors (4%); (6) Uncertainty about whether to attend (4%); and (7) Negative perceptions about support groups (3%). CONCLUSIONS: SSc organizations may be able to address current limitations in the accessibility and effectiveness of SSc support groups by implementing online support groups, as well as by providing support group leaders training to help establish and sustain successful SSc support groups.

Exploring Sources of Emotional Distress among People Living with Scleroderma: A Focus Group Study.

BACKGROUND: Systemic sclerosis, or scleroderma, is a chronic and rare connective tissue disease with negative physical and psychological implications. Sources of emotional distress and the impact they have on the lives of people with scleroderma are not well understood. OBJECTIVES: To gain an in-depth understanding of the emotional experiences and sources of emotional distress for women and men living with scleroderma through focus group discussions. METHODS: Three semi-structured focus group discussions were conducted (two in English, one in French) with a total of 22 people with scleroderma recruited through the Scleroderma Society of Ontario in Hamilton, Ontario and a scleroderma clinic in Montreal, Canada. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and then coded for emerging themes using thematic inductive analysis. RESULTS: Core themes representing sources of emotional distress were identified, including: (a) facing a new reality; (b) the daily struggle of living with scleroderma; (c) handling work, employment and general financial burden; (d) changing family roles; (e) social interactions; and (f) navigating the health care system. Collectively, these themes refer to the stressful journey of living with scleroderma including the obstacles faced and the emotional experiences beginning prior to receiving a diagnosis and continuing throughout the participants' lives. CONCLUSION: Scleroderma was portrayed as being an unpredictable and overwhelming disease, resulting in many individuals experiencing multiple sources of emotional distress. Interventions and supportive resources need to be developed to help individuals with scleroderma and people close to them manage and cope with the emotional aspects of the disease.

Psychosocial Aspects of Scleroderma.

Patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc; also called scleroderma) have to cope with not only the physical impacts of the disease but also the emotional and social consequences of living with the condition. Because there is no cure for SSc, improving quality of life is a primary focus of treatment and an important clinical challenge. This article summarizes significant problems faced by patients with SSc, including depression, anxiety, fatigue, sleep disruption, pain, pruritus, body image dissatisfaction, and sexual dysfunction, and describes options to help patients cope with the consequences of the disease.

An assessment of the measurement equivalence of English and French versions of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D) Scale in systemic sclerosis.

OBJECTIVES: Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D) Scale scores in English- and French-speaking Canadian systemic sclerosis (SSc) patients are commonly pooled in analyses, but no studies have evaluated the metric equivalence of the English and French CES-D. The study objective was to examine the metric equivalence of the CES-D in English- and French-speaking SSc patients. METHODS: The CES-D was completed by 1007 English-speaking and 248 French-speaking patients from the Canadian Scleroderma Research Group Registry. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to assess the factor structure in both samples. The Multiple-Indicator Multiple-Cause (MIMIC) model was utilized to assess differential item functioning (DIF). RESULTS: A two-factor model (Positive and Negative affect) showed excellent fit in both samples. Statistically significant, but small-magnitude, DIF was found for 3 of 20 CES-D items, including items 3 (Blues), 10 (Fearful), and 11 (Sleep). Prior to accounting for DIF, French-speaking patients had 0.08 of a standard deviation (SD) lower latent scores for the Positive factor (95% confidence interval [CI]-0.25 to 0.08) and 0.09 SD higher scores (95% CI-0.07 to 0.24) for the Negative factor than English-speaking patients. After DIF correction, there was no change on the Positive factor and a non-significant increase of 0.04 SD on the Negative factor for French-speaking patients (difference = 0.13 SD, 95% CI-0.03 to 0.28). CONCLUSIONS: The English and French versions of the CES-D, despite minor DIF on several items, are substantively equivalent and can be used in studies that combine data from English- and French-speaking Canadian SSc patients.

Depression screening and patient outcomes in pregnancy or postpartum: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical practice guidelines disagree on whether health care professionals should screen women for depression during pregnancy or postpartum. The objective of this systematic review was to determine whether depression screening improves depression outcomes among women during pregnancy or the postpartum period. METHODS: Searches included the CINAHL, EMBASE, ISI, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO databases through April 1, 2013; manual journal searches; reference list reviews; citation tracking of included articles; and trial registry reviews. RCTs in any language that compared depression outcomes between women during pregnancy or postpartum randomized to undergo depression screening versus women not screened were eligible. RESULTS: There were 9,242 unique titles/abstracts and 15 full-text articles reviewed. Only 1 RCT of screening postpartum was included, but none during pregnancy. The eligible postpartum study evaluated screening in mothers in Hong Kong with 2-month-old babies (N=462) and reported a standardized mean difference for symptoms of depression at 6 months postpartum of 0.34 (95% confidence interval=0.15 to 0.52, P<0.001). Standardized mean difference per 44 additional women treated in the intervention trial arm compared to the non-screening arm was approximately 1.8. Risk of bias was high, however, because the status of outcome measures was changed post-hoc and because the reported effect size per woman treated was 6-7 times the effect sizes reported in comparable depression care interventions. CONCLUSION: There is currently no evidence from any well-designed and conducted RCT that screening for depression would benefit women in pregnancy or postpartum. Existing guidelines that recommend depression screening during pregnancy or postpartum should be re-considered.

The Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network (SPIN) Cohort: protocol for a cohort multiple randomised controlled trial (cmRCT) design to support trials of psychosocial and rehabilitation interventions in a rare disease context.

INTRODUCTION: Psychosocial and rehabilitation interventions are increasingly used to attenuate disability and improve health-related quality of life (HRQL) in chronic diseases, but are typically not available for patients with rare diseases. Conducting rigorous, adequately powered trials of these interventions for patients with rare diseases is difficult. The Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network (SPIN) is an international collaboration of patient organisations, clinicians and researchers. The aim of SPIN is to develop a research infrastructure to test accessible, low-cost self-guided online interventions to reduce disability and improve HRQL for people living with the rare disease systemic sclerosis (SSc or scleroderma). Once tested, effective interventions will be made accessible through patient organisations partnering with SPIN. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: SPIN will employ the cohort multiple randomised controlled trial (cmRCT) design, in which patients consent to participate in a cohort for ongoing data collection. The aim is to recruit 1500-2000 patients from centres across the world within a period of 5 years (2013-2018). Eligible participants are persons ≥18 years of age with a diagnosis of SSc. In addition to baseline medical data, participants will complete patient-reported outcome measures every 3 months. Upon enrolment in the cohort, patients will consent to be contacted in the future to participate in intervention research and to allow their data to be used for comparison purposes for interventions tested with other cohort participants. Once interventions are developed, patients from the cohort will be randomly selected and offered interventions as part of pragmatic RCTs. Outcomes from patients offered interventions will be compared with outcomes from trial-eligible patients who are not offered the interventions. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The use of the cmRCT design, the development of self-guided online interventions and partnerships with patient organisations will allow SPIN to develop, rigourously test and effectively disseminate psychosocial and rehabilitation interventions for people with SSc.

Effects of screening for psychological distress on patient outcomes in cancer: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Several practice guidelines recommend routine screening for psychological distress in cancer care. The objective was to evaluate the effect of screening cancer patients for psychological distress by assessing the (1) effectiveness of interventions to reduce distress among patients identified as distressed; and (2) effects of screening for distress on distress outcomes. METHODS: CINAHL, Cochrane, EMBASE, ISI, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and SCOPUS databases were searched through April 6, 2011 with manual searches of 45 relevant journals, reference list review, citation tracking of included articles, and trial registry reviews through June 30, 2012. Articles in any language on cancer patients were included if they (1) compared treatment for patients with psychological distress to placebo or usual care in a randomized controlled trial (RCT); or (2) assessed the effect of screening on psychological distress in a RCT. RESULTS: There were 14 eligible RCTs for treatment of distress, and 1 RCT on the effects of screening on patient distress. Pharmacological, psychotherapy and collaborative care interventions generally reduced distress with small to moderate effects. One study investigated effects of screening for distress on psychological outcomes, and it found no improvement. CONCLUSION: Treatment studies reported modest improvement in distress symptoms, but only a single eligible study was found on the effects of screening cancer patients for distress, and distress did not improve in screened patients versus those receiving usual care. Because of the lack of evidence of beneficial effects of screening cancer patients for distress, it is premature to recommend or mandate implementation of routine screening.

Does evidence support the American Heart Association's recommendation to screen patients for depression in cardiovascular care? An updated systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically review evidence on depression screening in coronary heart disease (CHD) by assessing the (1) accuracy of screening tools; (2) effectiveness of treatment; and (3) effect of screening on depression outcomes. BACKGROUND: A 2008 American Heart Association (AHA) Science Advisory recommended routine depression screening in CHD. METHODS: CINAHL, Cochrane, EMBASE, ISI, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and SCOPUS databases searched through December 2, 2011; manual journal searches; reference lists; citation tracking; trial registries. Included articles (1) compared a depression screening instrument to a depression diagnosis; (2) compared depression treatment to placebo or usual care in a randomized controlled trial (RCT); or (3) assessed the effect of screening on depression outcomes in a RCT. RESULTS: There were few examples of screening tools with good sensitivity and specificity using a priori-defined cutoffs in more than one patient sample among 15 screening accuracy studies. Depression treatment with antidepressants or psychotherapy generated modest symptom reductions among post-myocardial infarction (post-MI) and stable CHD patients (N = 6; effect size = 0.20-0.38), but antidepressants did not improve symptoms more than placebo in 2 heart failure (HF) trials. Depression treatment did not improve cardiac outcomes. No RCTs investigated the effects of screening on depression outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence that treatment of depression results in modest improvement in depressive symptoms in post-MI and stable CHD patients, although not in HF patients. There is still no evidence that routine screening for depression improves depression or cardiac outcomes. The AHA Science Advisory on depression screening should be revised to reflect this lack of evidence.

The influence of somatic symptoms on Beck Depression Inventory scores in hospitalized postmyocardial infarction patients.

OBJECTIVE: The Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) has been used more than any other self-report questionnaire in research on depression in cardiovascular disease. However, no studies have examined whether BDI scores may be influenced by somatic symptoms common after myocardial infarction (MI) that may overlap with symptoms of depression. The objective of this study was to examine whether BDI scores of post-MI patients may be influenced by somatic symptoms that commonly occur after MI, but may not be related to depression. METHOD: Post-MI patients and psychiatric outpatients were matched on BDI cognitive-affective symptom scores, sex, and age, and their BDI somatic symptom scores were compared using independent samples t tests. RESULTS: Somatic symptoms accounted for 57% of BDI total scores for 296 post-MI patients (mean total BDI = 8.8), compared with 50% for 296 matched psychiatric outpatients (mean total BDI = 7.6). Overall, BDI somatic scores of post-MI patients were 1.3 points higher than for psychiatric outpatients (95% CI 0.68 to 1.82; P < 0.001), equivalent to 14% of total scores of post-MI patients. CONCLUSIONS: The relative influence of somatic symptoms on BDI total scores was higher for post-MI patients than for psychiatric outpatients matched on cognitive-affective scores, sex, and age. This finding stands in contrast to that from a previous study that used similar methods and sample comparisons and found that post-MI and psychiatric outpatients did not differ in their endorsement of somatic symptoms on the BDI-II. The BDI-II may be preferable to the BDI in post-MI patients.

Symptom reporting on the Beck Depression Inventory among post-myocardial infarction patients: in-hospital versus follow-up assessments.

OBJECTIVE: Depressive symptoms following myocardial infarction (MI) are often assessed using self-report questionnaires, such as the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI). No studies have examined whether depressive symptom scores assessed by self-report questionnaires during hospitalization post-MI are influenced by factors related to the acute event or hospitalization compared to subsequent outpatient assessments of the same patients. The objective of this study was to compare BDI total scores, somatic scores, and cognitive/affective scores among post-MI patients in-hospital versus at post-discharge follow-up. METHODS: Secondary analysis of data from two existing cohorts of post-MI patients (Groningen, The Netherlands and Toronto, Canada). In-hospital BDI scores and follow-up scores were compared using paired samples t-tests. RESULTS: There were 1556 patients from the Groningen sample with BDI data in-hospital and at 3-months post-MI and 229 patients from Toronto with data in-hospital and at 6-months post-MI. BDI total, somatic, and cognitive/affective scores did not differ significantly between in-hospital and follow-up assessments in either sample. Similarly, there were no substantive differences in symptom composition in either sample. Somatic symptoms accounted for 66.3% of total BDI scores in-hospital versus 64.9% at 3-months post-MI for Groningen patients and for 62.1% of total scores in-hospital versus 64.3% at 6-months post-MI for Toronto patients. CONCLUSION: Overall BDI total scores, somatic scores, and cognitive/affective scores did not differ between in-hospital and subsequent outpatient assessments. The timing of when depressive symptoms are assessed post-MI does not appear to influence the overall level of BDI scores or the composition of symptoms that are reported.

Symptoms of heart disease or its treatment may increase Beck Depression Inventory Scores in hospitalized post-myocardial infarction patients.

OBJECTIVE: The Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) is one of the most commonly used self-report depression symptom questionnaires in medical settings. The revised BDI-II was developed in 1996, partially due to concerns about the influence of somatic symptoms from medical illness on BDI scores. The BDI, however, continues to be frequently used in medical settings. The objective of this study was to examine the degree to which somatic symptom items influence BDI scores among hospitalized post-myocardial infarction (MI) patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) compared to psychiatry outpatients with MDD matched on cognitive/affective scores, sex, and age. METHODS: Somatic scores of post-MI patients with MDD and matched psychiatry outpatients with MDD were compared using independent samples t-tests. RESULTS: A total of 579 post-MI patients with MDD (mean age=54.4 years, SD=9.9) and 579 psychiatry outpatients with MDD (mean age=51.2 years, SD=9.7) were matched on cognitive/affective scores, sex, and age. Somatic symptoms accounted for 47% of BDI total scores among post-MI patients (mean total=22.6, SD=8.8) versus 37% among psychiatry outpatients (mean total=19.2, SD=9.7). Somatic scores of post-MI patients were 3.4 points higher than for matched psychiatry outpatients (95% confidence interval 3.0 to 3.9; p<.001), a difference that is equivalent to 15% of total post-MI patient scores. CONCLUSION: BDI scores of hospitalized post-MI patients with MDD may, in part, reflect symptoms of the acute medical condition or its treatment, rather than depression. The BDI-II was designed to reduce the influence of somatic symptoms on total scores and may be preferable to the 'BDI among heart disease patients.

Revisiting gender differences in somatic symptoms of depression: much ado about nothing?

BACKGROUND: Women have a higher prevalence of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and report more severe depressive symptoms than men. Several studies have suggested that gender differences in depression may occur because women report higher levels of somatic symptoms than men. Those studies, however, have not controlled or matched for non-somatic symptoms. The objective of this study was to examine if women report relatively more somatic symptoms than men matched on cognitive/affective symptoms. METHODS: Male and female patients receiving treatment for MDD in outpatient psychiatric clinics in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, USA were matched on Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) cognitive/affective symptom scores. Male and female BDI-II somatic symptom scores were compared using independent samples 2-tailed t-tests. RESULTS: Of 472 male and 1,026 female patients, there were 470 male patients (mean age = 40.1 years, SD = 15.1) and 470 female patients (mean age = 43.1 years, SD = 17.2) successfully matched on BDI-II cognitive/affective symptom scores. Somatic symptoms accounted for 35% of total BDI-II scores for male patients versus 38% for matched female patients. Female patients had somatic symptom scores on average 1.3 points higher than males (p<.001), equivalent to 4% of the total BDI-II scores of female patients. Only 5% of male patients and 7% of female patients scored 2 or higher on all BDI-II somatic symptom items. CONCLUSIONS: Gender differences in somatic scores were very small. Thus, differences in the experience and reporting of somatic symptoms would not likely explain gender differences in depression rates and symptom severity.