Assessment of health-related quality of life in individuals with depressive symptoms: validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D-3L and the SF-6D.

BACKGROUND: The EQ-5D and the SF-6D are examples of commonly used generic preference-based instruments for assessing health-related quality of life (HRQoL). However, their suitability for mental disorders has been repeatedly questioned. OBJECTIVE: To assess the responsiveness and convergent validity of the EQ-5D-3L and SF-6D in patients with depressive symptoms. METHODS: The data analyzed were from cardiac patients with depressive symptoms and were collected as part of the SPIRR-CAD (Stepwise Psychotherapy Intervention for Reducing Risk in Coronary Artery Disease) trial. The EQ-5D-3L and SF-6D were compared with the HADS (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) and PHQ-9 (Patient Health Questionnaire) as disease-specific instruments. Convergent validity was assessed using Spearman's rank correlation. Effect sizes were calculated and ROC analysis was performed to determine responsiveness. RESULTS: Data from 566 patients were analysed. The SF-6D correlated considerably better with the disease-specific instruments (|rs|= 0.63-0.68) than the EQ-5D-3L (|rs|= 0.51-0.56). The internal responsiveness of the SF-6D was in the upper range of a small effect (ES: - 0.44 and - 0.47), while no effect could be determined for the EQ-5D-3L. Neither the SF-6D nor the EQ-5D-3L showed acceptable external responsiveness for classifying patients' depressive symptoms as improved or not improved. The ability to detect patients whose condition has deteriorated was only acceptable for the EQ-5D-3L. CONCLUSION: Overall, both the convergent validity and responsiveness of the SF-6D are better than those of the EQ-5D-3L in patients with depressive symptoms. The SF-6D appears, therefore, more recommendable for use in studies to evaluate interventions for this population.

Do task and item difficulty affect overestimation of one's hand hygiene compliance? A cross-sectional survey of physicians and nurses in surgical clinics of six hospitals in Germany.

BACKGROUND: One barrier to hand hygiene compliance is overestimation of one's own performance. Overconfidence research shows that overestimation tends to be higher for difficult tasks, which suggests that the magnitude of overestimation also depends on how it is assessed. Thus, we tested the hypothesis that overestimation was stronger for hand hygiene indications with low compliance (i.e., high difficulty), and the hypothesis that self-reported overall compliance based on a single item is higher than based on "5 Moments of Hand Hygiene" (WHO-5) items, since the single item implies an aggregation across indications. METHODS: In the WACH trial (German Clinical Trials Register [DRKS] ID: DRKS00015502), a questionnaire survey was conducted among physicians and nurses in nine surgical clinics (general/visceral surgery or orthopedics/trauma surgery) of six German hospitals. Self-reported compliance was assessed both by a single item and the WHO-5-items using percentage scales. These were compared with each other and with direct observations. Relative frequencies of the WHO-5 indications used to calculate the WHO-5-based self-reported overall compliance rate were estimated by a systematized review of the literature (see appendix). In analysis, t-tests, Chi2-tests and multiple linear regressions were used. RESULTS: Ninety-three physicians (response rate: 28.4%) and 225 nurses (30.4%) participated. Significant compliance differences between physicians and nurses were found for direct observations and were in favor of nurses, while no such differences were found for self-reports. Across the WHO-5, overestimation showed inverse correlations with observed compliance (physicians: r = -0.88, p = 0.049; nurses: r = -0.81, p = 0.093). Support for the hypothesis that the self-reported overall compliance based on one item is higher than that based on WHO-5 items was found for physicians (M = 87.2 vs. 84.1%, p = 0.041; nurses: 84.4 vs. 85.5%, p = 0.296). Exploratory analyses showed that this effect was confined to orthopedic/trauma surgeons (89.9 vs. 81.7%, p = 0.006). CONCLUSION: Among physicians, results indicate stronger hand hygiene overestimation for low-compliance indications, and when measurements are based on a single item versus the five WHO-5 items. For practice, results contribute to infection prevention and control's understanding of overestimation as a psychological mechanism that is relevant to professional hand hygiene.

Study protocol: a non-randomised community trial to evaluate the effectiveness of the communities that care prevention system in Germany.

BACKGROUND: The Communities That Care (CTC) prevention planning and implementation system trains communities throughout a five-phase cycle to (1) build capacity for prevention, (2) adopt science-based prevention, (3) assess the prevention needs of adolescents living in the community, (4) select, and (5) implement evidence-based programs according to their needs. After CTC proved to be effective and cost-effective in the U.S., it is being used by an increasing number of communities in Germany. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of CTC in Germany. METHODS: Communities in CTC-phases 1 to 3 (n = 21) and individually-matched comparison communities (n = 21) were recruited for a non-randomised trial. To assess long-term outcomes, (1) a cohort of 5th Grade students will be surveyed biennially concerning behaviours (antisocial behaviour and substance use) and well-being as well as risk and protective factors. Additionally, (2) biennial cross-sectional surveys will be conducted in 6th, 8th, 10th, and 11th Grade in each community. To assess short-term outcomes, a cohort of ten key informants per community will be surveyed biennially concerning adoption of science-based prevention, collaboration, community support and community norms. (4) In a cross-sectional design, all ongoing prevention programs and activities in the communities will be assessed biennially and data will be collected about costs, implementation and other characteristics of the programs and activities. (5) To monitor the CTC implementation, the members of the local CTC-boards will be surveyed annually (cross-sectional design) about team functioning and coalition capacity. Data analysis will include general and generalised mixed models to assess the average treatment effect of CTC. Mediation analyses will be performed to test the logical model, e.g., adoption of science-based prevention as a mediator for the effectiveness of the CTC approach. DISCUSSION: This is the first controlled study to evaluate the effectiveness of a comprehensive community prevention approach in Germany. Evaluating the effectiveness of CTC in Germany is an important prerequisite for further diffusion of the CTC approach. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered with German Clinical Trial Register: DRKS00022819 on Aug 18, 2021.

Evidence and recommendations for the use of segmental motion testing for patients with LBP - A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of low back pain (LBP) includes segmental motion tests. Although often used in clinical practice, the validity, inter- and intra-rater reliability of such tests in individuals with LBP are not universally accepted, making it difficult to interpret findings in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this study were to determine the validity and reliability of segmental motion tests for patients with LBP and to give reasoned recommendations for their use in practice. DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: A systematic literature research was conducted of databases PubMed, LIVIVO and Cochrane library. The included studies were appraised for quality by using QUADAS-2 and an adapted version of QAREL tools. Results of studies were appraised to give reasoned recommendations taking quality criteria into account. RESULTS: Thirteen studies were included covering passive accessory intervertebral motion testing (PAIVMs), passive physiological intervertebral motion testing (PPIVMs) and the prone instability test (PIT). The risk of bias of studies ranged from high to low. When used in isolation, specificity of PAIVMS and PPIVMs was generally high and sensitivity poor. Reliability was overwhelming poor for both. Reliability of the PIT was inconsistent. None of these assessments can be strongly recommended when used in isolation. CONCLUSION: The evidence regarding validity and reliability of segmental motion testing is poor and clinical use of stand-alone tests cannot be recommended. Superiority of the combination of tests as a test battery or with other clinical information needs further investigation.