Prevalence of anxiety and depression in people with different types of cancer or haematologic malignancies: a cross-sectional study.

AIMS: Cancer patients often present with psychological symptoms that affect their quality of life, physical health outcomes and survival. Two of the most frequent psychiatric comorbidities are anxiety and depression. However, the prevalence of these disorders among cancer patients remains unclear, as studies frequently report varying rates. In the present study, we aimed to provide robust point estimates for the prevalence of anxiety and depression for both a mixed cancer sample and for 13 cancer types separately, considering confounding variables. METHODS: In a sample of 7509 cancer outpatients (51.4% female), we used the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale to assess rates of anxiety and depression. Applying ordinal logistic regression models, we compared the prevalence of anxiety and depression between different cancer types, controlling for age and gender. RESULTS: About one third of our sample showed symptoms of anxiety (35.2%) or depression (27.9%), and every sixth patient had a very likely psychiatric condition, with women being more frequently affected. Elderly patients more often showed signs of depression. The prevalence of anxiety and depression was significantly higher in lung and brain cancer patients, than in other cancer patients. Lowest depression rates were found in breast cancer patients. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of anxiety and depression is high in cancer patients. Type of cancer is an important predictor for anxiety and depressive symptoms, with lung and brain cancer patients being highly burdened. Considering a personalised medicine approach, physicians should take into account the high prevalence of psychiatric comorbidities and include psychiatric consultations in the treatment plan.

CAPs-IDD: Characteristics of Assessment Instruments for Psychiatric Disorders in Persons with Intellectual Developmental Disorders.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of psychiatric disorders in persons with an intellectual developmental disorder (IDD) can be performed with a variety of greatly differing instruments. This makes the choice of an instrument best suited for the intended purpose challenging. In this study, we developed a comprehensive set of characteristics for the evaluation and description of assessment instruments for psychiatric disorders in adult persons with IDD. This simplifies the search for an instrument as it makes an easy and direct comparison possible and hereby allows a more thorough and appropriate decision making when selecting assessment tools. METHOD: A mixed-methods approach was used. First, a systematic literature search was conducted to identify existing tools for the description and evaluation of assessment instruments. Second, the content of these tools was combined and missing features and IDD-specific attributes were added. Finally, expert consultations were performed. RESULTS: The Characteristics of Assessment Instruments for Psychiatric Disorders in Persons with Intellectual Developmental Disorders (CAPs-IDD) lists characteristics to evaluate and describe instruments for psychiatric disorders in persons with IDD. It comprises two sections: first, the conceptual and measurement model; second, the psychometric properties. Each section consists of various subsections and a detailed response format for coding instruments. CONCLUSIONS: The use of the CAPs-IDD helps to identify and choose instruments that best suit the respective purpose. Filled with information, it could be made accessible via new technologies to researchers and practitioners and be updated when new information is available. Thus, it contributes to a more reliable and valid assessment of possible psychiatric disorders in persons with IDD.

The P15 - a multinational assessment battery for collecting data on health indicators relevant to adults with intellectual disabilities.

BACKGROUND: Health disparities between adults with intellectual disabilities (ID) and the general population have been well documented but, to date, no dedicated assessment battery for measuring health disparity has been available. This paper reports on the development and testing of a multinational assessment battery for collecting data on a range of health indicators relevant to adults with ID. METHODS: An assessment battery (the P15) was developed following piloting, and administered to samples of adults with ID, in 14 EU countries. Samples were neither random, nor representative of the countries from which they were drawn. However, within the local health administration areas selected in each country, efforts were made to ensure samples were broadly representative of the typical living circumstances, ages and ability levels of the administrative population of adults with ID. The total sample comprised 1269 adults with ID, of whom 49% were female. The mean age was 41 years (range 19 to 90). RESULTS: Overall, feasibility, internal consistency and face validity of the P15 was acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: With some refinement the P15 could be useful for collecting data on health indicators known to be particularly important for adults with ID. It is useable in a range of countries and has the potential to highlight health inequity for adults with ID at a national or local level. Larger scale epidemiological studies are needed to exploit the potential of the P15 to address health inequity in this group.