Dataset Information

Psychometric Properties of the Short-Form Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-SF) and Its Associated Factors among the Elderly in Bangladesh.

ABSTRACT:

Background

This study aimed to (1) evaluate the psychometric properties of a Comprehensive Short-Form Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-SF) and (2) examine the associated factors of GDS-SF among the elderly.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted from November 2019 to April 2020 in Dhaka City Corporation, Bangladesh. Data of 377 elderly were collected, including socio-demographic characteristics, social supports, comorbidities, sleep behaviours, and depression (as measured by the GDS-SF). We used the principal component analysis, correlation analysis, and logistic regression analysis to validate GDS-SF, and explore its associations.

Results

The GDS-SF was reliable and homogeneous with Cronbach's alpha = 0.836, and McDonald's Omega = 0.841, with no floor/ceiling effects. The questionnaire demonstrated a good construct validity with item-scale convergent validity and KMO measure of sampling adequacy (0.869 for the total sample, 0.838 for the community subsample, and 0.851 for the slum subsample). In the multivariate model, older people had a higher likelihood of moderate and severe depression (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.00, 1.12; p = 0.048). The likelihood of having moderate and severe depression was lower in men (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.28, 0.85; p = 0.011) and those satisfied with their children's support (OR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.08, 0.35; p < 0.001), compared with their counterparts, respectively.

Conclusions

The GDS-SF is a reliable and valid survey tool for evaluating depression in Bangladeshi older adults. Age, gender, and satisfaction with children's support were predictors of depression.

SUBMITTER: Sultana N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9266010 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) is a widely used instrument to assess depression in older adults. The short GDS versions that have four (GDS-4) and five items (GDS-5) represent alternatives for depression screening in limited-resource settings. However, their accuracy remains uncertain.ObjectiveTo assess the accuracy of the GDS-4 and GDS-5 versions for depression screening in older adults.MethodsUntil May 2020, we systematically searched PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Google Scholar; for studies that have assessed the sensitivity and specificity of GDS-4 and GDS-5 for depression screening in older adults. We conducted meta-analyses of the sensitivity and specificity of those studies that used the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or the International Classification of Diseases-10 (ICD-10) as reference standard. Study quality was assessed with the QUADAS-2 tool. We performed bivariate random-effects meta-analyses to calculate the pooled sensitivity and specificity with their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) at each reported common cut-off. For the overall meta-analyses, we evaluated each GDS-4 version or GDS-5 version separately by each cut-off, and for investigations of heterogeneity, we assessed altogether across similar GDS versions by each cut-off. Also, we assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE methodology.ResultsTwenty-three studies were included and meta-analyzed, assessing eleven different GDS versions. The number of participants included was 5048. When including all versions together, at a cut-off 2, GDS-4 had a pooled sensitivity of 0.77 (95% CI: 0.70-0.82) and a pooled specificity of 0.75 (0.68-0.81); while GDS-5 had a pooled sensitivity of 0.85 (0.80-0.90) and a pooled specificity of 0.75 (0.69-0.81). We found results for more than one GDS-4 version at cut-off points 1, 2, and 3; and for more than one GDS-5 version at cut-off points 1, 2, 3, and 4. Mostly, significant subgroup differences at different test thresholds across versions were found. The accuracy of the different GDS-4 and GDS-5 versions showed a high heterogeneity. There was high risk of bias in the index test domain. Also, the certainty of the evidence was low or very low for most of the GDS versions.ConclusionsWe found several GDS-4 and GDS-5 versions that showed great heterogeneity in estimates of sensitivity and specificity, mostly with a low or very low certainty of the evidence. Altogether, our results indicate the need for more well-designed studies that compare different GDS versions.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Patient-centered care and evidence-based practice (EBP) are core competencies for health care professionals. The importance of EBP has led to an increase in research involving clinical outcomes; current recommendations emphasize collecting patient focused measures, thus increasing the need for psychometrically sound patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) of health. Disablement has been identified as a valuable multi-dimensional construct for patient care. The Disablement in the Physically Active Scale Short Form-8 (DPA SF-8) has been proposed as a tool to be used in the physically active population that assesses a physical summary component of health and a quality of life component however, further analysis is necessary to ensure the instrument is psychometrically sound. METHODS:Confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) were conducted on the DPA SF-8 at each time point to ensure factor structure. Reliability of the scale and internal consistency of the subscales were assessed, and a minimal detectable change (MDC) calculated. Additionally, a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was also established, and invariance testing across three time points and groups was conducted. RESULTS:The CFAs at all three visits exceeded recommended model fit indices. The interclass correlation coefficient value (.924) calculated indicated excellent scale reliability and Cronbach's alpha for subscales PHY and QOL were within recommend values. The MDC value calculated was 5.83 and the MCID for persistent injuries were 2 points and for acute injuries, 3 points. The DPA SF-8 was invariant across time and across subgroups. CONCLUSIONS:The DPA SF-8 met CFA recommendations and criteria for multi-group and longitudinal invariance testing, which indicates the scale may be used to assess for differences between the groups or across time. Our overall analysis indicates the DPA SF-8 is a valid, reliable, and responsive instrument to assess patient improvement in the physically active population.

Project description:IntroductionThe 30-item Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-30) and the shorter GDS-15, GDS-5 and GDS-4 are recommended as depression screening tools for elderly individuals. Existing meta-analyses on the diagnostic accuracy of the GDS have not been able to conduct subgroup analyses, have included patients already identified as depressed who would not be screened in practice and have not accounted for possible bias due to selective reporting of results from only better-performing cut-offs in primary studies. Individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA), which involves a standard systematic review, then a synthesis of individual participant data, rather than summary results, could address these limitations. The objective of our IPDMA is to generate accuracy estimates to detect major depression for all possible cut-offs of each version of the GDS among studies using different reference standards, separately and among participant subgroups based on age, sex, dementia diagnosis and care settings. In addition, we will use a modelling approach to generate individual participant probabilities for major depression based on GDS scores (rather than a dichotomous cut-off) and participant characteristics (eg, sex, age, dementia status, care setting).Methods and analysisIndividual participant data comparing GDS scores to a major depression diagnosis based on a validated structured or semistructured diagnostic interview will be sought via a systematic review. Data sources will include Medline, Medline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO and Web of Science. Bivariate random-effects models will be used to estimate diagnostic accuracy parameters for each cut-off of the different versions of the GDS. Prespecified subgroup analyses will be conducted. Risk of bias will be assessed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool.Ethics and disseminationThe findings of this study will be of interest to stakeholders involved in research, clinical practice and policy.Prospero registration numberCRD42018104329.