Dataset Information

Development of a Brief Caregiver-centric Screening Tool to Identify Risk of Depression among Caregivers of Hospitalized Older Adults.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:Caregivers of hospitalized older adults experience elevated levels of stress and are at risk of poor health outcomes. There is a lack of screening tools based on self-reported caregiver variables incorporating both protective and risk factors, for early identification of at-risk caregivers. This study reports the development of a caregiver-centric screening tool to identify risk of depression at admission and predicts 3-month risk of depression and quality of life amongst caregivers of older adults with an unplanned admission. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS:This prospective cohort study was conducted in the medical wards of a tertiary-care hospital from July 2015 to May 2017. We recruited family caregivers of patients aged 65 years and above who fulfilled the following criteria: a) unplanned admission, b) not residing in nursing homes; and c) requiring assistance in activities of daily living. MEASUREMENTS:We examined 11 candidate caregiver variables (mastery, burden and nine demographic variables). Risk of depression (score ≥8 on Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS-D) depression subscale) was the primary outcome, and was assessed during the index admission. Logistic regression models were used to identify risk factors and risk scores (weights). The total risk scores were then stratified into three risk levels. Predictive validity of the screening tool was assessed using 3-months post-discharge risk of depression and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). RESULTS:The study included 274 caregiver-patient dyads. The mean (SD) age of the caregivers was 59 (10) years with 33.6% caregivers screening positive for risk of depression. The final model comprised three caregiver variables: mastery, burden and education. The total risk scores ranged from 0 to 6 and showed good discrimination (AUC:0.82, 95% CI: 0.77 to 0.87). Caregivers were classified into low-risk (0-1 points), intermediate-risk (2-4 points), and high-risk (5-6 points) groups, with corresponding rates of risk of depression (HADS-D≥8) of 10.7%, 44.6% and 73.3%, during admission. Relative risk rates of the intermediate- and high- risk group using the low-risk group as reference were 4.16 and 6.84 respectively. At 3-months post-discharge, the rates of caregivers at risk of depression or having poor HRQoL also increased corresponding to the three risk levels as per baseline, supporting the predictive validity of the tool. CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS:The caregiver-centric tool is a novel, practical, self-administered, relatively brief caregiver-centric instrument that can be used for rapid screening and stratification of caregivers at risk of depression. Uniquely, the tool comprised of assessment of protective factor (mastery) in addition to risk factors to provide a holistic assessment of the caregiver. It can be incorporated as part of older adults' admission evaluation so that prompt intervention can be rendered to their at-risk caregivers.

SUBMITTER: Chan EY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6586909 | biostudies-other | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Development of a Brief Caregiver-centric Screening Tool to Identify Risk of Depression among Caregivers of Hospitalized Older Adults.

Chan E-Y EY Lim Z-X ZX Ding Y Y YY Chan Y H YH Lim W S WS

The journal of nutrition, health & aging 20190101 6

<h4>Objectives</h4>Caregivers of hospitalized older adults experience elevated levels of stress and are at risk of poor health outcomes. There is a lack of screening tools based on self-reported caregiver variables incorporating both protective and risk factors, for early identification of at-risk caregivers. This study reports the development of a caregiver-centric screening tool to identify risk of depression at admission and predicts 3-month risk of depression and quality of life amongst care ...[more]

PMID: 31233081

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThere is an urgent need to develop evidence-based assessments to identify older individuals who may be unsafe drivers.ObjectiveTo validate 8 off-road brief screening tests to predict on-road driving ability and to identify which combination of these provides the best prediction of older adults who will not pass an on-road driving test.Design, setting, and participantsThis prognostic study was conducted between October 31, 2013, and May 10, 2017, using the criterion standard for screening tests, an on-road driving test, with analysis conducted from August 1, 2019, to April 2, 2020. A volunteer sample of older drivers was recruited from community advertisements, rehabilitation and driver assessment clinics, and an optometry clinic in Canberra and Brisbane, Australia.ExposuresOff-road driver screening measures, including the Useful Field of View, DriveSafe/DriveAware, Multi-D battery, Trails B, Maze test, Hazard Perception Test, DriveSafe Intersection test, and 14-item Road Law test.Main outcomes and measuresClassification as unsafe on a standardized 50-minute on-road driving assessment administered by a driving instructor and an occupational therapist masked to the participant's clinical diagnosis and off-road test performance.ResultsA total of 560 drivers aged 63 to 94 years (mean [SD] age, 74.7 [6.2] years]; 350 [62.5%] men) were assessed. Logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic analyses indicated the area under the curve was largest for a multivariate model comprising the Multi-D, Useful Field of View, and Hazard Perception Test, with an area under the curve of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.85-0.94), sensitivity of 80.4%, and specificity of 84.1% for predicting unsafe drivers. The Multi-D battery was the most accurate individual assessment and had an area under the curve of 0.85 (95% CI, 0.79-0.90), sensitivity of 77.1%, and specificity of 82.1%. The multivariate model had sensitivity of 83.3% and specificity of 91.8% in the cognitively impaired group and sensitivity of 87.5% and specificity of 70.8% in the visually impaired group.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that off-road screening tests can reliably identify older drivers with a strong probability of failing an on-road driving test. Implementation of these measures could enable better targeting of resources for managing older driver licensing and support injury prevention strategies in this group.

Project description:Study objectivesWe evaluated the performance of the Insomnia Severity Index-3 (ISI-3) as a short screening tool to identify clinically significant insomnia derived from the 7-item ISI in an older primary care population.MethodsWe used results from two surveys including the 7-item ISI: Sample 1 (n = 3197) and Sample 2 (n = 247) individuals aged ≥60 years with a diagnosis of osteoarthritis from electronic health records. The 7 items were: difficulty falling asleep, difficulty staying asleep, waking too early, sleep satisfaction, sleep interference with daytime functioning, noticeability of sleep problems by others, and worry about sleep. The ISI-3 included items with highest item-total correlations to the 7-item ISI from Sample 1. A 7-item ISI score ≥15 was defined as clinically significant insomnia and served as the primary criterion for the ISI-3. We derived operating characteristics to determine the diagnostic accuracy and cut-points to maximize sensitivity and specificity for both samples.ResultsThe items with the highest item-total correlations were: sleep dissatisfaction, sleep interference with daily functioning, and worry about sleep problems (r = 0.78-0.81); while difficulty falling asleep, difficulty staying asleep, waking too early and noticeability of sleep problems by others showed lower correlations (r = 0.60-0.74). The ISI-3 achieved high discriminant validity in identifying insomnia (AUC = 0.97-0.98). An ISI-3 score of ≥7 maximized sensitivity (0.94-0.97) and specificity (0.88-0.91) with kappa = 0.68-0.71, 89.1-91.5% agreement.ConclusionsThe ISI-3 can effectively screen for insomnia to trigger a more thorough diagnostic evaluation including the 7-item ISI for research or clinical purposes. Future validation studies are needed in other community and clinical populations.Clinical trialThis manuscript describes secondary analyses of data two National Institutes on Aging-funded clinical trials (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01142349, NCT02946957).

Project description:ObjectiveRecent epilepsy quality measure recommendations for depression and anxiety screening endorse ultra-brief screeners, the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder-2 (GAD-2). Thus, it is important to assess how symptom detection may be affected using ultra-brief screeners compared with slightly longer, well-validated instruments: Neurological Disorders Depression Inventory-Epilepsy (NDDI-E) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7). The objective was to compare symptom detection by brief versus ultra-brief depression and anxiety screeners in a large real-world epilepsy clinic sample.MethodsThis was a prospective, cross-sectional assessment of consecutive patients in an adult tertiary epilepsy practice who completed the GAD-7 and NDDI-E with embedded ultra-brief scales (GAD-2; GAD-Single Item: GAD-SI; NDDI-E 2 item: NDDIE-2) on a tablet and had clinic staff administered ultra-brief PHQ-2 (yes/no version) documented in the medical record at the same visit. Prevalences of positive anxiety and depression screens were calculated for each instrument overall, and by epilepsy status. Concordance correlation coefficients (CCC) were calculated comparing the ultra-brief with brief anxiety and depression instruments, and receiver operating curves (ROC) were calculated using the longer instruments as alternative standards.ResultsAmong N = 422 individuals the prevalence of positive anxiety screen by GAD-7 was 24% and positive depression screen by NDDI-E was 20%. Positive anxiety and depression screens were significantly less prevalent among seizure-free individuals than those with continued seizures. The verbally administered yes/no PHQ-2 had only 1 positive screen (0.2%). Other than poor concordance between the PHQ-2 and NDDI-E, the screener pairs had acceptable concordance (CCC 0.79 to 0.92). Areas under the ROC curves were acceptable for the NDDIE-2, GAD-2 and GAD-SI (0.96, 0.98, and 0.89, respectively).SignificanceIn this sample, clinic staff interview-administered yes/no PHQ-2 had exceedingly low sensitivity compared with the NDDI-E self-reported on a tablet. Further investigation is warranted to assess if poor detection is due to characteristics of this PHQ-2 in epilepsy samples, or method of administration in this clinic. The other ultra-brief anxiety and depression instruments demonstrated good concordance with the longer, well-validated instruments and may be useful in clinical practice.

Dataset Information

Development of a Brief Caregiver-centric Screening Tool to Identify Risk of Depression among Caregivers of Hospitalized Older Adults.

Publications

Development of a Brief Caregiver-centric Screening Tool to Identify Risk of Depression among Caregivers of Hospitalized Older Adults.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets