View
830
Download
2
Category
Tags:
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Workshop from day 2 at the IX Congresso Portugues de Psico-Oncologia in Porto (Oporto) Portugal 21-Oct-2010.
Citation preview
Alex Mitchell www.psycho-oncology.info/workshop
Department of Cancer & Molecular Medicine, Leicester Royal Infirmary
Department of Liaison Psychiatry, Leicester General Hospital
IPOS 2010IPOS 2010
WORKSHOP Day 2
Implementation of Screening:Screening studies, Short methods, HADS and longer methods, implementation, future of screening
WORKSHOP Day 2
Implementation of Screening:Screening studies, Short methods, HADS and longer methods, implementation, future of screening
Schedule Day 2Schedule Day 2
930-10.00 – Introduction to research task 1. design 2. evaluation
10.00-11.00 – T3 Screening in Cancer: Instruments & Validity
Break
11.30 – 12.30 – Group work #2
Lunch
1.30-2.30 – T4 Screening in Cancer: Implementation and future
Break
3.00 – 4.00 – Presentation of Research task
Group Work #2Group Work #2
930-10.00 – Introduction, groups and issues
10.00-11.00 – T1 Basic science of screening
Break
11.30 – 12.30 – Group task #1
Lunch
1.30-2.30 – T2 Symptoms, Burden, Help, Needs in Cancer
Break
3.00 – 4.00 – Evaluation of a screening paper
Group Work #2Group Work #2
Read paper in your group……..
1.What is being tested?
2.What is the comparison?
3.Is the tool effective?
4.Is the tool acceptable?
5.Did the tool make a difference?
T1. Are We Looking for Distress?T1. Are We Looking for Distress?
How Often
What method?
n=226Comment: Frequency of cancer specialists enquiry about depression/distress from Mitchell et al (2008)
1,2 or 3 Simple QQ15%
Clinical Skills Alone73%
ICD10/DSMIV0%
Short QQ3%
Other/Uncertain9% Other/Uncertain
2%
Use a QQ15%
ICD10/DSMIV13%
Clinical Skills Alone55%
1,2 or 3 Simple QQ15%
Cancer StaffCurrent Method (n=226)
Psychiatrists
Comment: Current preferred method of eliciting symptoms of distress/depression
1,2 or 3 Simple QQ24%
Clinical Skills Alone20%
ICD10/DSMIV24%
Short QQ24%
Long QQ8%
Algorithm26%
Short QQ23%
ICD10/DSMIV0%
Clinical Skills Alone17%
1,2 or 3 Simple QQ34%
Cancer StaffIdeal Method (n=226)
Psychiatrists
Effective?
Comment: “Ideal” method of eliciting symptoms of distress/depression according to clinician
T2. Are We finding it?T2. Are We finding it?
How successful are we (routinely)?
Comment: Slide illustrates diagnostic accuracy according to score on DT
11.815.4
30.4 28.9
41.9 42.9 40.7
57.1
82.4
66.771.4
15.8
25.0
26.124.4
19.4 19.0
33.3
21.4
11.8
22.2 14.3
72.4
59.6
43.546.7
38.7 38.1
25.921.4
5.911.1
14.3
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
Zero One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight Nine Ten
Judgement = Non-distressedJudgement = UnclearJudgement = Distressed
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Pre-test Probability
Pos
t-tes
t Pro
babi
lity
CHEMO+
CHEMO-
Baseline Probability
COMMU+
COMMU-
Detection sensitivity = 50.6%Detection specificity = 79.4%Overall accuracy = 65.4%.
Comment: Slide illustrates performance of chemotherapy vs community nurses in oncology T125 – Sat am
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
GP Accuracy – Detection of Distress by GHQ ScoreGP Accuracy – Detection of Distress by GHQ ScoreMcCall et al (2007) Primary Care Psychiatry - Recognition by Severity
Comment: Slide illustrates raw number of people identified by severity on the GHQ. Although the % detection increases with severity, the absolute number decreased due to falling prevalence
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
Eight
Nine Ten
Eleven
Twelv
eTh
irtee
nFo
urtee
n
Fiftee
nSixt
een
Seven
teen
Eighteen
Ninetee
n
Twen
tyTw
enty-
one
Proportion MissedProportion Recognized
HADS-D
Testing Clinicians: A Meta-AnalysisTesting Clinicians: A Meta-Analysis
Methods (currently unpublished)
12 studies reported in 7 publications. 2 studies examined detection of anxiety, 8 broadly defined depression (includes HADS-T)3 strictly defined depression and 7 broadly defined distress.
9 studies involved medical staff and 2 studies nursing staff.
Gold standard tools including GHQ60, GHQ12 HADS-T, HADS-D, Zung and SCID.
The total sample size was 4786 (median 171).
Testing Clinicians: A Meta-AnalysisTesting Clinicians: A Meta-Analysis
All cancer professionalsSE =39.5% and SP =77.3%.
OncologistsSE =38.1% and SP = 78.6%; a fraction correct of 65.4%.
By comparison nursesSE = 73% and SP = 55.4%; FC = of 60.0%.
When attempting to detect anxiety oncologists managedSE = 35.7%, SP = 89.0%, FC 81.3%.
Presented at IPOS2009
GPs vs Oncologists vs NursesGPs vs Oncologists vs Nurses
Who is better?
Bayesian analysis
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Pre-test Probability
Post
-test
Pro
babi
lity
GP+GP-Baseline ProbabilityNurse+Nurse-Oncologist+Oncologists-
Comment: Doctors appear to be more successful at ruling-in or giving a diagnosis, nurses more successful at ruling out
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Pre-test Probability
Post
-test
Pro
babi
lity
Ave Confidence+
Ave Confidence-
Baseline Probability
Above Ave Confidence+
Above Ave Confidence-
High Confidence+
High Confidence-
Low confidence = more cautious, fewer false positives, more false negatives
High confidence = less cautious, more false positives, low false negatives
p180
T3. Screening Tools in CancerT3. Screening Tools in Cancer
Clinician Opinion
Patient Opinion
Observation
Interview
Visual
Self-Report
DepressionScreening
DISCS
VA-SES
ET/DT
HAMD-D17
PhysicalGeneral
Signs ofDS
6
CDSS#10
MADRAS10
Trained
ConfidentSkilledClinician
Alone
YALE
SMILEY
Clinicians Methods to Evaluate Depression
Unassisted Clinician Conventional Scales
Ultra-Short (<5) Short (5-10) Long (10+)Untrained Trained
Routine Implementation
Acceptability ?
Accuracy? Accuracy?
vsComment: schematic overview of methods to evaluate depression
example
Clinicians Methods to Evaluate Depression
Conventional Scales
Short (5-10) Long (10+)
HADS-D BDIexample example
Comment: This is a reminder of the structure of the HADS scale, this version adapter for cancer.
HADS – Pros vs ConsHADS – Pros vs ConsADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
HADS – Pros vs ConsHADS – Pros vs ConsADVANTAGES
Well knownShort (7 items)Well testedDepression & anxiety coveredSelf-report
DISADVANTAGES
Can be too longValidation stats not goodWhich version?Distress, anger, needs not coveredScoring complexHADS-t not recommendedRoyalty fee
Inadequate Data(n=11)
No data (n= 250)
No reference standard(n= 293)
Accuracy or Validity Analyses(n= 210)
HADS Validity Analyses(n=50)
HADS in CancerInitial Search (n= 768)
ScaleTypes
Sample Size (cases)
HADS-T(n=26)
HADS-D(n=14)
HADS-A(n=10)
Less than 30(n=22)
More than 100(n=8)
30 to 100(n=20)
Review articles (n= 16)
Depression(n=22)
Any Mental Ill Health(n=24)
Anxiety(n=4)
OutcomeMeasure
No interview standard(n=149)
Validity of HADS vs depression (DSMIV)Validity of HADS vs depression (DSMIV)
SE 71.6% (68.3)
SP 82.6% (85.7)
Prev 13%
PPV 38%
NPV 95%
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Pre-test Probability
Post
-test
Pro
babi
lity
HADS+
HADS-
Baseline Probability
HADS7v8+
HADS7v8-
Depression_HADS-d (7v8)
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Pre-test Probability
Post
-test
Pro
babi
lity
HADS+
HADS-
Baseline Probability
HADS7v8+
HADS7v8-
Depression_HADS-d (7v8)
British Journal of Cancer (2007) 96, 868 – 874
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
DistressThermometer
AnxietyThermometer
DepressionThermometer
AngerThermometer
TenNineEightSevenSixFiveFourThreeTwoOneZero
Comment: Slide illustrates scores on ET tool
ET - Table of Cut-PointsET - Table of Cut-Points
Distress Thermometer
Anxiety thermometer
Depression Thermometer
Anger Thermometer
Help Thermometer Cut-point
Insignificant 39.0 25.6 50.1 55.7 54.3 0,1
Minimal 20.1 22.5 18.3 13.6 15.4 2,3
Mild 16.9 16.5 12.2 10.5 12.2 4,5
Moderate 12.0 14.5 9.8 6.6 6.6 6,7
Severe 11.9 20.8 9.5 13.6 11.2 8,9,10
p130
8%
DT37%
DepT23%
AngT18%
AnxT47%
4%
7%
1%
1%
9%
3%
0%
2%
4%
15%
3%
2%
Nil41%
Non-Nil59%
DT
AnxT AngT
DepT
T4. How Valid Are the ToolsT4. How Valid Are the Tools
Validity of Methods to Evaluate Depression
Unassisted Clinician Conventional Scales
Ultra-Short (<5) Short (5-10) Long (10+)Untrained Trained
DT vs HADS-T Validity (n=660)DT vs HADS-T Validity (n=660)
SE SP AUC CUT
DT – 71.9% 78.4% 0.814 cut point >=4
AnxT – 75.7% 73.4% 0.821 cut point >=5
DepT – 77.6% 82.2% 0.855 cut point >=3
AngT – 77.5% 77.6% 0.823 cut point >=2
HelpT - 69.1% 80.8% 0.809 cut point >=3
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Pre-test Probability
Pos
t-tes
t Pro
babi
lity
Baseline Probability
HADSd+
HADSd-
HADS-T+
HADS-T-
HADS-A+
HASD-A-
Depression_HADS
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Pre-test Probability
Post
-test
Pro
babi
lity
1Q+1Q-Baseline ProbabilityDT+DT-2Q+2Q-HADSd+HADSd-HADS-T+HADS-T-BDI+BDI-EPDS+EPDS-HADS-A+HASD-A-
Depression_all
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Pre-test Probability
Post
-test
Pro
babi
lity
DT+ [N=4]DT+ [N=4]Baseline Probability1Q+ [N=4]1Q- [N=4]2Q+2Q-DT/IT+DT/IT-HADST+ [N=13]HADST+ [N=13]PDI+PDI-
Mitchell AJ. Short Screening Tools for Cancer Related Distress A Review and Diagnostic Validity Meta-analysis JNCI (2010) in press
Distress
Validity of DT vs depression (DSMIV)Validity of DT vs depression (DSMIV)
SE 80%
SP 60%
PPV 32%
NPV 93%
DT vs DSMIV DepressionDT vs DSMIV Depression
SE SP PPV NPV
DTma 80.9% 60.2% 32.8% 92.9%
DTLeicesterBW 82.4% 68.6% 28.0% 98.3%
DTLeicesterBSA 100% 59.6% 26.8% 100%
BSA = British South Asian BW= British White
T5. How to Choose A Cut-OffT5. How to Choose A Cut-Off
Distress ThermometerDistress Thermometer
Distress Thermometer – Pooled TableDistress Thermometer – Pooled Table
ScoreRansom 2006
Tuinman2008
Mitchell 2009
Lord 2010
Hoffman 2004
Gessler2009
Clover 2009
Jacobsen 2005 Sum
Proportion
Zero 68 38 61 123 14 27 65 71 467 18.4%
One 72 31 42 68 5 26 39 46 329 12.9%
Two 77 22 35 44 5 18 30 54 285 11.2%
Three 65 37 42 46 8 23 45 46 312 12.3%
Four 51 29 29 30 8 7 21 31 206 8.1%
Five 41 46 62 40 11 13 41 48 302 11.9%
Six 38 32 23 28 2 16 26 31 196 7.7%
Seven 36 21 23 38 2 15 32 16 183 7.2%
Eight 18 12 18 29 6 9 19 15 126 5.0%
Nine 16 5 8 14 3 3 13 9 71 2.8%
Ten 9 4 7 20 4 0 9 13 66 2.6%
Sum 491 277 350 480 68 157 340 380 2543
Proportion 19.3% 10.9% 13.8% 18.9% 2.7% 6.2% 13.4% 14.9%
Distress Thermometer – Pooled
Proportion
18 .4 %
12 .9 %
11.2 %12 .3 %
8 .1%
11.9 %
5.0 %
2 .8 % 2 .6 %
7.7% 7.2 %
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%
16.0%
18.0%
20.0%
Zero One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight Nine Ten
Insignificant SevereModerateMildMinimal
p124
50%
British Journal of Cancer (2007) 96, 868 – 874
SampleSample
We analysed data collected from Leicester Cancer Centre from 2008-2010 involving 531 people approached by a research nurse and two therapeutic radiographers.
We examined distress using the DT and daily function using the question:
“How difficult have these problems made it for you to do your work, take care of things at home, or get along with other people?”
“Not difficult at all =0; Somewhat Difficult =1; Very Difficult =2; and Extremely Difficult =3”
Dysfunction in 531 cancer patientsDysfunction in 531 cancer patients
55.7%
34.3%
7.3%
2.6%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
Unimpaired Mild Moderate Severe
Unimpaired by DT ScoreUnimpaired by DT Score
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
18%
DepT23%
Distress69%
Dysfunction76%
0.3%
3% 2%
26%28% 22%
Of the 293 Non-Nil
DysfunctionDistress
DepT
Mean DT Scores?Mean DT Scores?
Unimpaired Mild Moderate Severe
Mean DT Score 2.1 4.1 5.9 6.5
Std Deviation 2.54 3.0 2.56 3.59
Sample Size 296 182 39 14
Simplified DT Range* 0-3 4-5 6-7 8-10
DT distribution by ImpairmentDT distribution by Impairment
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Typically severely impared
Typically mod impared
Typically mildly impared
Typically unimpared
None at all
Extreme and incapacitating
Very Severe and very disabling
Moderately Severe and disabling
Moderate and quite disabling
Moderate and somewhat disabling
Mild-Moderate and slight disabling
Mild but not particularly disabling
Very mild and not disabling
Minimal but bearable
Minimal and not problematic
None at all
Dt vs DysfunctionDt vs Dysfunction
ROC plot from Book 1
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.000.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00Sensitivity
1-Specificity
Distress Thermometer(+ve), M(-ve)
Optimal Cut to Define Distress on DTOptimal Cut to Define Distress on DT
At a cut-off of 2v3 (>=3)Sensitivity =67.8%; PPV =60.3%; UI+ = 0.409Specificity = 68.9%; NPV = 70.3%; UI- = 0.484
At a cut-off of 3v4 (>=4)Sensitivity =58.9%; PPV =65.6%; UI+ = 0.386Specificity = 75.9%; NPV = 70.3%; UI- = 0.534
At a cut-off of 4v5 (>=5)Sensitivity =50.9%; PPV =67.85; UI+ = 0.345Specificity = 81.1%; NPV = 67.9%; UI- = 0.55
T6. Screening in Cancer: ImplementationT6. Screening in Cancer: Implementation
Clinician Opinion
Patient Opinion
Comment: Slide illustrates actual gain in meta-analysis of screening implementation in primary care
ScreenRoutine vs At-Risk vs Identified
Low High
Follow-up Care
?? Desire for Help
Meetable Unmet Needs
800 Patients Approached
100 Not Willing (13%) 700 Patients Willing (87%)
500 Staff Willing (71%)TAU
402 Data Collected (80%)Screen Data
Leicester: DT/ET ImplementationLeicester: DT/ET Implementation T177 t680
Pre-Post Screen - DistressPre-Post Screen - Distress
Before After
Sensitivity of 49.7% 55.8% =>+5%
Specificity of 79.3% 79.8% =>+1%
PPV was 67.3% 70.9% =>+4%
NPV was 64.1% 67.2% =>+3%
There was a non-significant trend for improve detection sensitivity (Chi² = 1.12 P = 0.29).
Qualitative Aspects: CommunicationQualitative Aspects: Communication
DISTRESS
43% of CNS reported the tool helped them talk with the patient about psychosocial issues esp in those with distress
28% said it helped inform their clinical judgement
DEPRESSION
38% of occasions reported useful in improving communication.
28.6% useful for informing clinical judgement
2x2 Clinician Help Table : ACTUAL HELP2x2 Clinician Help Table : ACTUAL HELPClinician thinks:Unmet Needs
Clinician thinks no Unmet Needs
Patient Says:Help Wanted
=> Intervention => Low grade
Patient Distressed => Intervention =>??
Patient Not distressed orHelp Not Wanted
=> Monitor? => discharge?
2x2 Clinician Help Table : ACTUAL HELP2x2 Clinician Help Table : ACTUAL HELP
Clinician thinks:Unmet Needs
Clinician thinks no Unmet Needs
Patient Says:Help Wanted (60)
Helped 21/35 (60%)
Helped 11/23(48%)
Patient Distressed
Helped 65/102(63%)
Helped 31/62(50%)
Patient Not distressed orHelp Not Wanted
Helped 8/35(23%)
Helped 20/117(17%)
b. Intervention and helpb. Intervention and helpPREDICTORS
1. patient desire for help
2. number of unmet needs
3. clinicians confidence
4. patient reported anger
p179
RCT using DT Carlson et al 2010RCT using DT Carlson et al 2010
Screening for Distress in lung and breast cancer outpatients: A randomized controlled trial Linda Carlson Tom Baker Cancer Centre, University of Calgary
1) Minimal Screening: the Distress Thermometer (DT) [n=365]
2) Full Screening: DT, Problem Checklist, Psychological Screen for Cancer (PSSCAN) [n=391] a personalized report
3) Triage: Full screening plus optional personalized phone triage [378]
Advanced AspectsAdvanced Aspects
Algorithms
Structured interviews
Computerized testing
Item-banking
Screening in subgroups
p643
p454
T7. ExtrasT7. Extras
Unfiled
Cancer Population
CNS Assessment
Possible case
Depression
Screen #1+ve
n = 200 No Depression
Sp 55%
Se 70%
n = 800
N = 1000
TP = 140
FP = 360Probable Non-Case TN =440
FN = 60
PPV 28% NPV 88%
Screen #1-ve
YieldTP = 140
TN = 440
FN = 60
FP = 360
NPV 88%
PPV 28%
Sp 55%
Se 70%
Cancer Population
CNS Assessment
Possible case
Depression
Screen #1+ve
n = 200 No Depression
Sp 55%
Se 70%
n = 800
N = 1000
TP = 140
FP = 360Probable Non-Case TN =440
FN = 60
PPV 28%
Oncologist Assessment Sp 80%
Sp 40%
NPV 88%
Probable Depression TP = 56
FP = 72Probable Non-Case TN =288
FN = 84
PPV 44% NPV 77%
Screen #1-ve
Screen #2+ve
Screen #2+ve
Cumulative YieldTP = 56
TN = 728
FN = 144
FP = 72
NPV 83%
PPV 44%
Sp 91%
Se 28%
Credits & Acknowledgments
Elena Baker-Glenn University of NottinghamPaul Symonds Leicester Royal InfirmaryChris Coggan Leicester General HospitalBurt Park University of NottinghamLorraine Granger Leicester Royal InfirmaryMark Zimmerman Brown University, Rhode IslandBrett Thombs McGill University CanadaJames Coyne University of PennsylvaniaNadia Husain University of Leicester
For more information www.psycho-oncology.info
FURTHER READING:
Screening for Depression in Clinical Practice An Evidence-Based guide
ISBN 0195380193 Paperback, 416 pagesNov 2009Price: £39.99
Recommended