A systematic review of depression and anxiety measures with individuals with spinal cord injury

Spinal Cord, 2009 · DOI: 10.1038/sc.2009.93 · Published: December 1, 2009

Simple Explanation

This review examines different tools used to measure depression and anxiety in people with spinal cord injuries (SCI). It looks at how reliable and accurate these tools are. The review found that many tools are available, but their reliability and validity vary. Some tools might overestimate depression and anxiety due to symptoms related to SCI itself. The authors suggest more research is needed to determine the best tools for this population and whether new SCI-specific tools are necessary.

Study Duration

Not specified

Participants

Not specified

Evidence Level

Systematic Review

Key Findings

1
The reliability and validity of existing depression and anxiety instruments used with SCI populations range from adequate to excellent.
2
Responsiveness data, which is crucial for evaluating treatment outcomes or changes over time, is generally lacking for most instruments.
3
No single instrument clearly stands out as superior, making it difficult to recommend one over another for use with SCI populations.

Research Summary

This systematic review assessed the psychometric properties of depression and anxiety instruments used with individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI). Thirteen papers reporting on 13 different instruments were included, and the review found a range of reliability and validity evidence, with responsiveness data being generally lacking. The review concludes that while there is no current need to develop SCI-specific instruments, more psychometric data is needed to determine the best tools for assessing depression and anxiety in this population.

Practical Implications

Tool Selection

Clinicians should carefully consider the specific purpose and clinical context when selecting an instrument to assess depression and anxiety in SCI patients.

Further Research

More research is needed to establish the responsiveness of existing instruments and to compare their performance against clinical diagnostic interviews.

Standardization

Agreement on the use of common instruments will increase the generalizability of findings and allow for better comparison of outcomes across studies.

Study Limitations

1
Exclusion of studies not published in English may have resulted in missing evidence.
2
The focus on papers with a primary aim of assessing psychometric properties may have excluded relevant data.
3
Lack of responsiveness data limits the ability to evaluate instruments for measuring change over time.

Your Feedback

Was this summary helpful?

Back to Spinal Cord Injury