An investigation of the psychometric properties of the Eating Disorder Symptom Impact Scale within an Australian sample

Caring for patients with an eating disorder (ED) is associated with a high level of burden and psychological distress. Currently, the Eating Disorder Symptom Impact Scale (EDSIS) is the only scale that measures the specific impact of caring for a patient with an ED. The initial development study within a British sample of carers indicated that the EDSIS has a four-factor structure. The aim of the current study was to confirm the factor structure of the EDSIS within an Australian sample of carers. One hundred and fifty-four carers completed the EDSIS. In contrast to the initial study, a six-factor structure was derived explaining 69.66% of the variance: guilt, social isolation, confrontational behaviours, binge–purge difficulties, mealtime difficulties, and illness awareness. Reliability was acceptable (Cronbach's alpha range 0.69–0.88). Five of the six factors were moderately correlated with the General Health Questionnaire-12 (r range = 0.24–0.51). A six-factor solution may be a valid alternative for the EDSIS.

The bipolar depression rating scale (BDRS) : its development, validation and utility

Objectives: Unipolar and bipolar depression differ neurobiologically and in clinical presentation. Existing depression rating instruments, used in bipolar depression, fail to capture the necessary phenomenological nuances, as they are based on and skewed towards the characteristics of unipolar depression. Both clinically and in research there is a growing need for a new observer-rated scale that is specifically designed to assess bipolar depression.

Methods: An instrument reflecting the characteristics of bipolar depression was drafted by the authors, and administered to 122 participants aged 18–65 (44 males and 78 females) with a diagnosis of DSM-IV bipolar disorder, who were currently experiencing symptoms of depression. The Bipolar Depression Rating Scale (BDRS) was administered together with the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS).

Results: The BDRS has strong internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.917), and robust correlation coefficients with the MADRS (r = 0.906) and HAM-D (r = 0.744), and the mixed subscale correlated with the YMRS (r = 0.757). Exploratory factor analysis showed a three-factor solution gave the best account of the data. These factors corresponded to depression (somatic), depression (psychological) and mixed symptom clusters.

Conclusions: This study provides evidence for the validity of the BDRS for the measurement of depression in bipolar disorder. These results suggest good internal validity, provisional evidence of inter-rater reliability and strong correlations with other depression rating scales.

The validity and internal structure of the bipolar depression rating scale (BDRS): data from a clinical trial of N-acetylcysteine as adjunctive therapy in bipolar disorder

Background: The phenomenology of unipolar and bipolar disorders differ in a number of ways, such as the presence of mixed states and atypical features. Conventional depression rating instruments are designed to capture the characteristics of unipolar depression and have limitations in capturing the breadth of bipolar disorder.

Method: The Bipolar Depression Rating Scale (BDRS) was administered together with the Montgomery Asberg Rating Scale (MADRS) and Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) in a double-blind randomised placebo-controlled clinical trial of N-acetyl cysteine for bipolar disorder (N = 75).

Results: A factor analysis showed a two-factor solution: depression and mixed symptom clusters. The BDRS has strong internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.917), the depression cluster showed robust correlation with the MADRS (r = 0.865) and the mixed subscale correlated with the YMRS (r = 0.750).

Conclusion: The BDRS has good internal validity and inter-rater reliability and is sensitive to change in the context of a clinical trial.

Content validity of visual analog scales to assess symptom severity of acute angioedema attacks in adults with hereditary angioedema : an interview study

Background: Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a rare, debilitating, potentially life-threatening condition characterized by recurrent acute attacks of edema of the skin, face/upper airway, and gastrointestinal and urogenital tracts. During a laryngeal attack, people with HAE may be at risk of suffocation, while other attacks are often associated with intense pain, disfigurement, disability, and/or vomiting. The intensity of some symptoms is known only to the person experiencing them. Thus, interview studies are needed to explore such experience and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are required for systematic assessment of symptoms in the clinical setting and in clinical trials of treatments for acute HAE attacks.

Objective: The aim of this interview study was to assess the content validity and suitability of four visual analog scale (VAS) instruments for use in clinical studies. The VAS instruments were designed to assess symptoms at abdominal, oro-facial-pharyngeal-laryngeal, peripheral, and urogenital attack locations. This is the first known study to report qualitative data about the patient's experience of the rare disorder, HAE.

Methods: Semi-structured exploratory and cognitive debriefing interviews were conducted with 27 adults with a confirmed clinical/laboratory diagnosis of HAE (baseline plasma level of functional plasma protein C1 esterase inhibitor [C1INH] <50% of normal without evidence for acquired angioedema). There were 17 participants from the US and 10 from Italy, with mean age 42.5 (SD 14.5) years, range 18–72 years, mean HAE duration 21.3 (SD 14.1) years, range 1–45 years, 67% female, and 44% VAS-naïve. Experience of acute angioedema attacks was first explored, noting spontaneous mentions by participants of HAE symptomatology. Cognitive debriefing of the VAS instruments was undertaken to assess the suitability, comprehensibility, and relevance of the VAS items. Asymptomatic participants completed the VAS instruments relevant to their angioedema experience, reporting as if they were experiencing an acute angioedema attack at the time. Interviews were conducted in the clinic setting in the US and Italy over an 8-month period.

Results: Participants mentioned spontaneously almost all aspects of acute angioedema attacks covered by the four VAS instruments, thus providing strong support for inclusion of nearly all VAS items, with no important symptoms missing. Predominant symptoms found to be associated with acute angioedema attacks were edema and pain, and there was evidence of varying degrees of disruption to everyday activities supporting the inclusion of an overall severity item reflecting the disabling effects of HAE symptoms. VAS item wording was understood by participants.

Conclusion: This interview study explored and reported the patient experience of HAE attacks. It demonstrated the content validity of the four anatomical location HAE VAS instruments and their suitability for use in clinical trials of recombinant human C1INH (rhC1INH) treatment for ascertaining trial participants' assessments of the severity of acute angioedema symptoms.

Cancer patients' perceptions of the barriers and facilitators to patient participation in symptom management during an episode of admission

BACKGROUND:: Symptoms by definition are subjective, and patients' role in their assessment and management will impact on patient outcomes; thus, symptom management is an area of acute care practice where facilitation of patient participation is vital if quality outcomes are to be achieved. OBJECTIVE:: This study originated from a large multimethod research program exploring patient participation in symptom management in an acute oncology setting. The purpose of this article is to explore patients' perceptions of the barriers and facilitators to participating in their symptom management during an episode of admission to an acute oncology ward and the relationships between these perceptions and patients' preference for participation. METHODS:: One hundred seventy-one cancer inpatients consented and completed an interview-administered questionnaire. Patients' preference for participation was measured using the Control Preference Scale. Responses to open-ended survey questions were evaluated using content analysis. RESULTS:: Ten categories were identified in the analyses of patient perceptions of the barriers and facilitators to participating in care decisions relating to their symptoms. Patients, irrespective of their Control Preference, reported multiple barriers and facilitators to participating in their symptom management. CONCLUSIONS:: Patients overall perceived information as the most critical component of participation. Irrespective of patients' preference for participation, there were similarities in the barriers and facilitators to the operationalization of participation in the acute care setting reported. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE:: Understanding patient perceptions of barriers and facilitators of participating in symptom management has provided important insights into person and system factors in the acute care sector impacting quality patient symptom outcomes.

Validation of the Italian version of the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale-Second Edition (Y-BOCS-II) in a clinical sample

OBJECTIVE: The Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS) is the most widely accepted measure of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) symptom severity. Recently, the scale has been revised into a second edition (Y-BOCS-II) in order to improve its measurement properties. The present study aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Italian version of the Y-BOCS-II Severity Scale (SS) in a large clinical sample. METHOD: The original version of the Y-BOCS-II was translated into Italian, which involved forward and back-translation procedures. The Italian Y-BOCS-II-SS was administered to one hundred twenty-five treatment-seeking adults with OCD, together with the original Y-BOCS-SS and a battery of self-report measures assessing OCD symptom severity and depressive and anxious symptomology. The factor structure, internal consistency, temporal stability, and construct validity were investigated on the whole sample, while inter-rater and test-retest reliability were assessed on a subsample of participants. RESULTS: Factor analyses revealed a two-factor structure different from those of the original scale, comprising (1) symptom severity; and (2) interference from symptoms. Internal consistency, test-retest reliability over a 2-week period and inter-rater reliability were satisfactory. The Y-BOCS-II-SS also showed excellent construct validity (and better than the Y-BOCS-SS), with good convergent and discriminant validity when assessed against other OCD symptom measures and measures of depression, anxiety and worry. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that the Italian version of the Y-BOCS-II-SS retains the adequate psychometric properties of the original and that it can be confidently used as an assessment tool of OCD symptoms in both clinical and research settings.

Evaluation of two instruments of perceived symptom intensity in palliative care patients in an outpatient clinic

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the test-retest stability in assessments of perceived symptom intensity on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System-revised and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 15 Palliative. The possible interchangeability between the instruments and the patients' experiences of completing the instruments were also studied. BACKGROUND: The two instruments assess the same symptoms, but the symptom intensity is assessed on 11-point numerical scales on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System-revised and on four-point verbal descriptive scales on the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 15 Palliative. Both instruments are commonly used; however, uncertainty exists about which instrument should be recommended and about the interchangeability of the instruments. DESIGN: This study used a test-retest design with inter-scale comparisons. METHODS: Data from 54 patients with cancer who were receiving palliative care in an oncology outpatient clinic were self-reported by the patients in the clinic, at home and when patients returned to the clinic. RESULTS: The assessments on the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 15 Palliative verbal rating scales showed a higher level of test-retest stability than the assessments on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System-revised numerical scoring scales, indicating higher reliability. The correspondence between the verbal categories and the numerical scores of symptom intensity were low because different verbal categories were used by patients who assessed the same numerical score. CONCLUSIONS: The test-retest stability in the assessments was higher on the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 15 Palliative and the results show that assessments on the two instruments could not be used interchangeably. Therefore, the symptom instrument chosen must be specified and unchanged within a patient to improve efficacy in clinical practice. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System-revised or the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 15 Palliative can be used for initial assessments of patients, but should not be compared or used interchangeably. It is vitally important to have individual follow-up for all patients who score an instrument.

Evaluations of treatment efficacy of depression from perspective of both patients' symptoms and general sense of mental health and wellbeing: a large scale, multi-centered, longitudinal study in China

Relying on the absence, presence of level of symptomatology may not provide an adequate indication of the effects of treatment for depression, nor sufficient information for the development of treatment plans that meet patients' needs. Using a prospective, multi-centered, and observational design, the present study surveyed a large sample of outpatients with depression in China (n=9855). The 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD-17) and the Remission Evaluation and Mood Inventory Tool (REMIT) were administered at baseline, two weeks later and 4 weeks, to assess patients' self-reported symptoms and general sense of mental health and wellbeing. Of 9855 outpatients, 91.3% were diagnosed as experiencing moderate to severe depression. The patients reported significant improvement over time on both depressive symptoms and general sense after 4-week treatment. The effect sizes of change in general sense were lower than those in symptoms at both two week and four week follow-up. Treatment effects on both general sense and depressive symptomatology were associated with demographic and clinical factors. The findings indicate that a focus on both general sense of mental health and wellbeing in addition to depressive symptomatology will provide clinicians, researchers and patients themselves with a broader perspective of the status of patients.