Key result
The Comprehensive Psychosocial Screening Instrument demonstrated acceptable performance and fair to excellent agreement with established full questionnaires for identifying psychosocial risk factors.
Why the study?
The study was conducted to evaluate the psychometric properties and validity of the updated Dutch multidimensional Comprehensive Psychosocial Screening Instrument in patients with coronary heart disease and the general population, based on ESC guideline recommendations.
Is the updated Dutch multidimensional Comprehensive Psychosocial Screening Instrument valid compared to established full questionnaires in patients with coronary heart disease and the general population?
Cross-Sectional
Is the updated Dutch multidimensional Comprehensive Psychosocial Screening Instrument valid compared to established full questionnaires in patients with coronary heart disease and the general population?
The updated Dutch Comprehensive Psychosocial Screening Instrument demonstrates acceptable validity and agreement with established questionnaires, supporting its use in primary care and cardiology practice.
May support psychosocial screening in CHD; leaves open prospective outcome validation before routine adoption.
AIM: To evaluate the psychometric properties and validity of the updated version of the Dutch multidimensional Comprehensive Psychosocial Screening Instrument in patients with coronary heart disease and the general population, based upon guideline recommendations from the European Society for Cardiology. METHOD: = 65.9, SD = 9.9; 77% male) who recently received percutaneous coronary intervention completed the Comprehensive Psychosocial Screening Instrument and validated questionnaires for depression (PHQ-9), anxiety (GAD-7), Type D personality (DS14), hostility (CMHS), anger (STAS-T), trauma (SRIP), and chronic work and family stress (ERI, MMQ-6). RESULTS: Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) confirmed that the eight screened risk factors were best measured as separate entities, rather than broader indications of distress. Inter-instrument agreement, assessed with the intraclass coefficient (ICC) and the screening accuracy indicators (receiving operator characteristic [ROC] curves, sensitivity, specificity, and the positive and negative predictive values [PPV; NPV]) were good for most screened risk factors. PPV was low in low prevalence risk factors like anxiety, trauma, and depression. CONCLUSION: Overall, the current version of the Comprehensive Psychosocial Screening Instrument has an acceptable performance in both populations, with a fair to excellent level of agreement with established full questionnaires. Besides a few suggestions for further refinement, the screener may be implemented in primary care and cardiological practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Houdt et al. (2022) conducted a cross-sectional in Coronary heart disease. Comprehensive Psychosocial Screening Instrument vs. Validated full questionnaires was evaluated on Inter-instrument agreement and screening accuracy indicators (ROC, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV). The Comprehensive Psychosocial Screening Instrument demonstrated acceptable performance and fair to excellent agreement with established full questionnaires for identifying psychosocial risk factors.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: