Key result
The ESC psychosocial screening interview showed fair to moderate agreement with validated questionnaires for depression, anxiety, and type D personality (κ=0.21-0.39).
Why the study?
Does the ESC psychosocial screening interview accurately detect psychosocial risk factors compared to established questionnaires in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention?
Observational (n=508)
Does the ESC psychosocial screening interview accurately detect psychosocial risk factors compared to established questionnaires in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention?
Effect estimate: κ = 0.39
The ESC psychosocial screening interview shows fair to moderate agreement with established questionnaires for depression and anxiety, but requires refinement for reliably detecting other psychosocial factors.
Caution against sole reliance on ESC interview for psychosocial screening in PCI; leaves open need for refined validation.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to examine the validity of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) psychosocial screening instrument. METHODS: A total of 508 acute (67%) or elective (33%) percutaneous coronary intervention patients (mean [standard deviation]age = 63 [10] years, 81% male) completed the ESC screening interview and established questionnaires for psychosocial risk markers, that is, depression (Patient Health Questionnaire 9), anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire 7), type D personality (Type D Scale 14), hostility (Cook-Medley Hostility Scale 7), and marital/work stress (Maudsley Marital Quality Questionnaire 6, Effort-Reward Imbalance Scale) during or close after hospital admission. At 1-year follow-up, angina and cardiopulmonary symptoms were assessed. RESULTS: Prevalence estimates of psychosocial factors based on the ESC screener were as follows: depression (18%), anxiety (33%), negative affectivity (11%), social inhibition (41%), work stress (17%), marital stress (2%), and hostility (38%). Analysis of correspondence with validated questionnaires revealed fair to moderate agreement (depression [κ = .39], anxiety [κ = .23], type D personality [κ = .21]), regardless of percutaneous coronary intervention indication. For work and marital stress, there was poor to fair performance (κ range = .04-.24); agreement for hostility was poor (κ = -.27). A positive ESC screen for depression, anxious tension, and type D personality was associated with more angina and cardiopulmonary symptoms at follow-up (odds ratios ranging between 1.85 (95% confidence interval = 0.84-4.08) and 8.01 (95% confidence interval = 2.35-27.35). CONCLUSIONS: The ESC screener contributes to the search for a multidimensional and easy-to-use psychosocial screening instrument for cardiac patients. Although the screener, in its current form, may not be sufficiently valid to reliably detect all predefined psychosocial factors, screening scores for depression and anxiety might be useful in clinical practice. Our findings can be used for further refinement and validation of the screener.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Montfort et al. (2016) conducted an observational in Coronary Artery Disease (n=508). European Society of Cardiology (ESC) psychosocial screening interview vs. Established validated questionnaires was evaluated on Correspondence with validated questionnaires for depression (κ = 0.39). The ESC psychosocial screening interview showed fair to moderate agreement with validated questionnaires for depression, anxiety, and type D personality (κ=0.21-0.39).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: