A Multicenter Cross-Sectional Study on Assessment of Depression in Cardiac Patients

Introduction

Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are considered the primary cause of mortality in Saudi Arabia and it is one of the major health concerns in the country. Depression can complicate, halt or even exacerbate the process of managing CVDs, making it harder to optimize the patient's condition. The main aim of this study is to assess the depression in cardiac patients.

Methods

A cross-sectional observational study was conducted in 257 patients diagnosed with cardiovascular diseases. The study was conducted in two governmental hospitals in Tabuk, Saudi Arabia, from December 2021 to April 2022. Depression was assessed using the Arabic version of the CESD-R questionnaire.

Results

The mean age of the participants was 44.49 ± 12.99 years. Majority of patients were in the age group of 40-49 years (n = 92, 35.8%). More than half (53.3%) of the samples were female. The prevalence of depression among cardiac patients was 53.3%.

Conclusion

The prevalence of depression was high among cardiac patients. It is strongly advised that routine examination and management of depression in cardiac patients be included in their regimens.

Validation of the Japanese Version of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale-Revised: A Preliminary Analysis

To make the Japanese version of the CESD-R—a revised version of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies depression scale (CES-D)—in the assessment of depressive symptoms in a general population. The English version of CESD-R was translated into Japanese, and back-translated into English by three native speakers of Japanese and English; then, we selected the version most completely consistent with the original items. The CESD-R was applied to 398 community-dwelling people (191 men: 48.0%, and 207 women: 52.0%) who were over 40 years old. The Japanese version of the CES-D was also carried out in the same population. Factor analysis was performed. Additionally, the correlations between the CESD-R and CES-D results were identified. The CESD-R scores showed a significantly positive correlation with CES-D scores (r = 0.74, p < 0.0005). Analysis of the CESD-R yielded a Cronbach’s alpha result of 0.90. Factor analysis revealed one principal factor in the CESD-R, whereas the original CES-D had two factors because of reversed items. The Japanese version of the CESD-R appears to have the reliability to be applicable for assessing depressive symptoms in population-based samples. However, because the Japanese expressions for some items might be unusual, our study population was also limited; further studies on other populations and on incorporating improved Japanese terminology will be needed.

Exploration of a Biblical Counseling Program for Depression

Millions of Americans experience sadness, fatigue, and sleeping difficulty. These symptoms are consistent with a diagnosis of depression, which the American Psychiatric Association (APA) categorizes as a serious medical illness. Treatments include pharmacotherapy and/or counseling, with varying outcomes. Anecdotally, positive outcomes are seen in adults with depressive symptoms seeking Biblical counseling (BC) that uses the Judeo-Christian Bible as its foundation; so, this project explored such a program. The project included a retrospective chart review and a pilot study introducing the use of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale Revised (CESD-R) to identify and track depressive symptoms. Findings support further investigation into BC as a viable option.

Validation of the Arabic version of the center for epidemiologic studies depression-revised: A comparison of the CESD-R and CESDR-12

BACKGROUND

The Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression-Revised (CESD-R) is a widely used tool to screen for depression in the general population. An Arabic version of the CESD-R has not yet been translated and validated. Thus, this article reports the findings of two studies that were conducted to examine the psychometric properties of the Arabic version of the CESD-R.

METHODS

Both studies were conducted using cross-sectional designs among college students from two large universities in Jordan. A total of 988 students were recruited from University A and 251 from University B. Data were collected using self-report measures of depression, perceived stress, and quality of life. Exploratory factor analysis was performed followed by a series of confirmatory factor analyses to compare different versions of the Arabic CESD-R. Measurement invariance was performed across both samples and gender of participants.

RESULTS

The analyses revealed that the goodness-of-fit indices for the 20-item version of the Arabic CESD-R are not supported. Alternatively, a shorter version (CESDR-12) was created and the results supported its reliability, validity, and measurement invariance. This version, compared to a 10-item version, is supported theoretically as the items are more reflective of the DSM-V criteria for diagnosing depression.

LIMITATIONS

The specificity and sensitivity of the CESDR-12 were not evaluated in this article.

CONCLUSION

The Arabic CESDR-12 is a reliable, valid tool to screen for depression. Considering the prevalence and potential consequences of depression among college students, this tool could be used to identify those at risk and provide timely counseling and interventions.

The Prevalence of Depression and Concussions in a Sample of Active North American Semi-Professional and Professional Football Players

Background

Concussive events frequently occur in high impact sports such as North American football. The long term effects of concussive events on physical and psychological wellbeing are the focus of ongoing research. The purpose of this study was to determine if concussive events increase the incidence of depression in active semi-professional and professional North American football players.

Methods

An anonymous online survey was sent to 200 players to collect the following self-reported data: position played, years played, number of concussions sustained and subsequent depressive symptoms using the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CESD-R) scale. An independent T-test was used to determine differences in the number of concussive events in those with CESD-R scores <16 vs. ≥16, where scores ≥16 are indicative of a depressed state. Likewise, an independent T-test was used to compare CESD-R scores between players with ≥3 concussions vs. ≤2.

Results

Individuals with a CESD-R score ≥16, sustained a significantly greater number of concussions (3.8 vs. 1.6) than those who scored <16 (p < 0.001). Further analysis also revealed significantly higher CESD-R scores in players who had sustained ≥3 concussions (24.0 vs. 15.6) than those with ≤2 (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Within the parameters of this study, players that were classified as depressed had sustained significantly more concussions compared to those who were not classified as depressed. Further, multiple concussive events (≥3) appears to increase symptoms of depression.

Psychometric evaluation of a self-report scale to measure adolescent depression: the CESDR-10 in two national adolescent samples in the United States

BACKGROUND

There is a need for brief instruments to screen for depression in adolescents that are valid, reliable and freely available. The aim of this study was to investigate the psychometric properties of a 10-item version of the CESD-R (CESDR-10) in two national adolescent samples.

METHODS

Sample 1 consisted of N=3777 youths (mean age 15.7) and Sample 2 contained N=1150 adolescents (mean age 14.5). We performed confirmatory factor analysis, evaluated construct validity, examined differential item functioning, and assessed internal consistency reliability (α).

RESULTS

The results suggest generally strong psychometric properties for the CESDR-10. The CFA 1-factor model showed good model fit. Construct validity was partially supported in Sample 1 and mostly supported for Sample 2 based upon the characteristics examined. The CESDR-10 showed configural and metric invariance across both samples and full measurement invariance across sex. There were no notable differences in discrimination parameters or clinically significant differential item functioning between samples or sexes.

LIMITATIONS

Criterion related validity was not assessed in this study. Further studies should evaluate the scale in comparison to a psychiatric diagnosis. In addition, this study utilized a web-based format of administration which may influence participants׳ answers. In future studies, the CESDR-10 should be administered in other settings to more thoroughly establish its generalizability.

CONCLUSION

In clinical and non-clinical settings alike, time pressures make the availability of brief but valid screening measures critical. Findings support future use of the CESDR-10.