Structured Assessment

To evaluate, by means of a systematic review, whether evidence supports systematic screening for depression as part of cancer care

• Databases searched were CINAHL, Cochrane Database, EMBASE, Institute of Science Index (ISI), MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Google Scholar, Clinical Trials.gov, International Standard Randomised Control Trial Number Register
• Authors did not specify search keywords.
• Studies were included if they compared a depression-screening instrument to a valid criterion for major depressive disorder (MDD), they were randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared depression treatment with placebo or usual care, or they were an RCT that  assessed the effect of screening on depression outcomes. Eligible articles included studies in any language on cancer patients with any type of malignancy at any disease stage that reported original data.
• Studies were excluded if they were part of a case series or were case reports.

• Investigators retrieved a total of 2,302 studies.
• Two investigators independently reviewed articles. Consensus resolved discrepancies.
• Investigators asked three questions: What was the accuracy of the depression-screening instruments? Does treatment of depression improve depression symptoms? Is depression screening more effective than usual care in reducing depression symptoms? Specific inclusion criteria varied according to question. Studies reporting on the same sample were considered one study. Results were broken down by question.    
   

• The final number of studies included in analysis was 20.
• For question 1, the median sample size was 128; for question 2, 200; for question 3, 0. The sample range across samples was, for question 1, 16–381; for question 2, 200; for question 3, 0.
• The sample included 8 studies of breast cancer and 11 with a mixed-cancer diagnosis.
• Mean patient age was 57 years.
• Overall, 30% of participants were male and 70% were female.

• In regard to question 1: Six studies measured depression by means of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), using a cutoff of 15–20. Nine studies employed the HADS Depression Subscale, using a cutoff of 5–11. Three studies had predefined cutoff scores. HADS was the only screening tool used in more than one study. Seventeen of 19 studies did not exclude patients with current depression treatment or diagnosis.
• In regard to question 2: One RCT compared usual care versus a nurse-delivered collaborative care intervention. The trial comprised 10 one-to-one sessions over three months (the mean number of sessions completed was seven). Postintervention scores were lower in the treatment group than the scores in the usual-care group.
• In regard to question 3: No studies were eligible for analysis.
• In a high-quality RCT, a nurse-led collaborative intervention to facilitate depression care improved depression outcomes more than did usual care.

Data from this analysis do not support the hypothesis that screening for depression improves depression-related outcomes.

More work is needed to determine how screening directly or indirectly affects depression-related outcomes. All patients should have access to depression care from a multidisciplinary team.

To determine if providing, to hospice patients and caregivers, systematic feedback from standardized assessment tools improves the quality of hospice care

Hospice teams were formed, each with a similar composition. Patients were randomly assigned to receive standard care (control) or standard care plus systematic assessment. Patient-caregiver dyads were identified and screened, within 24–72 hours of admission, with the Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire. Research assistants (RAs, an RN and a social worker) collected baseline data from both the patient and caregiver, respectively, and then collected data one and two weeks later, using identified tools. Verbal and written reports were given at two interdisciplinary team conferences after each data collection. RAs performed a chart audit for both groups during the study. The control group completed the same standardized assessments, but no reports were made to the interdisciplinary team.

• The original sample was composed of 709 participants: 350 dyads completed all three measurements, and 366 left the study at some point over the course of follow-up.
• Mean patient age was 74.05 years; mean caregiver age was 71.83 years.
• Mean age of all caregivers was 65.37 years: in the control group, mean caregiver age was 65.49 years; in the experimental group, mean caregiver age was 65.24 years.
• Mean age of all patients was 72.66 years: in the control group, mean patient age was 72.67 years; in the experimental group, mean patient age was 72.65 years.
• The caregiver sample was 26.4% male and 73.6% female. The patient sample was 56.3% male and 43.7% female.
• Patients had a cancer diagnosis and were receiving hospice care.
• Caregivers had to be older than age 18, able to read and understand English, and able to pass the mental status screening.
• Mean years of education was 13.21 years for caregivers and 12.14 years for patients. 
• Patients' mean Palliative Performance Scale score was 57.06; patients' mean Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire score was 9.23.

• Multisite
• Home
• Two large, private not-for-profit hospices in Florida, United States

• Phase of care: end-of-life care
• Clinical applications: end-of-life and palliative care, late effects and survivorship

Randomized controlled trial 

• Palliative Performance Scale (PPS), to assess the physical condition and functional status of people receiving palliative care. The PPS includes three broad areas: mobility, intake, and level of consciousness in five categories. The scale, 0%–100%, is divided into 10% increments, with 0 meaning dead and 100 meaning normal. Validity and reliability were assessed.    
• Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (MSAS), revised, to assess occurrence, intensity, and distress from symptoms. A total of 25 items are rated 0–4 for severity and distress, resulting in subscale scores for intensity and distress that range 0–100. Validity and reliability were assessed.
• Hospice Quality of Life Index–14 (HQLI-14). HQLI-14 is a shortened version of the validated HQLI. The HQLI-14 includes three aspects of overall quality of life (QOL): psycho-physiological well-being, functional well-being, and social-spiritual well-being. Fourteen items are scored 0–10, with 10 being the most favorable response. Item scores are added to obtain a total scale score ranging from 0 (worst QOL) to 140 (best QOL).
• Center for Epidemiologic Study Depression Scale (CESD), short form. The short form of the CESD is a 10-item true-false instrument validated for use in clinical settings. Items are either present or absent. Validity and reliability are strong.
• Spiritual Needs Inventory (SNI). The SNI assesses the extent to which individuals have spiritual needs and indicates which needs remain unmet. The SNI is a 17-item questionnaire with two main parts: The first rates items in response to a stem 1 (never) to 5 (always). Scores may range from 17 to 85, with a higher score representing a greater spiritual need. Individuals also choose yes or no to incide whether the need was met. Validity and reliability were assessed.
• Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire (SPMSQ). The SPMSQ presents 10 items to measure cognitive impairment. Eight or more correct answers qualified patients and caregivers to remain in the study. Validity has been assessed.

The control and intervention groups were comparable in regard to every variable except patients' years of education. Attrition was greater than 51%. In dyads that completed the study, patients were older and had higher functional status scores at baseline. No other comparisons were statistically significant. Results showed improved patient depression (p < 0.001) as a result of the intervention and improvement in both groups in patients’ QOL (p < 0.001). No other patient outcomes (symptom distress, spiritual needs) or caregiver outcomes (depression, support and spiritual needs) were statistically significant.

The addition of the systematic assessment of depression to usual care probably had a greater effect because it is not a symptom on which hospice staff normally focus. Improving depression is an important way of improving overall QOL of patients and their families during hospice treatment. The lack of improvement in caregiver variables in either group over time may suggest the need for greater attention to this symptom.

• Dyads might not have used the information provided.
• The study had a high level of attrition (greater than 51%).
• Only patients who remained functional throughout the whole course of study were selected.
• The information-only intervention may have been insufficient to lead to staff change.
• The control group may not have been valid in the sense that high-quality usual care may have been similar to the intervention: The number of visits did not change significantly in the intervention group.
• A study may have included a confounding effect: Hospice workers may have provided care of such good quality that results were affected by more than the intervention itself.

Hospice is an effective service, and efforts to improve hospice care should be a priority. Caregivers as well as patients should be a focus of hospice care. The study supports the systematic assessment of depression in hospice patients. The study also supports the need for greater attention, via research and systematic assessment, to caregivers in the hospice setting.