Skip to main content
Log in

Screening for major depressive disorder in adults with glioma using the PHQ-9: a comparison of patient versus proxy reports

  • Clinical Study
  • Published:
Journal of Neuro-Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

When screening for depression in glioma patients, the utility of proxy carer report is unknown. We studied how patients and proxies differed in the frequency, severity and agreement of reported depressive symptoms, the external validity of these reports, and whether patient-proxy agreement was associated with cognitive function. This was a cross-sectional study within a prospective cohort study of depression in glioma. Eligible patients were adults with a new diagnosis of cerebral glioma whose cohabiting partners chose to attend study interviews. Patients completed the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9, maximum score 27) to screen for major depressive disorder. Proxies independently completed the PHQ-9 ‘for the patient’. A structured clinical interview for MDD was then given. From 55 couples attending, 41 participated (74 %). Patient-proxy total PHQ-9 score differed by 3 or more points in 26/41 cases (63.4 %). Disagreement within dyads ranged from −7 to +10 points. Proxies observed more individual depressive symptoms than patients reported (mean 2.7 vs 1.8 symptoms respectively, p = 0.013, Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test), and a greater severity of symptom burden (mean PHQ-9 score 8.4 vs 6.8 respectively, p = 0.016, Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test). Proxies were more reliable than patients on objective behavioural symptoms of depression. Dyadic agreement was not associated with severity of patient cognitive impairment. There was frequent disagreement between glioma patients and proxies reports of depressive symptoms. Proxies reported more depressive symptoms than patients, and were more reliable when reporting observable behavioural symptoms. When diagnosing depression in glioma, collateral history should be obtained.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. von Essen L (2004) Proxy ratings of patient quality of life. Acta Oncol 43:229–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Sneeuw KCA, Aaronson NK, Ososba D, Muller M, Hsu MA, Yung A et al (1997) The use of significant others as proxy raters of the quality of life of patients with brain cancer. Med Care 35:490–506

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Williams LS, Bakas T, Brizendine E, Plue L, Tu W, Hendrie H et al (2006) How valid are family proxy assessments of stroke patients’ health-related quality of life? Stroke 37:2081–2085

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Carod-Artal FJ, Coral LF, Trizotto DS, Moreira CM (2009) Self- and proxy-report agreement on the stroke impact scale. Stroke 40:3308–3314

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Pickard AS, Johnson JA, Feeny DH, Shuaib A, Carriere KC, Nasser AM (2004) Agreement between patient and proxy assessments of health-related quality of life after stroke using the EQ-5D and health utilities index. Stroke 35:607–612

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. van der Linden FAH, Kragt JJ, Hobart JC, Klein M, Thompson AJ, van der Ploeg HM et al (2006) Proxy measurements in multiple sclerosis: agreement between patients and their partners on the impact of multiple sclerosis in daily life. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 77:1157–1162

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cusick CP, Gerhart KA, Mellick DC (2000) Participant-proxy reliability in traumatic brain injury outcome research. J Head Trauma Rehabil 15:739–749

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Ho AK, Robbins AOG, Barker RA (2006) Huntington’s disease patients have selective problems with insight. Mov Disord 21:385–389

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Novella JL, Boyer F, Jochum C, Jovenin N, Morrone I, Jolly D et al (2006) Health status in patients with Alzheimer’s disease: an investigation of inter-rater agreement. Qual Life Res 15:811–819

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Hays RD, Vickrey BG, Hermann BP, Perrine K, Cramer J, Meador K et al (1995) Agreement between self reports and proxy reports of quality of life in epilepsy patients. Qual Life Res 4:159–168

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Rooney AG, McNamara S, MacKinnon M, Fraser M, Rampling R, Carson A, Grant R (2011) Frequency, clinical associations, and longitudinal course of major depressive disorder in adults with cerebral glioma. J Clin Oncol 29:4307–4312

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Rooney AG, McNamara S, MacKinnon M, Fraser M, Rampling R, Carson A, Grant R (2010) Depression in cerebral glioma patients: a systematic review of observational studies. J Natl Cancer Inst 103:61–76

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rooney AG, McNamara S, MacKinnon M, Fraser M, Rampling R, Carson A, Grant R (2012) Screening for major depressive disorder in adults with cerebral glioma: an initial validation of three self-report instruments. Neurooncology 15(1):122–129

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gehring K, Sitskoorn MM, Aaronson NK, Taphoorn MJB (2008) Interventions for cognitive deficits in adults with brain tumours. Lancet Neurol 7:548–560

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Goldstein LH, Bernard S, Fenwick PBC, Burgess PW, McNeil J (1993) Unilateral frontal lobectomy can produce strategy application disorder. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 56:274–276

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Laperriere N, Zuraw L, Cairncross G, The Cancer Care Ontario Practice Guidelines Initiative Neuro-Oncology Disease Site Group (2002) Radiotherapy for newly diagnosed malignant glioma in adults: a systematic review. Radiother Oncol 64:259–273

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Devinsky O (2007) Cognitive and behavioral effects of antiepileptic drugs. Epilepsia 36:S46–S65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Brown PD, Decker PA, Rummans TA, Clark MM, Frost MH, Ballman KV et al (2008) A prospective study of quality of life in adults with newly diagnosed high-grade gliomas: comparison of patient and caregiver ratings of quality of life. Am J Clin Oncol 31:163–168

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Giesinger JM, Golser M, Erharter A, Kemmler G, Schauer-Maurer G, Stockhammer G et al (2009) Do neurooncological patients and their significant others agree on quality of life ratings? Health Qual Life Outcomes 7:87–97

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Moinpour CM, Lyons B, Schmidt SP, Chanksy K, Patchell RA (2000) Substituting proxy ratings for patient ratings in cancer clinical trials: an analysis based on a Southwest Oncology Group trial in patients with brain metastases. Qual Life Res 9:219–231

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JBW (2001) The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. J Gen Internal Med 16:606–613

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. American Psychiatric Association (2000) DSM-IV-TR. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, text revision, 4th ed. American Psychiatric Association, Washington DC

  23. Williams LS, Brizendine EJ, Plue L, Bakas T, Tu W, Hendrie H et al (2005) Performance of the PHQ-9 as a screening tool for depression after stroke. Stroke 36:635–638

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Fann JR, Bombardier CH, Dikmen S, Esselman P, Warms CA, Pelzer E et al (2005) Validity of the patient health questionnaire-9 in assessing depression following traumatic brain injury. J Head Trauma Rehabil 20:501–511

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. First MB, Gibbon M, Spitzer RL, et al (1996) User’s guide for the SCID-I, Structured clinical interview for DSM-IV axis I disorders, Research Version. New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York

  26. Ganzini L, Goy ER, Dobscha SK (2008) Prevalence of depression and anxiety in patients requesting physicians’ aid in dying: cross-sectional survey. BMJ 337:a1682

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Strong V, Waters R, Hibberd C, Rush R, Cargill A, Storey D et al (2007) Emotional distress in cancer patients: the Edinburgh Cancer Centre symptom study. Br J Cancer 96:868–874

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Hoffman MA, Weiner JS (2007) Is Mrs S depressed? Diagnosing depression in the cancer patient. J Clin Oncol 25:2853–2856

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Chochinov HM, Wilson KG, Enns M, Lander S (1994) Prevalence of depression in the terminally ill: effects of diagnostic criteria and symptom threshold judgements. Am J Psychiatry 151:537–540

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Mioshi E, Dawson K, Mitchell J, Arnold R, Hodges JR (2006) The Addenbrooke’s cognitive examination revised (ACE-R): a brief cognitive test battery for dementia screening. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 21:1078–1085

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Skolaris LE, Sanchez BN, Morgenstern LB, Garcia NM, Smith MA, Brown DL et al (2010) Validity of proxies and correction for proxy use when evaluating social determinants of health in stroke patients. Stroke 41:510–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by the NHS Lothian Endowment Fund.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alasdair Grant Rooney.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rooney, A.G., McNamara, S., Mackinnon, M. et al. Screening for major depressive disorder in adults with glioma using the PHQ-9: a comparison of patient versus proxy reports. J Neurooncol 113, 49–55 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-013-1088-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-013-1088-4

Keywords

Navigation