Identifying depression post-stroke in patients with aphasia: A systematic review of the reliability, validity and feasibility of available instruments
Files
Publication date
2016-08
Editors
Advisors
Supervisors
Document Type
Article
Metadata
Show full item recordCollections
License
taverne
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify and critically appraise the evidence for instruments assessing depression in stroke patients with aphasia. METHODS: The PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, Psych Info and Cochrane databases were searched from inception until May 2015. RESULTS: Of the 383 titles found in the search, 15 articles met the inclusion criteria and six instruments were identified: The Aphasic Depression Rating Scale, the Clinical Global Impression-Scale, the Stroke Aphasic Depression Questionnaire (four versions), the Signs of Depression Scale, the Visual Analogue Mood Scale (three versions) and the Visual Analogue Self Esteem Scale. Supporting evidence for reliability and validity was limited owing to methodological flaws in the studies influencing the ratings of methodological quality. Feasibility data were available for all instruments. Rating time of the instruments ranged from less than one minute to five minutes, two instruments required extensive training. CONCLUSION: A number of instruments to assess depressive symptoms in patients with aphasia are available. None of the instruments however, were found to be sufficiently investigated and most of the studies identified were of low methodological quality. Given the present evidence, the Stroke Aphasic Depression Questionnaire-10, the Stroke Aphasic Depression Questionnaire-H10 and the Signs of Depression Scale are the most feasible and can be recommended for clinical practice.
Keywords
Aphasia, depression, stroke, instrument, screening, screening assessment, systematic review, Taverne, Journal Article, Review
Citation
van Dijk, M J, de Man-van Ginkel, J M, Hafsteinsdóttir, T B & Schuurmans, M J 2016, 'Identifying depression post-stroke in patients with aphasia : A systematic review of the reliability, validity and feasibility of available instruments', Clinical Rehabilitation, vol. 30, no. 8, pp. 795-810. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215515599665