Validity of the short‐form five‐item Problem Area in Diabetes questionnaire as a depression screening tool in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients

Abstract

AbstractAims/IntroductionDepression is prevalent in diabetes patients and associated with poor outcomes, but is currently underdiagnosed, with no firm consensus on screening methods. We evaluated the validity of the short‐form five‐item Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID‐5) questionnaire as a screening tool for depression, comparing it with the Beck Depression Inventory‐II (BDI‐II) and nine‐item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ‐9).Materials and MethodsA total of 208 English‐speaking adults with type 2 diabetes, recruited from outpatient clinics, completed the BDI‐II, PHQ‐9 and PAID‐5 questionnaires in English. Cronbach's α was used for internal reliability. Convergent validity was examined with BDI‐II and PHQ‐9. Receiver operating characteristics analyses were used to identify optimal PAID‐5 cut‐offs for the diagnosis of depression.ResultsAll three screening tools were highly reliable, with BDI‐II, PHQ‐9 and PAID‐5 having a Cronbach's α of 0.910, 0.870 and 0.940, respectively. There was a good correlation between BDI‐II and PHQ‐9, with a correlation co‐efficient (r) of 0.73; and a moderate correlation between PAID‐5 and PHQ‐9, and PAID‐5 and BDI‐II, with r of 0.55 and 0.55 respectively (P values <0.01). An optimal PAID‐5 cut‐off ≥9 corresponded to both a BDI‐II cut‐off >14 (sensitivity 72%, specificity 784%, area under the curve 0.809) and a PHQ‐9 cut‐off >10 (sensitivity 84%, specificity 74%, area under the curve 0.806). Using a PAID‐5 cut‐off ≥9, the prevalence of depressive symptoms was 36.1%.ConclusionsDepressive symptoms are prevalent in people with type 2 diabetes, with the degree of distress significantly related to the severity of depressive symptoms. PAID‐5 is a valid and reliable screening tool, and a score ≥9 could prompt further confirmation for depression.