Cited by 435Cancer survivorship and careMental Health Treatment and AccessGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening

Prevalence, associations, and adequacy of treatment of major depression in patients with cancer: a cross-sectional analysis of routinely collected clinical data

Open access
Walker, Jane, Hansen, Christian Holm, Martin, Paul, Symeonides, Stefan, Ramessur, Ravi, Murray, Gordon, Sharpe, Michael·2014·The Lancet Psychiatry

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Major depression is an important complication of cancer. However, reliable data are lacking for the prevalence of depression in patients with cancer in different primary sites, the association of depression with demographic and clinical variables within cancer groupings, and the proportion of depressed patients with cancer receiving potentially effective treatment for depression. We investigated these questions with data from a large representative clinical sample. METHODS: We analysed data from patients with breast, lung, colorectal, genitourinary, or gynaecological cancer who had participated in routine screening for depression in cancer clinics in Scotland, UK between May 12, 2008, and Aug 24, 2011. Depression screening was done in two stages (first, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; then, major depression section of the Structured Clinical Interview for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition). Data for depression status were linked with demographic and clinical data obtained from the Scottish National Cancer Registry. FINDINGS: We analysed data for 21 151 patients. The prevalence of major depression was highest in patients with lung cancer (13·1%, 95% CI 11·9-14·2%), followed by gynaecological cancer (10·9%, 9·8-12·1), breast cancer (9·3%, 8·7-10·0), colorectal cancer (7·0%, 6·1-8·0), and genitourinary cancer (5·6%, 4·5-6·7). Within these cancer groupings, a diagnosis of major depression was more likely in patients who were younger, had worse social deprivation scores, and, for lung cancer and colorectal cancer, female patients. 1130 (73%) of 1538 patients with depression and complete patient-reported treatment data were not receiving potentially effective treatment. INTERPRETATION: Major depression is common in patients attending cancer clinics and most goes untreated. A pressing need exists to improve the management of major depression for patients attending specialist cancer services. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK and Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s2215-0366(14)70313-x

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • 73% of cancer patients with depression do not receive any treatment for their depression.

    “an astounding 73% of cancer patients with depression do not receive any treatment for their depression.50”

    From Individualized, Single Session Yoga Therapy to Reduce Physical and Emotional Symptoms in Hospitalized Hematological Cancer Patients. (2019) · cites this paper as [50]

    The Results report that 1130 of 1538 patients (73%) with major depression and complete treatment data were not receiving any potentially effective treatment. The claim drops that qualification: the paper does not establish that all 73% received no treatment of any kind. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Walker, J., Hansen, C. H., Martin, P., Symeonides, S., Ramessur, R., Murray, G., & Sharpe, M.
Affiliations
  • Warneford Hospital (GB)
  • London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
  • Western General Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Walker, Jane
Venue
The Lancet Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-10
Volume
1
Issue
5
Pages
343-350
ISSN
2215-0366 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2084343441
Cited by
435
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 43 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 45 · 2022: 57 · 2021: 48 · 2020: 46 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 1
FWCI
10.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet Psychiatry (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Output (Edinburgh Napier University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Edinburgh Napier Research Repository (Edinburgh Napier University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Cancer Research UK as part of a programme grant (grant number C5547 / A7375)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
Keywords
major depressive disorder, cancer patients, depression prevalence, untreated depression, depression screening, lung cancer, breast cancer, colorectal cancer, gynecologic cancer, genitourinary cancer, social deprivation, sex differences, treatment adequacy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review