Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 722

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 46 of the 46 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Development of a minimum data set-based depression rating scale for use in nursing homes

Burrows, A·2000·Age and Ageing
DOI 10.1093/ageing/29.2.165
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: depression is common but under-diagnosed in nursing-home residents. There is a need for a standardized screening instrument which incorporates daily observations of nursing-home staff. AIM: to develop and validate a screening instrument for depression using items from the Minimum Data Set of the Resident Assessment Instrument. METHODS: we conducted semi-structured interviews with 108 residents from two nursing homes to obtain depression ratings using the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and the Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia. Nursing staff completed Minimum Data Set assessments. In a randomly assigned derivation sample (n = 81), we identified Minimum Data Set mood items that were correlated (P < 0.05) with Hamilton and Cornell ratings. These items were factored using an oblique rotation to yield five conceptually distinct factors. Using linear regression, each set of factored items was regressed against Hamilton and Cornell ratings to identify a core set of seven Minimum Data Set mood items which comprise the Minimum Data Set Depression Rating Scale. We then tested the performance of the Minimum Data Set Depression Rating Scale against accepted cut-offs and psychiatric diagnoses. RESULTS: a cutpoint score of 3 on the Minimum Data Set Depression Rating Scale maximized sensitivity (94% for Hamilton, 78% for Cornell) with minimal loss of specificity (72% for Hamilton, 77% for Cornell) when tested against cut-offs for mild to moderate depression in the derivation sample. Results were similar in the validation sample. When tested against diagnoses of major or non-major depression in a subset of 82 subjects, sensitivity was 91% and specificity was 69%. Performance compared favourably with the 15-item Geriatric Depression Scale. CONCLUSION: items from the Minimum Data Set can be organized to screen for depression in nursing-home residents. Further testing of the instrument is now needed.

Overview

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 · 10.1093/ageing/29.2.165

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 722

Metadata

Authors
Burrows, A.
Venue
Age and Ageing
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2000-03-01
Volume
29
Issue
2
Pages
165-172
ISSN
  • 0002-0729 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-2834
DOI
10.1093/ageing/29.2.165
OpenAlex
W2105447009
Cited by
722
References
46
FWCI
22.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.