Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Risk factors

Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology

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.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 45/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 1 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 1 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 26 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 45 of 100. Total 45 of 100.26 of the 58 points we could judge = 45 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design and effect reported because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 26 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 45 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Age and ageing)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 0 / 12 No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence 1 / 5 Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 1 / 5 2000 — older than 20 years, still counted
Sample size 1 / 4 81 participants
Effect reported 0 / 3 No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people 3 / 3 Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomised / blinded 1 / 2 Randomised (as stated in the record)
Times cited — / 7 No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year — / 5 No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year — / 6 No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here — / 6 Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited — / 4 No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record — / 4 Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record — / 3 No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multi-centre collaboration — / 3 Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 10791452)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 26 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 26 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 45 out of 100.
Total 45 / 100 —

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Burrows, A. B., Morris, J. N., Simon, S. E., Hirdes, J. P., & Phillips, C. (2000). Development of a minimum data set-based depression rating scale for use in nursing homes. Age and ageing. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/29.2.165

Vancouver

Burrows AB, Morris JN, Simon SE, Hirdes JP, Phillips C. Development of a minimum data set-based depression rating scale for use in nursing homes. Age and ageing. 2000. doi:10.1093/ageing/29.2.165. PMID: 10791452.

BibTeX

@article{burrows2000-10791452,
  author  = {Burrows, A. B. and Morris, J. N. and Simon, S. E. and Hirdes, J. P. and Phillips, C.},
  title   = {{Development of a minimum data set-based depression rating scale for use in nursing homes}},
  journal = {Age and ageing},
  year    = {2000},
  doi     = {10.1093/ageing/29.2.165},
  pmid    = {10791452},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/29.2.165}
}

Related studies in Risk factors

Similar studies

More on Risk factors

See all studies in Risk factors →