BackgroundThe validity of the 20-item Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression (CES-D) scale for depression screening in Hong Kong Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes remains unknown. We aimed to validate CES-D, compare its psychometric properties with the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), and explore whether one of the two is more suitable for depression screening in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes.MethodsBetween June 2010 and July 2011, 545 consecutive Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes who underwent structured comprehensive assessments completed the CES-D and PHQ-9. Forty patients were retested within 2–4 weeks by telephone interview and 97 patients were randomly selected to undergo the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) by psychiatrists for clinical diagnosis of depression.ResultsThe internal consistency (Cronbach’s α) of CES-D was 0.85, with a test-retest correlation coefficient of 0.64. The area under the curve for CES-D compared to the clinical diagnosis of major depression was 0.85. A cut-off score of ≥21 for CES-D provided the optimal balance between sensitivity (78.3 %) and specificity (74.3 %) and identified 17.8 % (n = 97) of patients with depression. CES-D and PHQ-9 showed moderate agreement in depression screening (Cohen’s Kappa: 0.45). Compared to non-depressed patients, those who screened positive by PHQ-9 had a higher HbA1c whereas the glycemic differences were not significant when using CES-D.ConclusionThe CES-D is a valid screening tool for depression in Chinese type 2 diabetic patients although the PHQ-9 was more discriminative in identifying those with suboptimal glycemic control.

BackgroundWe hypothesize that depression in type 2 diabetes might be associated with poor glycemic control, in part due to suboptimal self‐care. We tested this hypothesis by examining the associations of depression with clinical and laboratory findings in a multicenter survey of Chinese type 2 diabetic patients.Method2538 patients aged 18–75 years attending hospital‐based clinics in four cities in China underwent detailed clinical‐psychological‐behavioral assessment during a 12‐month period between 2011 and 2012. Depression was diagnosed if Patient Health Questionnaire‐9 (PHQ‐9) score ≥10. Diabetes self‐care and medication adherence were assessed using the Summary of Diabetes Self‐care Activities and the 4‐item Morisky medication adherence scale respectively.ResultsIn this cross‐sectional study (mean age: 56.4 ± 10.5[SD] years, 53% men), 6.1% (n = 155) had depression. After controlling for study sites, patients with depression had higher HbA 1c (7.9 ± 2.0 vs. 7.7 ± 2.0%, P = 0.008) and were less likely to achieve HbA 1c goal of <7.0% (36.2% vs 45.6%, P = 0.004) than those without depression. They were more likely to report hypoglycemia and to have fewer days of being adherent to their recommended diet, exercise, foot care and medication. In logistic regression, apart from young age, poor education, long disease duration, tobacco use, high body mass index, use of insulin, depression was independently associated with failure to attain HbA 1c target (Odds Ratio [OR] = 1.56, 95%CI:1.05–2.32, P = 0.028). The association between depression and glycemic control became non‐significant after inclusion of adherence to diet, exercise and medication (OR = 1.48, 95% CI 0.99–2.21, P = 0.058).ConclusionDepression in type 2 diabetes was closely associated with hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia, which might be partly mediated through poor treatment adherence.

OBJECTIVETo validate a Chinese version of the Diabetes Distress Scale (CDDS).RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSThe CDDS was derived using forward-backward translation and administered in 189 Chinese type 2 diabetic patients with evaluation of its psychometric properties.RESULTSOn the basis of principal-component analysis, three factors of the 15-item version of the CDDS (CDDS-15) accounted for 63% of the variance. The correlation coefficient between the original 17-item and 15-item scales was 0.99. The Cronbach α for internal consistency was 0.90, and the test-retest reliability coefficient was 0.74. The CDDS-15 score was significantly associated with glycemic control, obesity, depressive symptoms, and quality of life.CONCLUSIONSThe CDDS-15 is a valid and reliable instrument to assess diabetes-related distress.