2001
DOI: 10.1097/00019442-200102000-00006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of the Standard and Structured Interview Guide for the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale in Depressed Geriatric Inpatients

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

0
84
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 133 publications
(84 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
0
84
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The inclusion criterion for depression was HAMD ≥ 15 (24-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression [26, 27] ). The exclusion criteria, including high suicide risk, possible dementia (assessed with the Mini-Cog [28] ), bipolar disorder, and psychotic disorder, are described in our earlier paper.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The inclusion criterion for depression was HAMD ≥ 15 (24-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression [26, 27] ). The exclusion criteria, including high suicide risk, possible dementia (assessed with the Mini-Cog [28] ), bipolar disorder, and psychotic disorder, are described in our earlier paper.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The 24-item HAMD consists of the GRID-HAMD-21 structured interview guide [26] augmented with three additional items assessing feelings of hopelessness, helplessness, and worthlessness, with specific probes and follow-up questions developed by Moberg et al [27] …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…All study participants completed all study measures at baseline (day 0, prior to EBRT) and at midpoint (19–21 sessions after EBRT initiation), which was the period when initial fatigue intensification was found to peak in our previous study (Saligan et al 2013). All participants were evaluated using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D; Moberg et al 2001), and the presence of depressive symptoms was considered an exclusion criterion. Fatigue was measured by the highly reliable and valid Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Fatigue (FACT-F; Yellen et al 1997).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Severity of depression was assessed using the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD-17; Hamilton, 1960), a 17-item semi-structured interview. The Structured Interview Guide for the HRSD (SIGH-D; Williams, 1988) was used; this measure shows excellent inter-rater reliability (Williams, 1988), and appears more reliable than the unstructured HRSD (Moberg et al, 2001). Overall illness severity was determined using the CGI (Guy, 1976).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%