Accuracy of anxiety and depression screening tools in heart transplant recipients

Aaron Conway*, Judith Sheridan, Joanne Maddicks-Law, Paul Fulbrook, Chantal F. Ski, David R. Thompson, Lynn V. Doering

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

8 Citations (Scopus)


Purpose The aim of this study was to assess the validity and reliability of psychological screening tools in outpatient heart transplant recipients. Methods Forty-eight heart transplant recipients completed the Patient Health Questionnaire 9-item scale (PHQ-9), Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item Scale (GAD-7), Kessler Psychological Distress 10-item Scale (K-10) and Medical Outcomes Short Form 36-item Health Survey. A structured psychological interview (Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview Version 6) was conducted after completion of the questionnaires. Internal consistency, criterion validity and construct validity of the PHQ-9, GAD-7 and K-10 were evaluated. Results Internal consistency supported the reliability of the screening tools. The optimal cut-off on the PHQ-9 for depression was 10 (sensitivity = 0.86; specificity = 0.93). A score of 6 on the GAD-7 maximized sensitivity (0.75) and specificity (0.89) for anxiety. A score of 17 on the K-10 was the optimal cut-off for diagnosis of either anxiety or depression (sensitivity = 0.83; specificity = 0.84). Increasing scores on the screening tools were associated with lower health-related quality of life. Conclusion Psychometric analyses support the reliability and validity of the PHQ-9, GAD-7 and K-10 as screening tools for detection of anxiety and depression in heart transplant recipients.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)177-181
JournalApplied Nursing Research
Publication statusPublished - 01 Nov 2016


  • Anxiety
  • Depression
  • Heart transplant
  • Nursing
  • Screening

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Nursing(all)


Dive into the research topics of 'Accuracy of anxiety and depression screening tools in heart transplant recipients'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this