Background/Purpose: Understanding the cultural conceptions of depression can guide its identification and management. We aimed to identify the scope of knowledge regarding depression screening tools in culturally diverse older adult populations.
Method: We performed a scoping review following PRISMA guidelines. We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsychINFO electronic databases. Independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts for inclusion/exclusion. Inclusion criteria: mean age ≤ 65 years, English language, validated depression screening tool, and identified ethnicity of sample. Exclusion criteria: participants with cognitive impairment, selective study populations (e.g. malignancy), victims of trauma, and caregivers.
Results: The search produced 7330 unique citations and 632 met inclusion criteria. After lull text review, 435 citations were included. Sixty-one countries were represented. Most studies were conducted in the USA (192), followed by South Korea (56), China (59), Hong Kong (24), and Japan (17). Eleven studies were performed in Canada. One-hundred-forty cultural/ethnic categories were reported. Thirty-three depression screening tools were identified. The most commonly used screening tool was the Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression Scale (188, used in 43.2% of all studies), followed by the Geriatric Depression Scale (164, 37.7%) and the Patient Health Questionnaire (61, 14.0%). Canadian studies favoured the GDS (58%) and often used translated versions of the GDS for non-English speaking participants.
Discussion: We explored the scope of knowledge regarding depression screening tools in culturally and ethnically diverse populations. Knowing which screening tools have been studied in diverse populations may guide the selection of the most appropriate tool and improve patient-centred care.
Conclusion: Despite broad clinical use, not all commonly used depression screening tools have been studied in the ethnic and cultural groups in which they are utilized. It is important to be aware of the limitations of such screening tools.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
© 2023. This work is published under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ca/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
1 Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary
2 Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary