ArticleJournal of diabetes investigation2023
Validity of the short-form five-item Problem Area in Diabetes questionnaire as a depression screening tool in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients.
Article in Journal of diabetes investigation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Smartphone gaze-tracking for accessible psychiatric assessment.Npj mental health research · 2026Article
- Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes-With a Focus on Older Populations: An AI-Assisted Rapid Review of Use and Implementation in Clinical and Organizational Practice.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Network Analysis of Depressive Symptoms, Social Support, and Diabetes Distress Among Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Cross-Sectional Study.Patient preference and adherence · 2025Article
- Psychological resilience mediates the relationship between diabetes distress and depression among persons with diabetes in a multi-group analysis.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
AIMS/
introductionDepression is prevalent in diabetes patients and associated with poor outcomes, but is currently underdiagnosed, with no firm consensus on screening methods. We evaluated the validity of the short-form five-item Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID-5) questionnaire as a screening tool for depression, comparing it with the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) and nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 208 English-speaking adults with type 2 diabetes, recruited from outpatient clinics, completed the BDI-II, PHQ-9 and PAID-5 questionnaires in English. Cronbach's α was used for internal reliability. Convergent validity was examined with BDI-II and PHQ-9. Receiver operating characteristics analyses were used to identify optimal PAID-5 cut-offs for the diagnosis of depression.
resultsAll three screening tools were highly reliable, with BDI-II, PHQ-9 and PAID-5 having a Cronbach's α of 0.910, 0.870 and 0.940, respectively. There was a good correlation between BDI-II and PHQ-9, with a correlation co-efficient (r) of 0.73; and a moderate correlation between PAID-5 and PHQ-9, and PAID-5 and BDI-II, with r of 0.55 and 0.55 respectively (P values <0.01). An optimal PAID-5 cut-off ≥9 corresponded to both a BDI-II cut-off >14 (sensitivity 72%, specificity 784%, area under the curve 0.809) and a PHQ-9 cut-off >10 (sensitivity 84%, specificity 74%, area under the curve 0.806). Using a PAID-5 cut-off ≥9, the prevalence of depressive symptoms was 36.1%.
conclusionsDepressive symptoms are prevalent in people with type 2 diabetes, with the degree of distress significantly related to the severity of depressive symptoms. PAID-5 is a valid and reliable screening tool, and a score ≥9 could prompt further confirmation for depression.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.