ArticleCancer medicine2026
Factor Structures of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale in Cancer: Implications of Comprehensive Confirmatory Analysis on the German Version of the HADS in an Oncological Sample.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) is a widely used instrument for assessing anxiety and depression in cancer patients. However, the best factor structure for an oncological setting depending on the time of diagnosis is still unclear.
aimThe objective of this study was to investigate the factor structure of the German-language version of the HADS in order to review the use of the HADS subscales and the HADS total scale in standard psycho-oncological care for cancer patients.
methodA secondary data analysis of N = 3395 cancer patients receiving psycho-oncological care was conducted to analyze 22 of the most common HADS factor models from the literature using confirmatory factor analysis. Confirmatory factor analysis was performed using weighted least squares with mean and variance adjustment (WLSMV). Additionally, measurement invariance (MI) analysis was conducted.
resultsThe results indicate that two bifactorial models (Bifactor Model 1: higher-order factor + Anxiety and Depression subscale; Bifactor Model 2: higher-order factor + Restlessness, Anxiety, and Depression subscale) exhibit better quality than the original two-factorial structure (independent anxiety and depression scales) of the HADS (CFI: original structure = 0.970-0.971; Bifactor Model 1 = 0.987-0.988; Bifactor Model 2 = 0.990-0.991; TLI: original structure = 0.964-0.966; Bifactor Model 1 = 0.982; Bifactor Model 2 = 0.985-0.986; RMSEA: original structure = 0.082-0.086; Bifactor Model 1 = 0.065; Bifactor Model 2 = 0.053-0.054). The MI analysis revealed significant differences in performance between configural, metric, and scalar invariance for all three models.
conclusionThe results support the use of a bifactorial factor structure for the HADS-D, with the original Anxiety and Depression factors/scales operationalized, as well as an overarching factor in the form of the total sum score.
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.