Norwegian reference data on the Fatigue Questionnaire and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 and their interrelationship, 2020, Dahl et al

Dolphin

Dolphin

Senior Member (Voting Rights)
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12991-020-00311-5
Norwegian reference data on the Fatigue Questionnaire and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 and their interrelationship

Alv A. Dahl1,2* , Kjersti Støen Grotmol3, Marianne Jensen Hjermstad3,4, Cecilie Essholt Kiserud1
and Jon Håvard Loge3,4

Abstract
Background
Population-based reference data on frequently used questionnaires are important for comparative purposes. Due to changes in health and lifestyles, such data should be updated every other decade. The objectives of this study were to establish Norwegian population-based reference data on the Fatigue Questionnaire (FQ) and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) on depression, to compare the FQ-scores with our previous reference data from 1996, and to explore the relationship between the scores on these two instruments.

Methods
In 2015, a representative sample of 6,012 Norwegians aged 18–80 years was mailed a questionnaire including the FQ and the PHQ-9, and 36% responded. Complete FQ-scores were delivered by 2,041 subjects, and complete PHQ-9 scores by 2,086 subjects. The scores are displayed according to sex and 10-year age groups.

Results
Few 2015 mean scores of mental, physical, and total fatigue differed significantly from those of 1996, and the same was found for the prevalence rates of chronic fatigue. The exception was a significantly lower prevalence in 2015 of mean fatigue scores and prevalence of chronic fatigue in females ≥ 60 years. The prevalence of major depressive episode (MDE) based on the PHQ-9 sum score cut-off ≥ 10 was 5.9% for males and 9.8% for females, and 2.5% and 3.8% using a DSM-based algorithm with at least five endorsed criteria including either anhedonia or depressed mood. The correlation between the FQ and the PHQ-9 was 0.59, implying 36% shared variance.

Conclusions
This study showed considerable interrelationship between the FQ and the PHQ-9 constructs. The reference data show that scores on the FQ have only improved significantly in persons aged 60 or more years between 1996 and 2015. Our prevalence findings of MDE based on the PHQ-9 are in accordance with the findings from other countries. The FQ and the PHQ-9 should be used together in epidemiological and clinical studies.
Click to expand...
 
I'm figuring this is not really an outcome as such, just a report on what the "normal" bounds are on these scales at the present time. For use when deciding whether any given individuals or subset are outside normal bounds.

Because obviously, these are self-report tools, so they don't measure absolute rates of anything, only how people rank their own experience relative to some internal mental model. And the way we self-assess, the mental models we construct and use as "standards" and the way we compare ourselves to others are all factors that are influenced by society and culture.

It reminds me a bit of the claim that "the incidence of dyslexia in school-age children is an alarming 10%". Alarming indeed. But if you define dyslexia as scoring in the bottom 10% of readers in a particular age group on a particular assessment, then the rate will of course be around 10%. That's how you've set it in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom