Aims: Cancer patients often present with psychological symptoms that affect their quality of life, physical health outcomes and survival. Two of the most frequent psychiatric comorbidities are anxiety and depression. However, the prevalence of these disorders among cancer patients remains unclear, as studies frequently report varying rates. In the present study, we aimed to provide robust point estimates for the prevalence of anxiety and depression for both a mixed cancer sample and for 13 cancer types separately, considering confounding variables. Methods: In a sample of 7509 cancer outpatients (51.4% female), we used the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale to assess rates of anxiety and depression. Applying ordinal logistic regression models, we compared the prevalence of anxiety and depression between different cancer types, controlling for age and gender. Results: About one third of our sample showed symptoms of anxiety (35.2%) or depression (27.9%), and every sixth patient had a very likely psychiatric condition, with women being more frequently affected. Elderly patients more often showed signs of depression. The prevalence of anxiety and depression was significantly higher in lung and brain cancer patients, than in other cancer patients. Lowest depression rates were found in breast cancer patients. Conclusions: The prevalence of anxiety and depression is high in cancer patients. Type of cancer is an important predictor for anxiety and depressive symptoms, with lung and brain cancer patients being highly burdened. Considering a personalised medicine approach, physicians should take into account the high prevalence of psychiatric comorbidities and include psychiatric consultations in the treatment plan.

Background: During the initial phase of the global COVID-19 outbreak, most countries responded with non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs). In this study we investigate the general effectiveness of these NPIs, how long different NPIs need to be in place to take effect, and how long they should be in place for their maximum effect to unfold. Methods: We used global data and a non-parametric machine learning model to estimate the effects of NPIs in relation to how long they have been in place. We applied a random forest model and used accumulated local effect (ALE) plots to derive estimates of the effectiveness of single NPIs in relation to their implementation date. In addition, we used bootstrap samples to investigate the variability in these ALE plots. Results: Our results show that closure and regulation of schools was the most important NPI, associated with a pronounced effect about 10 days after implementation. Restrictions of mass gatherings and restrictions and regulations of businesses were found to have a more gradual effect, and social distancing was associated with a delayed effect starting about 18 days after implementation. Conclusions: Our results can inform political decisions regarding the choice of NPIs and how long they need to be in place to take effect.

Dementia in people with intellectual disability (ID) is frequent but hard to recognise. Evidence-based recommendations for suitable instruments are lacking. The present study set out to evaluate informant-based dementia assessment instruments and to provide evidence-based recommendations for instruments most suitable in clinical practice and research. A systematic review was conducted across ten international electronic databases. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines, including a risk of bias assessment, was applied to extract information and to evaluate measurement properties and the quality of available evidence. In total, 42 studies evaluating 18 informant-based assessment instruments were analysed. For screening purposes, we recommend the Behavioral and Psychological Symptoms of Dementia in Down Syndrome Scale (BPSD-DS), the Cognitive Scale for Down Syndrome (CS-DS), and the Dementia Screening Questionnaire for Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities (DSQIID). For a more thorough dementia assessment, we recommend the Cambridge Examination for Mental Disorders of Older People with Down's Syndrome and Others with Intellectual Disabilities (CAMDEX-DS). Our study informs clinicians and researchers about adequate, well-evaluated dementia assessment instruments for people with ID, and highlights the need for high quality studies, especially regarding content validity.