J Affect Disord. 2025 Oct 9:120387. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2025.120387. Online ahead of print.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Research on depression has mostly focused on negative emotion with limited attention to the longitudinal evolution of positive emotions. There is a lack of clarity on the methods commonly used for tracking positive emotions in depression research and clinical practice. This methodological scoping review aimed to describe measurement procedures and instruments and appraise the quality of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).
METHODS: PubMed, PSYCinfo, and EMBASE were systematically searched for longitudinal observational studies that measured positive emotions in adults with depression. We extracted data on measurement procedures and instruments, and conducted a COSMIN appraisal of instrument development and content validity for identified PROMs.
RESULTS: As of April 16, 2024, 19 studies with a median sample size of 60 patients were included. Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) was employed by 81% of studies, though methods varied in frequency (1-10 measures/day), duration (3-50 days), prompts, data collection tools (e.g., booklets, apps), and incentives to minimize missing data. Positive emotions were measured using lists of adjectives (1-13 per list), iwith a total of 37 unique adjectives, some not strictly emotional but cognitive or behavioral. Two PROMs, the State-Trait Depression Adjective Checklist (ST-DACL) and the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS), were used, though intended to assess moods rather than emotions. COSMIN ratings deemed the PROMs as doubtful due to poor reporting.
CONCLUSIONS: Establishing reporting guidelines for EMA studies and consensus on standardized procedures for monitoring positive emotions could enhance research synthesis and aid clinical assessments of depression’s course.
PMID:41076159 | DOI:10.1016/j.jad.2025.120387
Recent Comments