BACKGROUND: Although effective treatment of depressed patients requires regular follow-up contacts and symptom monitoring, an efficient method for assessing treatment outcome is lacking. We investigated responsiveness to treatment, reproducibility, and minimal clinically important difference of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), a standard instrument for diagnosing depression in primary care. METHODS: This study included 434 intervention subjects from the IMPACT study, a multisite treatment trial of late-life depression (63% female, mean age 71 years). Changes in PHQ-9 scores over the course of time were evaluated with respect to change scores of the SCL-20 depression scale as well as 2 independent structured diagnostic interviews for depression during a 6-month period. Test-retest reliability and minimal clinically important difference were assessed in 2 subgroups of patients who completed the PHQ-9 twice exactly 7 days apart. RESULTS: The PHQ-9 responsiveness as measured by effect size was significantly greater than the SCL-20 at 3 months (-1.3 versus -0.9) and equivalent at 6 months (-1.3 versus -1.2). With respect to structured diagnostic interviews, both the PHQ-9 and the SCL-20 change scores accurately discriminated patients with persistent major depression, partial remission, and full remission. Test-retest reliability of the PHQ-9 was excellent, and its minimal clinically important difference for individual change, estimated as 2 standard errors of measurement, was 5 points on the 0 to 27 point PHQ-9 scale. CONCLUSIONS: Well-validated as a diagnostic measure, the PHQ-9 has now proven to be a responsive and reliable measure of depression treatment outcomes. Its responsiveness to treatment coupled with its brevity makes the PHQ-9 an attractive tool for gauging response to treatment in individual patient care as well as in clinical research.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Although effective treatment of depressedpatients requires regular follow-up contacts and symptom monitoring, an efficient method for assessing treatment outcome is lacking. We investigated responsiveness to treatment, reproducibility, and minimal clinically important difference of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), a standard instrument for diagnosing depression in primary care. METHODS: This study included 434 intervention subjects from the IMPACT study, a multisite treatment trial of late-life depression (63% female, mean age 71 years). Changes in PHQ-9 scores over the course of time were evaluated with respect to change scores of the SCL-20 depression scale as well as 2 independent structured diagnostic interviews for depression during a 6-month period. Test-retest reliability and minimal clinically important difference were assessed in 2 subgroups of patients who completed the PHQ-9 twice exactly 7 days apart. RESULTS: The PHQ-9 responsiveness as measured by effect size was significantly greater than the SCL-20 at 3 months (-1.3 versus -0.9) and equivalent at 6 months (-1.3 versus -1.2). With respect to structured diagnostic interviews, both the PHQ-9 and the SCL-20 change scores accurately discriminated patients with persistent major depression, partial remission, and full remission. Test-retest reliability of the PHQ-9 was excellent, and its minimal clinically important difference for individual change, estimated as 2 standard errors of measurement, was 5 points on the 0 to 27 point PHQ-9 scale. CONCLUSIONS: Well-validated as a diagnostic measure, the PHQ-9 has now proven to be a responsive and reliable measure of depression treatment outcomes. Its responsiveness to treatment coupled with its brevity makes the PHQ-9 an attractive tool for gauging response to treatment in individual patient care as well as in clinical research.
Authors: Yael Schenker; Nathan Bahary; Rene Claxton; Julie Childers; Edward Chu; Dio Kavalieratos; Linda King; Barry Lembersky; Greer Tiver; Robert M Arnold Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2017-08-03 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Seong-Yi Baik; Junius J Gonzales; Barbara J Bowers; Jean S Anthony; Bas Tidjani; Jeffrey L Susman Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2010 May-Jun Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Jennifer L Barton; John Imboden; Jonathan Graf; David Glidden; Edward H Yelin; Dean Schillinger Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Pauline M Maki; Ellen W Freeman; Gail A Greendale; Victor W Henderson; Paul A Newhouse; Peter J Schmidt; Nelda F Scott; Carol A Shively; Claudio N Soares Journal: Menopause Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: David B Bekelman; Stephanie Hooker; Carolyn T Nowels; Deborah S Main; Paula Meek; Connor McBryde; Brack Hattler; Karl A Lorenz; Paul A Heidenreich Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2013-12-11 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Ramesh Farzanfar; Timothy Hereen; Joseph Fava; Jillian Davis; Louis Vachon; Robert Friedman Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2013-11-12 Impact factor: 3.536