OBJECTIVE: Only half of patients with depressive disorder are diagnosed by their family physicians. Screening in high-risk groups might reduce this hidden morbidity. This study aims to determine the accuracy of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) in (a) screening for depressive disorder, (b) diagnosing depressive disorder and (c) measuring the severity of depressive disorder in groups that are at high risk for depressive disorder. METHOD: We compared the performance of the PHQ-9 as a screening instrument and as a diagnostic instrument to that of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders (SCID-I) interview, which we used as reference standard. Three high-risk groups of patients were selected: (a) frequent attenders, (b) patients with mental health problems and (c) patients with unexplained complaints. Patients completed the PHQ-9. Next, patients who were at risk for depression (based on PHQ scores) and a random sample of 20% of patients who were not at risk were selected for a second PHQ-9 and the reference standard (SCID-I). We assessed the adequacy of the PHQ-9 as a tool for severity measurement by comparing PHQ-9 scores with scores on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17) in patients diagnosed with a depressive disorder. RESULTS: Among 440 patients, both PHQ-9 and SCID-I were analyzed. The test characteristics for screening were sensitivity=0.93 and specificity=0.85; those for diagnosing were sensitivity=0.68 and specificity=0.95. The positive likelihood ratio for diagnosing was 14.2. The HDRS-17 was administered in 49 patients with depressive disorder. The Pearson correlation coefficient of the PHQ-9 to the HDRS-17 was r=.52 (P<.01). CONCLUSION: The PHQ-9 performs well as a screening instrument, but in diagnosing depressive disorder, a formal diagnostic process following the PHQ-9 remains imperative. The PHQ-9 does not seem adequate for measuring severity.
OBJECTIVE: Only half of patients with depressive disorder are diagnosed by their family physicians. Screening in high-risk groups might reduce this hidden morbidity. This study aims to determine the accuracy of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) in (a) screening for depressive disorder, (b) diagnosing depressive disorder and (c) measuring the severity of depressive disorder in groups that are at high risk for depressive disorder. METHOD: We compared the performance of the PHQ-9 as a screening instrument and as a diagnostic instrument to that of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders (SCID-I) interview, which we used as reference standard. Three high-risk groups of patients were selected: (a) frequent attenders, (b) patients with mental health problems and (c) patients with unexplained complaints. Patients completed the PHQ-9. Next, patients who were at risk for depression (based on PHQ scores) and a random sample of 20% of patients who were not at risk were selected for a second PHQ-9 and the reference standard (SCID-I). We assessed the adequacy of the PHQ-9 as a tool for severity measurement by comparing PHQ-9 scores with scores on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17) in patients diagnosed with a depressive disorder. RESULTS: Among 440 patients, both PHQ-9 and SCID-I were analyzed. The test characteristics for screening were sensitivity=0.93 and specificity=0.85; those for diagnosing were sensitivity=0.68 and specificity=0.95. The positive likelihood ratio for diagnosing was 14.2. The HDRS-17 was administered in 49 patients with depressive disorder. The Pearson correlation coefficient of the PHQ-9 to the HDRS-17 was r=.52 (P<.01). CONCLUSION: The PHQ-9 performs well as a screening instrument, but in diagnosing depressive disorder, a formal diagnostic process following the PHQ-9 remains imperative. The PHQ-9 does not seem adequate for measuring severity.
Authors: Lian Van Der Krieke; Bertus F Jeronimus; Frank J Blaauw; Rob B K Wanders; Ando C Emerencia; Hendrika M Schenk; Stijn De Vos; Evelien Snippe; Marieke Wichers; Johanna T W Wigman; Elisabeth H Bos; Klaas J Wardenaar; Peter De Jonge Journal: Int J Methods Psychiatr Res Date: 2015-09-22 Impact factor: 4.035
Authors: Thomas Buchheit; Thomas Van de Ven; Hung-Lun John Hsia; Mary McDuffie; David B MacLeod; William White; Alexander Chamessian; Francis J Keefe; Chester Trip Buckenmaier; Andrew D Shaw Journal: Pain Med Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 3.750
Authors: Isobel M Cameron; Amanda Cardy; John R Crawford; Schalk W du Toit; Steven Hay; Kenneth Lawton; Kenneth Mitchell; Sumit Sharma; Shilpa Shivaprasad; Sally Winning; Ian C Reid Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Lata K McGinn; Anna Van Meter; Ian Kronish; Jessica Gashin; Karen Burns; Natalie Kil; Thomas G McGinn Journal: Cognit Ther Res Date: 2019-02-12
Authors: Elizabeth Phelan; Barbara Williams; Kathryn Meeker; Katie Bonn; John Frederick; James Logerfo; Mark Snowden Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2010-09-01 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Kurt Kroenke; Jingwei Wu; Zhangsheng Yu; Matthew J Bair; Jacob Kean; Timothy Stump; Patrick O Monahan Journal: Psychosom Med Date: 2016 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 4.312