Why the study?
Is the PHQ-9 a valid screening tool for depression in chronic care patients in primary health care in South Africa?
Is the PHQ-9 a valid screening tool for depression in chronic care patients in primary health care in South Africa?
The PHQ-9 is a valid and useful screening tool for major depressive disorder among chronic care patients in South African primary care settings, with an optimal cut-point of ≥9.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
PHQ-9 shows acceptable validity for depression screening in South African chronic care; extends validation data but optimal cut-offs require prospective confirmation before routine adoption.
BACKGROUND: People with chronic health conditions are known to have a higher prevalence of depressive disorder. The Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) is a widely-used screening tool for depression which has not yet been validated for use on chronic care patients in South Africa. METHODS: A sample of 676 chronic care patients attending two primary health facilities in North West Province, South Africa were administered the PHQ-9 by field workers and a diagnostic interview (the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV) (SCID) by clinical psychologists. The PHQ-9 and the PHQ-2 were evaluated against the SCID, as well as for sub-samples of patients who were being treated for HIV infection and for hypertension. RESULTS: Using the SCID, 11.4 % of patients had major depressive disorder. The internal consistency estimate for the PHQ-9 was 0.76, with an area under the receiver operator curve (AUROC) of 0.85 (95 % CI 0.82-0.88), which was higher than the AURUC for the PHQ-2 (0.76, 95 % CI 0.73-0.79). Using a cut-point of 9, the PHQ-9 has sensitivity of 51 % and specificity of 94 %. The PHQ-9 AUROC for the sub-samples of patients with HIV and with hypertension were comparable (0.85 and 0.86, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The PHQ-9 is useful as a screening tool for depression among patients receiving treatment for chronic care in a public health facility.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bhana et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: