PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
October 19, 2022Psychological Medicine51 citationsOpen Access

Utility of PHQ-2, PHQ-8 and PHQ-9 for detecting major depression in primary health care: a validation study in Spain

IGIrene Gómez‐GómezIBIsabel BenítezJBJuan Ángel Bellón

Key Result

The PHQ-2, PHQ-8, and PHQ-9 demonstrated good diagnostic accuracy for detecting major depression in primary care, with optimal cut-off values of ≥2, ≥7, and ≥8, respectively.

Study Design

Type

Cross-Sectional (n=2,579)

Multicenter

Yes

Structured PICO

Do the PHQ-2, PHQ-8, and PHQ-9 accurately detect major depression in primary health care patients in Spain?

P
Population
2,579 primary health care patients aged 45-75 years with at least two lifestyle risk factors, assessed cross-sectionally to validate the PHQ-2, PHQ-8, and PHQ-9 for major depression screening.
E
Exposure
Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2, PHQ-8, and PHQ-9 versions)
C
Comparator
Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) - Module E (criterion standard)
O
Outcome
Diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, Area Under the Curve) and optimal cut-off values for detecting major depression

The PHQ-2, PHQ-8, and PHQ-9 are valid and reliable tools for screening major depression in Spanish primary health care patients, with optimal cut-offs of ≥2, ≥7, and ≥8 respectively.

Main Result

Effect estimate: AUC 0.91 for PHQ-9, 0.90 for PHQ-8, and 0.85 for PHQ-2 (95% CI 0.874-0.949)

p-value: p=<0.001

Limitations

  • Participants were recruited from a trial focused on individuals with unhealthy behaviors, which may limit generalizability.
  • The sample was restricted to older adults aged 45-75 years.
  • Instruments were administered using a mix of self-administered questionnaires and face-to-face interviews depending on the center.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Primary health care (PHC) professionals may play a crucial role in improving early diagnosis of depressive disorders. However, only 50% of cases are detected in PHC. The most widely used screening instrument for major depression is the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ), including the two-, eight- and nine-item versions. Surprisingly, there is neither enough evidence about the validity of PHQ in PHC patients in Spain nor indications about how to interpret the total scores. This study aimed to gather validity evidence to support the use of the three PHQ versions to screen for major depression in PHC in Spain. Additionally, the present study provided information for helping professionals to choose the best PHQ version according to the context. METHODS: The sample was composed of 2579 participants from 22 Spanish PHC centers participating in the EIRA-3 study. The reliability and validity of the three PHQ versions for Spanish PHC patients were assessed based on responses to the questionnaire. RESULTS: The PHQ-8 and PHQ-9 showed high internal consistency. The results obtained confirm the theoretically expected relationship between PHQ results and anxiety, social support and health-related QoL. A single-factor solution was confirmed. Regarding to the level of agreement with the CIDI interview (used as the criterion), our results indicate that the PHQ has a good discrimination power. The optimal cut-off values were: ⩾2 for PHQ-2, ⩾7 for PHQ-8 and ⩾8 for PHQ-9. CONCLUSIONS: PHQ is a good and valuable tool for detecting major depression in PHC patients in Spain.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Gómez‐Gómez et al. (2022) conducted a cross-sectional in Major depression (n=2,579). PHQ-2, PHQ-8, and PHQ-9 vs. CIDI diagnostic interview was evaluated on Diagnostic accuracy (Area Under the Curve) for detecting major depression (AUC 0.91 for PHQ-9, 0.90 for PHQ-8, and 0.85 for PHQ-2, 95% CI 0.874-0.949, p=<0.001). The PHQ-2, PHQ-8, and PHQ-9 demonstrated good diagnostic accuracy for detecting major depression in primary care, with optimal cut-off values of ≥2, ≥7, and ≥8, respectively.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a7f275a5bbfa24fd94a51abhttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0033291722002835
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper