The Patient Health Questionnaire Somatic, Anxiety, and Depressive Symptom Scales: a systematic review.
TL;DR: In this article, the psychometric and pragmatic characteristics of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-9 depression, generalized anxiety disorder (GAD)-7 anxiety and PHQ-15 somatic symptom scales are synthesized from two sources: (1) four multisite cross-sectional studies (three conducted in primary care and one in obstetric-gynecology practices) comprising 9740 patients, and (2) key studies from the literature that have studied these scales.
About: This article is published in General Hospital Psychiatry.The article was published on 2010-07-01. It has received 2765 citations till now. The article focuses on the topics: Somatic anxiety & Anxiety.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: This guideline is intended to improve communication about benefits and risks of opioids for chronic pain, improve safety and effectiveness of pain treatment, and reduce risks associated with long-term opioid therapy.
Abstract: Importance Primary care clinicians find managing chronic pain challenging. Evidence of long-term efficacy of opioids for chronic pain is limited. Opioid use is associated with serious risks, including opioid use disorder and overdose. Objective To provide recommendations about opioid prescribing for primary care clinicians treating adult patients with chronic pain outside of active cancer treatment, palliative care, and end-of-life care. Process The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) updated a 2014 systematic review on effectiveness and risks of opioids and conducted a supplemental review on benefits and harms, values and preferences, and costs. CDC used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework to assess evidence type and determine the recommendation category. Evidence Synthesis Evidence consisted of observational studies or randomized clinical trials with notable limitations, characterized as low quality using GRADE methodology. Meta-analysis was not attempted due to the limited number of studies, variability in study designs and clinical heterogeneity, and methodological shortcomings of studies. No study evaluated long-term (≥1 year) benefit of opioids for chronic pain. Opioids were associated with increased risks, including opioid use disorder, overdose, and death, with dose-dependent effects. Recommendations There are 12 recommendations. Of primary importance, nonopioid therapy is preferred for treatment of chronic pain. Opioids should be used only when benefits for pain and function are expected to outweigh risks. Before starting opioids, clinicians should establish treatment goals with patients and consider how opioids will be discontinued if benefits do not outweigh risks. When opioids are used, clinicians should prescribe the lowest effective dosage, carefully reassess benefits and risks when considering increasing dosage to 50 morphine milligram equivalents or more per day, and avoid concurrent opioids and benzodiazepines whenever possible. Clinicians should evaluate benefits and harms of continued opioid therapy with patients every 3 months or more frequently and review prescription drug monitoring program data, when available, for high-risk combinations or dosages. For patients with opioid use disorder, clinicians should offer or arrange evidence-based treatment, such as medication-assisted treatment with buprenorphine or methadone. Conclusions and Relevance The guideline is intended to improve communication about benefits and risks of opioids for chronic pain, improve safety and effectiveness of pain treatment, and reduce risks associated with long-term opioid therapy.
3,935 citations
18 Mar 2016
TL;DR: This guideline is intended to improve communication between clinicians and patients about the risks and benefits of opioid therapy for chronic pain, improve the safety and effectiveness of pain treatment, and reduce the risks associated with long-term opioid therapy, including opioid use disorder, overdose, and death.
Abstract: This guideline provides recommendations for primary care clinicians who are prescribing opioids for chronic pain outside of active cancer treatment, palliative care, and end-of-life care. The guideline addresses 1) when to initiate or continue opioids for chronic pain; 2) opioid selection, dosage, duration, follow-up, and discontinuation; and 3) assessing risk and addressing harms of opioid use. CDC developed the guideline using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework, and recommendations are made on the basis of a systematic review of the scientific evidence while considering benefits and harms, values and preferences, and resource allocation. CDC obtained input from experts, stakeholders, the public, peer reviewers, and a federally chartered advisory committee. It is important that patients receive appropriate pain treatment with careful consideration of the benefits and risks of treatment options. This guideline is intended to improve communication between clinicians and patients about the risks and benefits of opioid therapy for chronic pain, improve the safety and effectiveness of pain treatment, and reduce the risks associated with long-term opioid therapy, including opioid use disorder, overdose, and death. CDC has provided a checklist for prescribing opioids for chronic pain (http://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/38025) as well as a website (http://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/prescribingresources.html) with additional tools to guide clinicians in implementing the recommendations.
2,819 citations
TL;DR: The PHQ-9 was found to have acceptable diagnostic properties for detecting major depressive disorder for cut-off scores between 8 and 11, and authors of future validation studies should consistently report the outcomes for different cut-offs.
Abstract: Background: The brief Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) is commonly used to screen for depression with 10 often recommended as the cut-off score. We summarized the psychometric properties of the PHQ-9 across a range of studies and cut-off scores to select the optimal cut-off for detecting depression. Methods: We searched Embase, MEDLINE and PsycINFO from 1999 to August 2010 for studies that reported the diagnostic accuracy of PHQ-9 to diagnose major depressive disorders. We calculated summary sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios and diagnostic odds ratios for detecting major depressive disorder at different cut-off scores and in different settings. We used random-effects bivariate meta-analysis at cutoff points between 7 and 15 to produce summary receiver operating characteristic curves. Results: We identified 18 validation studies ( n = 7180) conducted in various clinical settings. Eleven studies provided details about the diagnostic properties of the questionnaire at more than one cut-off score (including 10), four studies reported a cut-off score of 10, and three studies reported cut-off scores other than 10. The pooled specificity results ranged from 0.73 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63–0.82) for a cut-off score of 7 to 0.96 (95% CI 0.94–0.97) for a cut-off score of 15. There was major variability in sensitivity for cut-off scores between 7 and 15. There were no substantial differences in the pooled sensitivity and specificity for a range of cut-off scores (8–11). Interpretation: The PHQ-9 was found to have acceptable diagnostic properties for detecting major depressive disorder for cut-off scores between 8 and 11. Authors of future validation studies should consistently report the outcomes for different cut-off scores.
1,270 citations
TL;DR: The GAD-7 had acceptable properties for identifying GAD at cutoff scores 7-10 and the GAD/GAD-2 had acceptable qualities for identifying generalized anxiety disorder at a cutoff score of 3.
831 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: In addition to making criteria-based diagnoses of depressive disorders, the PHQ-9 is also a reliable and valid measure of depression severity, which makes it a useful clinical and research tool.
Abstract: OBJECTIVE: While considerable attention has focused on improving the detection of depression, assessment of severity is also important in guiding treatment decisions. Therefore, we examined the validity of a brief, new measure of depression severity.
26,004 citations
TL;DR: In this article, a 7-item anxiety scale (GAD-7) had good reliability, as well as criterion, construct, factorial, and procedural validity, and increasing scores on the scale were strongly associated with multiple domains of functional impairment.
Abstract: Background Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is one of the most common mental disorders; however, there is no brief clinical measure for assessing GAD. The objective of this study was to develop a brief self-report scale to identify probable cases of GAD and evaluate its reliability and validity. Methods A criterion-standard study was performed in 15 primary care clinics in the United States from November 2004 through June 2005. Of a total of 2740 adult patients completing a study questionnaire, 965 patients had a telephone interview with a mental health professional within 1 week. For criterion and construct validity, GAD self-report scale diagnoses were compared with independent diagnoses made by mental health professionals; functional status measures; disability days; and health care use. Results A 7-item anxiety scale (GAD-7) had good reliability, as well as criterion, construct, factorial, and procedural validity. A cut point was identified that optimized sensitivity (89%) and specificity (82%). Increasing scores on the scale were strongly associated with multiple domains of functional impairment (all 6 Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form General Health Survey scales and disability days). Although GAD and depression symptoms frequently co-occurred, factor analysis confirmed them as distinct dimensions. Moreover, GAD and depression symptoms had differing but independent effects on functional impairment and disability. There was good agreement between self-report and interviewer-administered versions of the scale. Conclusion The GAD-7 is a valid and efficient tool for screening for GAD and assessing its severity in clinical practice and research.
15,911 citations
Journal Article•
TL;DR: The GAD-7 is a valid and efficient tool for screening for GAD and assessing its severity in clinical practice and research.
Abstract: Background Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is one of the most common mental disorders; however, there is no brief clinical measure for assessing GAD. The objective of this study was to develop a brief self-report scale to identify probable cases of GAD and evaluate its reliability and validity. Methods A criterion-standard study was performed in 15 primary care clinics in the United States from November 2004 through June 2005. Of a total of 2740 adult patients completing a study questionnaire, 965 patients had a telephone interview with a mental health professional within 1 week. For criterion and construct validity, GAD self-report scale diagnoses were compared with independent diagnoses made by mental health professionals; functional status measures; disability days; and health care use. Results A 7-item anxiety scale (GAD-7) had good reliability, as well as criterion, construct, factorial, and procedural validity. A cut point was identified that optimized sensitivity (89%) and specificity (82%). Increasing scores on the scale were strongly associated with multiple domains of functional impairment (all 6 Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form General Health Survey scales and disability days). Although GAD and depression symptoms frequently co-occurred, factor analysis confirmed them as distinct dimensions. Moreover, GAD and depression symptoms had differing but independent effects on functional impairment and disability. There was good agreement between self-report and interviewer-administered versions of the scale. Conclusion The GAD-7 is a valid and efficient tool for screening for GAD and assessing its severity in clinical practice and research.
8,191 citations
TL;DR: The study suggests that the PHQ has diagnostic validity comparable to the original clinician-administered PRIME-MD, and is more efficient to use.
Abstract: ContextThe Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders (PRIME-MD) was developed
as a screening instrument but its administration time has limited its clinical
usefulness.ObjectiveTo determine if the self-administered PRIME-MD Patient Health Questionnaire
(PHQ) has validity and utility for diagnosing mental disorders in primary
care comparable to the original clinician-administered PRIME-MD.DesignCriterion standard study undertaken between May 1997 and November 1998.SettingEight primary care clinics in the United States.ParticipantsOf a total of 3000 adult patients (selected by site-specific methods
to avoid sampling bias) assessed by 62 primary care physicians (21 general
internal medicine, 41 family practice), 585 patients had an interview with
a mental health professional within 48 hours of completing the PHQ.Main Outcome MeasuresPatient Health Questionnaire diagnoses compared with independent diagnoses
made by mental health professionals; functional status measures; disability
days; health care use; and treatment/referral decisions.ResultsA total of 825 (28%) of the 3000 individuals and 170 (29%) of the 585
had a PHQ diagnosis. There was good agreement between PHQ diagnoses and those
of independent mental health professionals (for the diagnosis of any 1 or
more PHQ disorder, κ = 0.65; overall accuracy, 85%; sensitivity, 75%;
specificity, 90%), similar to the original PRIME-MD. Patients with PHQ diagnoses
had more functional impairment, disability days, and health care use than
did patients without PHQ diagnoses (for all group main effects, P<.001). The average time required of the physician to review the
PHQ was far less than to administer the original PRIME-MD (<3 minutes for
85% vs 16% of the cases). Although 80% of the physicians reported that routine
use of the PHQ would be useful, new management actions were initiated or planned
for only 117 (32%) of the 363 patients with 1 or more PHQ diagnoses not previously
recognized.ConclusionOur study suggests that the PHQ has diagnostic validity comparable to
the original clinician-administered PRIME-MD, and is more efficient to use.
7,444 citations
Journal Article•
7,224 citations