The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Recognition, management, and outcomes of depression in primary care
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the recognition, management, and outcomes of depressed patients presenting in primary care. DESIGN: Epidemiologic survey with 12-month follow-up. SETTING: Primary care clinics of a staff-model health maintenance organization. PATIENTS AND MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Consecutive primary care attenders aged 18 to 65 years (n = 1952) were screened using the 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12), and a stratified random sample (n = 373) completed a psychiatric assessment, including the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI), the 28-item GHQ, and a brief self-rated disability questionnaire (BDQ). Three-month follow-up assessment (n = 347) repeated the GHQ-28 and BDQ, and 12-month follow-up (n = 308) repeated the CIDI, GHQ-28, and BDQ. Use of psychotropic drugs and mental health services was assessed using computerized pharmacy and visit registration records. RESULTS: Structured interviews found 64 cases of current major depression (weighted prevalence, 6.6%) and 58 cases of current subthreshold depression (weighted prevalence, 8.8%). Of those with major depression, 64% (n = 41) were recognized as psychologically distressed by the primary care physician, 56% (n = 36) filled at least one antidepressant prescription during the next 3 months, and 39% (n = 25) made at least one specialty mental health visit. Compared with recognized cases, those with unrecognized major depression were less symptomatic at baseline (GHQ-28 score, 15.31 vs 11.07; P = .006) but showed a similar rate of improvement over 12 months (F test for difference in slopes, P = .93). CONCLUSIONS: While many depressed primary care patients may go unrecognized and untreated, this group appears to have milder and more self-limited depression. A narrow focus on increased recognition may not improve overall outcomes. Treatment resources might be best directed toward more intensive follow-up and relapse prevention among those now treated.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Case-finding instruments for depression: Two questions are as good as many
Whooley, M. A., Avins, A. L., Miranda, J., & Browner, W. S. (1997) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.1997.00076.x · Cited by 1,826
Gilbody, S., Richards, D., Brealey, S., & Hewitt, C. (2007) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-007-0333-y · Cited by 1,290
Clinical diagnosis of depression in primary care: a meta-analysis
Mitchell, A. J., Vaze, A., & Rao, S. (2009) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(09)60879-5 · Cited by 1,251
Prevalence and incidence studies of anxiety disorders: A systematic review of the literature
Somers, J. M., Goldner, E. M., Waraich, P., & Hsu, L. (2006) · The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1177/070674370605100206 · Cited by 1,114
Pignone, M. P., Gaynes, B. N., Rushton, J. L., Burchell, C. M., Orleans, C. T., Mulrow, C. D., & Lohr, K. N. (2002) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-136-10-200205210-00013 · Cited by 1,086
Metadata
- Authors
- Simon, G. E.
- Venue
- Archives of Family Medicine
- Publisher
- CLOCKSS Archive
- Published
- 1995-02-01
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 99-105
- ISSN
- 1063-3987 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2058034029
- Cited by
- 515
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 22.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Recognition, management, and outcomes of depression in primary care. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archfami.4.2.99
- The paper
- Simon, G. E. (1995). Recognition, management, and outcomes of depression in primary care. Archives of Family Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1001/archfami.4.2.99
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.