Cited by 1,255Healthcare professionals’ stress and burnoutMental Health Treatment and AccessCOVID-19 and Mental Health

The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; 93 of the 94 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 33 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Prevalence of Depression and Depressive Symptoms Among Resident Physicians: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Open access

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Physicians in training are at high risk for depression. However, the estimated prevalence of this disorder varies substantially between studies. OBJECTIVE: To provide a summary estimate of depression or depressive symptom prevalence among resident physicians. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: Systematic search of EMBASE, ERIC, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO for studies with information on the prevalence of depression or depressive symptoms among resident physicians published between January 1963 and September 2015. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were published in the peer-reviewed literature and used a validated method to assess for depression or depressive symptoms. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Information on study characteristics and depression or depressive symptom prevalence was extracted independently by 2 trained investigators. Estimates were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Differences by study-level characteristics were estimated using meta-regression. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Point or period prevalence of depression or depressive symptoms as assessed by structured interview or validated questionnaire. RESULTS: Data were extracted from 31 cross-sectional studies (9447 individuals) and 23 longitudinal studies (8113 individuals). Three studies used clinical interviews and 51 used self-report instruments. The overall pooled prevalence of depression or depressive symptoms was 28.8% (4969/17,560 individuals, 95% CI, 25.3%-32.5%), with high between-study heterogeneity (Q = 1247, τ2 = 0.39, I2 = 95.8%, P < .001). Prevalence estimates ranged from 20.9% for the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire with a cutoff of 10 or more (741/3577 individuals, 95% CI, 17.5%-24.7%, Q = 14.4, τ2 = 0.04, I2 = 79.2%) to 43.2% for the 2-item PRIME-MD (1349/2891 individuals, 95% CI, 37.6%-49.0%, Q = 45.6, τ2 = 0.09, I2 = 84.6%). There was an increased prevalence with increasing calendar year (slope = 0.5% increase per year, adjusted for assessment modality; 95% CI, 0.03%-0.9%, P = .04). In a secondary analysis of 7 longitudinal studies, the median absolute increase in depressive symptoms with the onset of residency training was 15.8% (range, 0.3%-26.3%; relative risk, 4.5). No statistically significant differences were observed between cross-sectional vs longitudinal studies, studies of only interns vs only upper-level residents, or studies of nonsurgical vs both nonsurgical and surgical residents. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this systematic review, the summary estimate of the prevalence of depression or depressive symptoms among resident physicians was 28.8%, ranging from 20.9% to 43.2% depending on the instrument used, and increased with calendar year. Further research is needed to identify effective strategies for preventing and treating depression among physicians in training.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This systematic review and meta-analysis of 54 studies and 17,560 resident physicians estimated the pooled prevalence of depression or depressive symptoms at 28.8% (95% CI, 25.3%-32.5%), with instrument-specific estimates ranging from 20.9% to 43.2%. Prevalence increased with calendar year, and a secondary analysis of 7 longitudinal studies found a median absolute increase in depressive symptoms of 15.8% with the onset of residency training.

Key findings

  • Overall pooled prevalence of depression or depressive symptoms was 28.8% (4969/17,560 individuals; 95% CI, 25.3%-32.5%), with high between-study heterogeneity (Q = 1247, τ² = 0.39, I² = 95.8%, P < .001).
  • Prevalence varied by instrument: 20.9% for the PHQ-9 with cutoff ≥10 (741/3577; 95% CI, 17.5%-24.7%) to 43.2% for the 2-item PRIME-MD (1349/2891; 95% CI, 37.6%-49.0%); studies using inventories with specificity >88% yielded 20.2% (1119/5425; 95% CI, 18.0%-22.6%).
  • Prevalence increased with baseline survey year (slope = 0.5% per calendar-year increase; 95% CI, 0.03%-0.9%; P = .04), and this persisted when excluding 2-item PRIME-MD studies (slope = 0.6%; 95% CI, 0.1%-1.2%; P = .02).
  • In 7 longitudinal studies, the median absolute increase in depressive symptoms with onset of residency training was 15.8% (range, 0.3%-26.3%; relative risk, 4.5); no statistically significant differences were found between cross-sectional vs longitudinal studies, interns vs upper-level residents, or nonsurgical vs both nonsurgical and surgical residents.

Methods

  • Systematic search of EMBASE, ERIC, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO for studies published January 1963 to September 2015; eligible studies were peer-reviewed and used a validated method to assess depression or depressive symptoms among interns and/or resident physicians.
  • Included 31 cross-sectional studies (9447 individuals) and 23 longitudinal studies (8113 individuals), totaling 17,560 individuals; data were extracted independently by 2 trained investigators, and study quality was assessed with a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.
  • Prevalence estimates were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis; heterogeneity was assessed with Q, τ², and I²; differences by study-level characteristics were examined with stratified meta-analysis and meta-regression; publication bias was assessed by funnel plot and Egger test.

Limitations

  • The paper states that substantial heterogeneity remained unexplained by examined variables; studies used different designs and trainee groups, all but 3 used screening tools rather than structured interviews, and the 3 structured-interview studies used convenience samples, so the prevalence of major depressive disorder could not be precisely determined.
  • The paper states that the analysis relied on aggregated published data and that smaller studies reported more extreme prevalence estimates, with evidence of small-study effects (Egger test P = .02); higher risk-of-bias studies yielded higher prevalence estimates.
  • Evident from the text: most estimates reflect self-reported depressive symptoms rather than clinical diagnosis, and instruments/cutoffs varied, including some nonstandard cutoffs, which limits comparability across studies.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2015.15845

Cites

93 of 93 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 33 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 54 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 12
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 17
28 of 28
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The study-level prevalence estimates from the included studies are sufficiently comparable to be combined into a single pooled prevalence estimate despite heterogeneity in instruments, populations, and study designs.

    “Meta-analytic pooling of the prevalence estimates of depression or depressive symptoms reported by the 54 studies yielded a summary prevalence of 28.8% (4969/17 560 individuals, 95% CI, 25.3%-32.5%), with significant evidence of between-study heterogeneity (Q = 1247, P < .001, τ2 = 0.39, I2 = 95.8%) (Figure 2).”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The increase in depressive symptoms observed in the longitudinal studies is attributable to the onset of residency training rather than to other temporal or assessment-related factors.

    “Overall, the median absolute increase in depressive symptoms with the onset of residency training was 15.8% (range, 0.3%-26.3%; relative risk, 4.5).”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The calendar-year increase in prevalence reflects a true increase in depression or depressive symptoms rather than changes in assessment or reporting.

    “There was an increased prevalence with increasing calendar year (slope = 0.5% increase per year, adjusted for assessment modality; 95% CI, 0.03%-0.9%, P = .04).”
3 of 3

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 94 references

1 of the 94 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [80]Spielberger CD Manual for the State-Trait Personality Inventory (Form Y) 1983 Consulting Psychologists Press Palo Alto, CA

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–300 of 1,000

Metadata

Authors
Mata, D. A., Ramos, M. A., Bansal, N., Khan, R., Guille, C., Di Angelantonio, E., & Sen, S.
Affiliations
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • Yale University (US)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • Texas Medical Center (US)
  • Medical University of South Carolina (US)
  • Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England
  • University of Michigan (US)
Corresponding author
Mata, Douglas A.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2015-12-08
Volume
314
Issue
22
Pages
2373
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2192454956
Cited by
1,255
References
94
Citations by year
2026: 86 · 2025: 119 · 2024: 119 · 2023: 137 · 2022: 129 · 2021: 166 · 2020: 172 · 2019: 115 · 2018: 97 · 2017: 78 · 2016: 33 · 2015: 1
FWCI
12.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Explore Bristol Research (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (NF-SI-0512-10165)
  • British Heart Foundation (RG/08/014/24067)
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Medical Research Council (MR/L003120/1)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (F31MH064299, K23MH095109, R01MH101459)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (TG 2T32GM07205, T32GM007205)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › COVID-19 and Mental Health
Keywords
depression, depressive symptoms, medical residents, prevalence, physician mental health, Patient Health Questionnaire, PRIME-MD, assessment methods, temporal trends, study heterogeneity, meta-regression, self-report questionnaire, clinical interview, physician well-being, burnout, work-life balance, physician-patient communication
MeSH terms
Cross-Sectional Studies, Depression, Depressive Disorder, Humans, Internship and Residency, Longitudinal Studies, Prevalence

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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