The DOI matches its OpenAlex record.
Utility of a new procedure for diagnosing mental disorders in primary care. The PRIME-MD 1000 study
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the validity and utility of PRIME-MD (Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders), a new rapid procedure for diagnosing mental disorders by primary care physicians. DESIGN: Survey; criterion standard. SETTING: Four primary care clinics. SUBJECTS: A total of 1000 adult patients (369 selected by convenience and 631 selected by site-specific methods to avoid sampling bias) assessed by 31 primary care physicians. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: PRIME-MD diagnoses, independent diagnoses made by mental health professionals, functional status measures (Short-Form General Health Survey), disability days, health care utilization, and treatment/referral decisions. RESULTS: Twenty-six percent of the patients had a PRIME-MD diagnosis that met full criteria for a specific disorder according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Revised Third Edition. The average time required of the primary care physician to complete the PRIME-MD evaluation was 8.4 minutes. There was good agreement between PRIME-MD diagnoses and those of independent mental health professionals (for the diagnosis of any PRIME-MD disorder, kappa = 0.71; overall accuracy rate = 88%). Patients with PRIME-MD diagnoses had lower functioning, more disability days, and higher rates of health care utilization than did patients without PRIME-MD diagnoses (for all measures, P < .005). Nearly half (48%) of 287 patients with a PRIME-MD diagnosis who were somewhat or fairly well-known to their physicians had not been recognized to have that diagnosis before the PRIME-MD evaluation. A new treatment or referral was initiated for 62% of the 125 patients with a PRIME-MD diagnosis who were not already being treated. CONCLUSION: PRIME-MD appears to be a useful tool for identifying mental disorders in primary care practice and research.
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
The PHQ-9: Validity of a brief depression severity measure
Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. W. (2001) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x · Cited by 44,910
Self-citationKESSLER, R. C., ANDREWS, G., COLPE, L. J., HIRIPI, E., MROCZEK, D. K., NORMAND, S.-L. T., WALTERS, E. E., & ZASLAVSKY, A. M. (2002) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291702006074 · Cited by 10,327
Spitzer, R. L. (1999) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.282.18.1737 · Cited by 9,802
Self-citationThe Patient Health Questionnaire-2: Validity of a Two-Item Depression Screener
Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. W. (2003) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000093487.78664.3c · Cited by 6,359
Self-citationBush, K. (1998) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.158.16.1789 · Cited by 6,196
Metadata
- Authors
- Spitzer, R. L.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 1994-12-14
- Volume
- 272
- Issue
- 22
- Pages
- 1749
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W4249539254
- Cited by
- 2,635
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 70.75
- 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: Utility of a new procedure for diagnosing mental disorders in primary care. The PRIME-MD 1000 study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.272.22.1749
- The paper
- Spitzer, R. L. (1994). Utility of a new procedure for diagnosing mental disorders in primary care. The PRIME-MD 1000 study. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.272.22.1749
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.