Cited by 62Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMental Health Treatment and AccessSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

How reliable is depression screening in alcohol and drug users? A validation of brief and ultra-brief questionnaires

Delgadillo, Jaime, Payne, Scott, Gilbody, Simon, Godfrey, Christine, Gore, Stuart, Jessop, Dawn, Dale, Veronica·2011·Journal of Affective Disorders

Abstract

Background Depression is highly comorbid with alcohol and drug problems, resulting in greater impairment, reduced treatment adherence and poor outcomes. Little evidence exists to support the use of mental health screening tools in routine addiction treatment. This study tested the validity and reliability of PHQ-9 and PHQ-2 as depression case finding tools in an outpatient drug treatment sample in the United Kingdom.Methods A sample of 103 patients took part in diagnostic assessments using CIS-R and completed brief screening questionnaires. A subgroup of 60 patients completed retests after 4 weeks. Diagnostic results were compared to brief measures using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Psychometric properties were also calculated to evaluate the validity and reliability of self-completed questionnaires.Results A PHQ-9 score ≥ 12 had a sensitivity of 81% and specificity of 75% for major depression, also displaying good retest reliability (intra-class correlation, 0.78) and internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha, 0.84). PHQ-2 had 68% sensitivity and 70% specificity, with more modest retest reliability (0.66) and internal consistency (0.64).Limitations Diagnostic interviews did not consider the temporal sequencing of the onset of drug use and mental health problems.Conclusions PHQ-9 is a valid and reliable depression screening tool for drug and alcohol users. The brevity and ease of administration of self-completed questionnaires make them useful clinical tools in addiction services commonly encountering a high prevalence of depression.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jad.2011.06.017

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 52 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Delgadillo, J., Payne, S., Gilbody, S., Godfrey, C., Gore, S., Jessop, D., & Dale, V.
Affiliations
  • Leeds Community Healthcare NHS Trust (GB)
  • University of York (GB)
Corresponding author
Delgadillo, Jaime
Venue
Journal of Affective Disorders
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-11
Volume
134
Issue
1-3
Pages
266-271
ISSN
0165-0327 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2088221351
Cited by
62
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 4
FWCI
6.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Affective Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Keywords
depression screening, PHQ-9, PHQ-2, alcoholism, drug use disorders, addiction treatment, psychometric validation, sensitivity and specificity, test-retest reliability, internal consistency, major depressive disorder, comorbidities
MeSH terms
Adult, Depression, Major Depressive Disorder, Depressive Disorder, Female, United Kingdom, Humans, Male, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, Substance-Related Disorders, Drug Users, Young Adult

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