Cited by 109Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMental Health Treatment and AccessPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

Measuring depression severity in general practice: discriminatory performance of the PHQ-9, HADS-D, and BDI-II

Open access
Cameron, Isobel M, Cardy, Amanda, Crawford, John R, du Toit, Schalk W, Hay, Steven, Lawton, Kenneth, Mitchell, Kenneth, Sharma, Sumit +3 more·2011·British Journal of General Practice

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The UK Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) rewards practices for measuring symptom severity in patients with depression, but the endorsed scales have not been comprehensively validated for this purpose. AIM: To assess the discriminatory performance of the QOF depression severity measures. DESIGN AND SETTING: Psychometric assessment in nine Scottish general practices. METHOD: Adult primary care patients diagnosed with depression were invited to participate. The HADS-D, PHQ-9, and BDI-II were assessed against the HRSD-17 interview. Discriminatory performance was determined relative to the HRSD-17 cut-offs for symptoms of at least moderate severity, as per criteria set by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and NICE. Receiver operating characteristic curves were plotted and area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios (LRs) calculated. RESULTS: A total of 267 were recruited per protocol, mean age = 49.8 years (standard deviation [SD] = 14.1), 70% female, mean HRSD-17=12.6 (SD = 7.62, range = 0-34). For APA criteria, AUCs were: HADS-D = 0.84; PHQ-9 = 0.90; and BDI-II = 0.86. Optimal sensitivity and specificity were reached where HADS-D ≥9 (74%, 76%); PHQ-9 ≥12 (77%, 79%), and BDI-II ≥23 (74%, 75%). For NICE criteria: HADS-D AUC = 0.89; PHQ-9 AUC = 0.93; and BDI-II AUC = 0.90. Optimal sensitivity and specificity were reached where HADS-D ≥10 (82%, 75%), PHQ-9 ≥15 (89%, 83%), and BDI-II ≥28 (83%, 80%). LRs did not provide evidence of sufficient accuracy for clinical use. CONCLUSION: As selecting treatment according to depression severity is informed by an evidence base derived from trials using HRSD-17, and none of the measures tested aligned adequately with that tool, they are inappropriate for use.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3399/bjgp11x583209

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 36 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Kendrick T, King F, Albertella L, Smith P. GP treatment decisions for patients with depression. Br J Gen Pract 2005; 55(513): 280-286.
  2. Spitzer RL, Williams JBW, Gibbon M, First MB. User's guide for the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R. Washington DC, US: American Psychiatric Press, 1990.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cameron, I. M., Cardy, A., Crawford, J. R., du Toit, S. W., Hay, S., Lawton, K., Mitchell, K., Sharma, S., Shivaprasad, S., Winning, S., & Reid, I. C.
Affiliations
University of Aberdeen (GB)
Corresponding author
Cameron, Isobel M
Venue
British Journal of General Practice
Published
2011-07
Volume
61
Issue
588
Pages
e419-e426
ISSN
  • 0960-1643 (ISSN-L)
  • 1478-5242
OpenAlex
W2170351571
Cited by
109
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 6
FWCI
10.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of General Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (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
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
depression severity, PHQ-9, Beck Depression Inventory-II, primary care, Quality and Outcomes Framework, depression screening, sensitivity and specificity, likelihood ratios
MeSH terms
Adult, Depressive Disorder, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, ROC Curve, Scotland, Sensitivity and Specificity, Observer Variation, General Practice

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