4.5 Article

Validation of Patient Health Questionnaire for depression screening among primary care patients in Taiwan

Journal

COMPREHENSIVE PSYCHIATRY
Volume 52, Issue 1, Pages 96-101

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.comppsych.2010.04.013

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. National Health Research Institute, Republic of China [NHRI-EX97-9706PI]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine the reliability and validity of a Chinese version of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) for the purpose of screening major depressive disorder (MDD) among primary care patients in Taiwan. Method: A total of 1954 primary care patients completed the PHQ-9. Patients (n = 1532) were interviewed using the Schedule for Clinical Assessments in Neuropsychiatry and 17-item of Hamilton Rating Scale. Subsample cases were retested within 2 weeks. Results: The PHQ-9 had a good internal consistency (alpha = .80) and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.87). A principal component factor analysis yielded 1-factor structure, which accounted for a total of 42.0% of the variance. The PHQ-9 was significantly correlated with the external validators such as the 17-item of Hamilton Rating Scale and the Short Form of the Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire (P < .001). Using the Schedule for Clinical Assessments in Neuropsychiatry interview as the criterion standard, a PHQ-9 score of 10 or higher had a sensitivity of 0.86 and a specificity of 0.94 for recognizing MDD. The screening accuracy of the 2 items version, PHQ-2, was also satisfactory (scores >= 2 sensitivity 0.88; specificity 0.82). The single-question screen, PHQ-1 (depressed mood), was 78% sensitive and 93% specific for detecting MDD (score >= 2). Conclusion: The PHQ-9 and its 2 subscales, PHQ-2 and PHQ-1, seem reliable and valid for detecting MDD among Chinese primary care patients. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved,

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available