4.5 Article

Standardization of the depression screener Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) in the general population

期刊

GENERAL HOSPITAL PSYCHIATRY
卷 35, 期 5, 页码 551-555

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2013.04.006

关键词

Screening; Normative data; Depressive symptoms; Epidemiology; Factor structure

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The nine-item depression module from the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) is widely used as an open access screening instrument for depression in different health care and community settings; thus far, normative data from the general population are still scarce. The objectives of the study were to generate normative data and to further investigate the construct validity and factor structure of the PHQ-9 in the general population. Methods: Nationally representative face-to face household surveys were conducted in Germany between 2003 and 2008 (n=5018). The survey questionnaires included the PHQ-9, the Satisfaction with Life Scale, the 12-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12) for the measurement of health-related quality of life and demographic characteristics. Results: Normative data for the PHQ-9 were generated for both genders (53.6% female) and different age levels [mean age (S. D.) of 48.9 (18.1) years]. Women had significantly higher mean (S. D.) scores compared with men [3.1 (3.5) vs. 2.7 (3.5)]. A prevalence rate of moderate to high severity of depressive symptoms of 5.6% was identified. Intercorrelations with depression were highest for the Mental Component Scale of the SF-12, followed by the Physical Component Scale of health-related quality of life, and life satisfaction. Results supported a one-factor model of depression. Conclusions: The normative data provide a framework for the interpretation and comparisons of depression with other populations. Evidence supports reliability and validity of the unidimensional PHQ-9 as a measure of depression in the general population. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据