Why are there discrepancies between depressed patients’ Global Rating of Change and scores on the Patient Health Questionnaire depression module? A qualitative study of primary care in England

Objectives Our aims were to investigate discrepancies between depressed patients’ GlobalRating of Change (GRC) and scores on the Patient Health Questionnaire depression module (PHQ-9). Our objectives were to ascertain patients’ views on the source and meaning of mismatches and assess their clinical significance. Design Qualitative study nested within a cohort, in a programme investigating the indications for prescribing antidepressants that will lead to a clinical benefit. Setting Primary care practices in north-west England. Participants We invited 32 adults with a recent diagnosis of depression and evidence of mismatch between GRC and PHQ-9 Scores to participate. Of these, 29 completed our interviews; most were women, identified as white British, had high school education or higher, were employed or retired and had been depressed for a long time. Main measures We conducted semistructured interviews with a topic guide, focusing on experiences of depression; treatment experiences and expectations; effectiveness of the questionnaires; reasons for the mismatch; and social factors. Interviews were transcribed and subjected to interpretative phenomenological analysis. Results We identified four themes as explanations for mismatch between GRC and PHQ-9: perceptions that GRC provided a more accurate assessment of current mental state than PHQ-9; impact of recent negative or positive life events on either measure; personal understanding of depression as normally fluctuating, and tendency to underscore on PHQ-9 as a means of self-motivation; and lack of recall. Conclusions The combined used of the PHQ-9 and a more open question better captures the patient’s unique experiences of mental health. This approach ascertains the relevance of symptoms to the individual’s experience and influences treatment decisions. Study registration This study was an element of NIHR Programme Grant RP-PG 0610 10048.

[1]  D. Mroczek,et al.  The neglect of response bias in mental health research. , 2001, The Journal of nervous and mental disease.

[2]  P. Nutting,et al.  A qualitative comparison of primary care clinicians’ and their patients’ perspectives on achieving depression care: implications for improving outcomes , 2014, BMC Family Practice.

[3]  Roland Hetzer,et al.  Screening for depression: Rasch analysis of the dimensional structure of the PHQ-9 and the HADS-D. , 2010, Journal of affective disorders.

[4]  Michael Larkin,et al.  Exploring lived experience , 2005 .

[5]  David Kessler,et al.  Concordance between PHQ-9 scores and patients' experiences of depression: a mixed methods study. , 2010, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[6]  Ching-Hua Lin,et al.  Comparison of Physician-Rating and Self-Rating Scales for Patients With Major Depressive Disorder , 2014, Journal of clinical psychopharmacology.

[7]  M. Trivedi,et al.  Cognitive dysfunction in unipolar depression: implications for treatment. , 2014, Journal of affective disorders.

[8]  Kerry Chamberlain,et al.  Qualitative Health Psychology: Theories and Methods , 1999 .

[9]  T. Forkmann,et al.  Dimensional assessment of depressive severity in the elderly general population: psychometric evaluation of the PHQ-9 using Rasch Analysis. , 2013, Journal of affective disorders.

[10]  Rachel Dwyer,et al.  Impact of the QOF and the NICE guideline in the diagnosis and management of depression: a qualitative study. , 2011, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[11]  S. Ziebland,et al.  Understanding depression through a 'coming out' framework. , 2012, Sociology of health & illness.

[12]  T. Stokes,et al.  Assessing depression severity using the UK Quality and Outcomes Framework depression indicators: a systematic review. , 2013, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[13]  C. Maher,et al.  Global Rating of Change Scales: A Review of Strengths and Weaknesses and Considerations for Design , 2009, The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy.

[14]  C. Dowrick,et al.  Questionnaire severity measures for depression: a threat to the doctor-patient relationship? , 2011, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[15]  T. Peters,et al.  Minimal clinically important difference on the Beck Depression Inventory - II according to the patient's perspective , 2015, Psychological Medicine.

[16]  B. Löwe,et al.  The Patient Health Questionnaire Somatic, Anxiety, and Depressive Symptom Scales: a systematic review. , 2010, General hospital psychiatry.

[17]  Melissa Hunt,et al.  Self-Report Bias and Underreporting of Depression on the BDI-II , 2003, Journal of personality assessment.

[18]  Roger Neighbour,et al.  内なる診療 : inner consultation , 1987 .

[19]  R. Spitzer,et al.  The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. , 2001, Journal of general internal medicine.

[20]  C. Dowrick,et al.  Patients’ and doctors’ views on depression severity questionnaires incentivised in UK quality and outcomes framework: qualitative study , 2009, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[21]  Pierre Bourdieu,et al.  Outline of a Theory of Practice , 2020, On Violence.

[22]  A. Beck,et al.  Cognitive behavior therapy : basics and beyond , 2011 .

[23]  Satinder Singh How not to contact the dead. , 2013, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[24]  Usefulness of PHQ-9 in primary care to determine meaningful symptoms of low mood: a qualitative study. , 2016, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[25]  Jonathan A. Smith,et al.  Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis: Theory, Method and Research , 2009, QMiP Bulletin.