PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Isobel M Cameron
AU  - John R Crawford
AU  - Kenneth Lawton
AU  - Ian C Reid
TI  - Psychometric comparison of PHQ-9 and HADS for measuring depression severity in primary care
AID  - 10.3399/bjgp08X263794
DP  - 2008 Jan 01
TA  - British Journal of General Practice
PG  - 32--36
VI  - 58
IP  - 546
4099  - http://bjgp.org/content/58/546/32.short
4100  - http://bjgp.org/content/58/546/32.full
SO  - Br J Gen Pract2008 Jan 01; 58
AB  - Background The 2004 National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines highlight the importance of assessing severity of depression in primary care.Aim To assess the psychometric properties of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and the depression subscale of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS-D) for measuring depression severity in primary care.Design of study Psychometric assessment.Setting Thirty-two general practices in Grampian, Scotland.Method Consecutive patients referred to a primary care mental health worker completed the PHQ-9 and HADS at baseline (n = 1063) and at the end of treatment (n = 544). Data were analysed to assess reliability, robustness of factor structure, convergent/discriminant validity, convergence of severity banding, and responsiveness to change.Results Both scales demonstrated high internal consistency at baseline and end of treatment (PHQ-9 α = 0.83 and 0.92; HADS-D α = 0.84 and 0.89). One factor emerged each for the PHQ-9 (explaining 42% of variance) and HADS-D (explaining 52% of variance). Both scales converged more with each other than with the HADS anxiety (HADS-A) subscale at baseline (P<0.001) and at end of treatment (P = 0.01). Responsiveness to change was similar: effect size for PHQ-9 = 0.99 and for the HADS-D = 1. The HADS-D and PHQ-9 differed significantly in categorising severity of depression, with the PHQ-9 categorising a greater proportion of patients with moderate/severe depression (P<0.001).Conclusion The HADS-D and PHQ-9 demonstrated reliability, convergent/discriminant validity, and responsiveness to change. However, they differed considerably in how they catergorised severity. Given that treatment decisions are made on the basis of severity, further work is needed to assess the validity of the scales' severity cut-off bands.