Utility of PHQ-2, PHQ-8 and PHQ-9 for detecting major depression in primary health care: a validation study in Spain

Prevalence of depression and anxiety in women with pelvic floor dysfunctions: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Female pelvic floor dysfunction (PFD) is a common condition affecting the emotional well-being of women.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the prevalence of depressive and anxiety symptoms in women with PFD. SEARCH STRATEGY, SELECTION CRITERIA, DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Following prospective registration (PROSPERO CRD42022362095) we conducted a search of three electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus) from inception to April 2023 without language restriction to capture studies reporting the prevalence of depression/anxiety among women with PFD (chronic pelvic pain [CPP], urinary incontinence [UI], pelvic organ prolapse [POP], and/or fecal incontinence [FI]). Only studies with validated tools were included. Data extraction and study quality assessment were performed by two independent reviewers. Stratifying by type of PFD, rates of depression and anxiety were pooled using random effects model computing 95% confidence interval (CI) and assessing heterogeneity using the I2 statistic. Funnel plots were used to detect potential reporting biases and small-study effects.

MAIN RESULTS

The search yielded 767 articles, from which 54 studies containing 632 605 women were included. All the studies were high quality. The prevalence of depression was: CPP 26.8% (95% CI: 19.2-34.4, I2 = 98.7%; 12 studies, 4798 participants with 491 cases; Egger's P value = 0.009); UI 26.3% (95% CI: 19.4-33.2, I2 = 99.9%; 26 studies, a total of 346 114 participants with 25 050 cases; Egger's P value = 0.944); POP 34.9% (95% CI: 24.3-45.6, I2 = 68%; three studies, 297 participants with 104 cases; Egger's P value = 0.973); and FI 25.3% (95% CI: 0.68-49.9, I2 = 99.7%; six studies, 14 663 participants with 1773 cases; Egger's P value = 0.780). The prevalence of anxiety was: CPP 29.5% (95% CI: 16.3-42.7, I2 = 97.7%; nine studies, 2483 participants with 349 cases; Egger's P value = 0.001); UI 46.91% (95% CI: 39.1-54.6, I2 = 99.6%; 11 studies, 198 491 participants with 40 058 cases; Egger's P value = 0.337); and POP 28% (95% CI: 13.6-42.4, I2 = 89%; three studies with 355 participants with 90 cases; Egger's P value = 0.306).

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of mental health illness was variable in the different types of PFDs. This meta-analysis helps quantify the burden of depression and anxiety in PFD and will help inform the policies regarding screening of emotional well-being by healthcare professionals engaged in care of women with PFD.

Examining the influence of mental health and structural determinants of health on the stage of motivational readiness for health behaviour changes: A path analysis study

This study explores the influence of mental health and structural determinants of health on motivational readiness for health behaviour change in 1462 Spanish primary healthcare users. Chi-square test and structural equation modelling were performed. Results showed that depression and anxiety were negatively associated with being in the action stages of motivational readiness for a healthy diet and physical activity. This association was statistically significant only for motivational readiness for a healthy diet and depression (β = - 0 . 076 ; p = 0 . 046 ). Furthermore, women and workers were more likely to be in the action stages of motivational readiness for a healthy diet while older adults and adults with higher health-related quality of life were more likely to be in the action stages of motivational readiness for physical activity. The present study suggests that structural (being older, being a woman and being employed) and intermediary (suffering from depression and higher health-related quality of life) determinants of health influence motivational readiness for health behaviour changes.

Effectiveness of a universal personalized intervention for the prevention of anxiety disorders: Protocol of a randomized controlled trial (the prevANS project)

Background

To date, all preventive anxiety disorders interventions are one-fit-all and none of them are based on individual level and risk profile. The aim of this project is to design, develop and evaluate an online personalized intervention based on a risk algorithm for the universal prevention of anxiety disorders in the general population.

Methods

A randomized controlled trial (RCT) with two parallel arms (prevANS vs usual care) and 1-year follow-up including 2000 participants without anxiety disorders from Spain and Portugal will be conducted.The prevANS intervention will be self-guided and can be implemented from the prevANS web or from the participants' Smartphone (through an App). The prevANS intervention will have different intensities depending on the risk level of the population, evaluated from the risk algorithm for anxiety: predictA. Both low and moderate-high risk participants will receive information on their level and profile (risk factors) of anxiety disorders, will have access to stress management tools and psychoeducational information periodically. In addition, participants with a moderate-high risk of anxiety disorders will also have access to cognitive-behavioral training (problem-solving, decision-making, communication skills, and working with thoughts). The control group will not receive any intervention, but they will fill out the same questionnaires as the intervention group.Assessments will be completed at baseline, 6 and 12-month follow-up. The primary outcome is the cumulative incidence of anxiety disorders. Secondary outcomes include depressive and anxiety symptoms, risk probability of anxiety disorders (predictA algorithm) and depression (predictD algorithm), improvement in physical and mental quality of life, and acceptability and satisfaction with the intervention. In addition, cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses will also be carried out from two perspectives, societal and health system, and analyses of mediators and moderators will also be performed.

Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, prevANS study will be the first to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a personalized online intervention based on a risk predictive algorithm for the universal prevention of anxiety disorders.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05682365.

Validity of the Spanish-Language Patient Health Questionnaires 2 and 9: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Importance

Reliable screening for major depressive disorder (MDD) relies on valid and accurate screening tools.

Objective

To examine the validity, accuracy, and reliability of the Spanish-language Patient Health Questionnaires 2 and 9 (PHQ-2 and PHQ-9) to screen for MDD.

Data Sources

PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and PsycINFO from data initiation through February 27, 2023.

Study Selection

English- and Spanish-language studies evaluating the validity of the Spanish-language PHQ-2 or PHQ-9 in screening adults for MDD compared with a standardized clinical interview (gold standard). Search terms included PHQ-2, PHQ-9, depression, and Spanish.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Two reviewers performed abstract and full-text reviews, data extraction, and quality assessment. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Random-effects meta-analyses of sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) were performed. Internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach α and McDonald ψ.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Test accuracy and internal consistency. The PHQ-2 is composed of the first 2 questions of the PHQ-9 (targeting core depression symptoms of depressed mood and anhedonia; a score of 3 or higher (score range, 0-6) is generally considered a positive depression screen. If a patient screens positive with the PHQ-2, a follow-up assessment with the PHQ-9 and a clinical diagnostic evaluation are recommended. Once depression is diagnosed, a PHQ-9 score of 10 or higher (score range, 0-27) is often considered an acceptable threshold for treating depression.

Results

Ten cross-sectional studies involving 5164 Spanish-speaking adults (mean age range, 34.1-71.8 years) were included; most studies (n = 8) were in primary care settings. One study evaluated the PHQ-2, 7 evaluated the PHQ-9, and 2 evaluated both the PHQ-2 and PHQ-9. For the PHQ-2, optimal cutoff scores ranged from greater than or equal to 1 to greater than or equal to 2, with an overall pooled sensitivity of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.81-0.95), overall pooled specificity of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.81-0.95), and overall pooled AUC of 0.87 (95% CI, 0.83-0.90); Cronbach α was 0.71 to 0.75, and McDonald ψ was 0.71. For the PHQ-9, optimal cutoff scores ranged from greater than or equal to 5 to greater than or equal to 12, with an overall pooled sensitivity of 0.86 (95% CI, 0.82-0.90), overall pooled specificity of 0.80 (95% CI, 0.75-0.85), and overall pooled AUC of 0.88 (95% CI, 0.87-0.90); Cronbach α was 0.78 to 0.90, and McDonald ψ was 0.79 to 0.90. Four studies were considered to have low risk of bias; 6 studies had indeterminate risk of bias due to a lack of blinding information.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, limited available evidence supported the use of the Spanish-language PHQ-2 and PHQ-9 in screening for MDD, but optimal cutoff scores varied greatly across studies, and few studies reported on blinding schemes. These results suggest that MDD should be considered in Spanish-speaking individuals with lower test scores. Given the widespread clinical use of the tools and the heterogeneity of existing evidence, further investigation is needed.

A personalized intervention to prevent depression in primary care based on risk predictive algorithms and decision support systems: protocol of the e-predictD study

The predictD is an intervention implemented by general practitioners (GPs) to prevent depression, which reduced the incidence of depression-anxiety and was cost-effective. The e-predictD study aims to design, develop, and evaluate an evolved predictD intervention to prevent the onset of major depression in primary care based on Information and Communication Technologies, predictive risk algorithms, decision support systems (DSSs), and personalized prevention plans (PPPs). A multicenter cluster randomized trial with GPs randomly assigned to the e-predictD intervention + care-as-usual (CAU) group or the active-control + CAU group and 1-year follow-up is being conducted. The required sample size is 720 non-depressed patients (aged 18-55 years), with moderate-to-high depression risk, under the care of 72 GPs in six Spanish cities. The GPs assigned to the e-predictD-intervention group receive brief training, and those assigned to the control group do not. Recruited patients of the GPs allocated to the e-predictD group download the e-predictD app, which incorporates validated risk algorithms to predict depression, monitoring systems, and DSSs. Integrating all inputs, the DSS automatically proposes to the patients a PPP for depression based on eight intervention modules: physical exercise, social relationships, improving sleep, problem-solving, communication skills, decision-making, assertiveness, and working with thoughts. This PPP is discussed in a 15-min semi-structured GP-patient interview. Patients then choose one or more of the intervention modules proposed by the DSS to be self-implemented over the next 3 months. This process will be reformulated at 3, 6, and 9 months but without the GP-patient interview. Recruited patients of the GPs allocated to the control-group+CAU download another version of the e-predictD app, but the only intervention that they receive via the app is weekly brief psychoeducational messages (active-control group). The primary outcome is the cumulative incidence of major depression measured by the Composite International Diagnostic Interview at 6 and 12 months. Other outcomes include depressive symptoms (PHQ-9) and anxiety symptoms (GAD-7), depression risk (predictD risk algorithm), mental and physical quality of life (SF-12), and acceptability and satisfaction ('e-Health Impact' questionnaire) with the intervention. Patients are evaluated at baseline and 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. An economic evaluation will also be performed (cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis) from two perspectives, societal and health systems.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT03990792.