ArticleBMJ open2017
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.
Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Quantifying care, qualifying experiences: a systematic review of measurement-based care in psychiatry from patient and provider perspectives.BMJ mental health · 2025Pooled it
- Improvements in health-related quality of life with esketamine nasal spray versus quetiapine extended release.European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists · 2025Trial
- Patient-reported outcome measures for monitoring primary care patients with depression: the PROMDEP cluster RCT and economic evaluation.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2024Trial
- Cognitive testing of the PHQ-9 for depression screening among pregnant and postpartum women in Kenya.BMC psychiatry · 2020Trial
- The clinical effectiveness of sertraline in primary care and the role of depression severity and duration (PANDA): a pragmatic, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial.The lancet. Psychiatry · 2019Trial
- Feasibility and user evaluation of HopeBot: An LLM-powered conversational chatbot for depression screening.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Application of the Minimal Clinically Important Difference to Adolescent Mental Health Interventions: A Case Study for Hopelessness.Child psychiatry and human development · 2026Article
- Disclosing depressive symptoms: perceived sensitivity of PHQ-9 items in a general population sample.BMC psychology · 2026Article
- Article
- Association Between Riboflavin Intake and Suicidal Ideation: A Nationwide Study in Korea.Nutrients · 2025Article
- Observational
- Applying contrastive pre-training for depression and anxiety risk prediction in type 2 diabetes patients based on heterogeneous electronic health records: a primary healthcare case study.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024Article
- Suicidal Thinking Among Patients With Spinal Conditions in South Korea: A Population-Based Cross-Sectional Study.Psychiatry investigation · 2023Article
- A multifaceted provider-centred intervention versus usual care to improve the recognition and diagnosis of depression in primary health care: a hybrid study.Primary health care research & development · 2023Article
- Article
- Digital phenotyping in depression diagnostics: Integrating psychiatric and engineering perspectives.World journal of psychiatry · 2022Review
- Effective dose 50 method as the minimal clinically important difference: Evidence from depression trials.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2021Article
- Comparison between self-administered depression questionnaires and patients' own views of changes in their mood: a prospective cohort study in primary care.Psychological medicine · 2021Article
- Article
- Grant Report on SCH: Personalized Depression Treatment Supported by Mobile Sensor Analytics.Journal of psychiatry and brain science · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesOur 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.
designQualitative study nested within a cohort, in a programme investigating the indications for prescribing antidepressants that will lead to a clinical benefit.
settingPrimary care practices in north-west England.
participantsWe 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.
resultsWe 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.
conclusionsThe 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.