Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34054677›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2021

Are the PHQ-9 and GAD-7 Suitable for Use in India? A Psychometric Analysis.

Jeroen De Man, Pilvikki Absetz, Thirunavukkarasu Sathish, Allissa Desloge, Tilahun Haregu, Brian Oldenburg, Leslie C M Johnson, Kavumpurathu Raman Thankappan, Emily D Williams

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

49 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Jeroen De ManDepartment of Family Medicine and Population Health, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
Pilvikki AbsetzCollaborative Care Systems Finland, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland.
Thirunavukkarasu SathishPopulation Health Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Allissa DeslogeMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Tilahun HareguMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Brian OldenburgMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Leslie C M JohnsonDepartment of Family and Preventive Medicine, School of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, United States.
Kavumpurathu Raman ThankappanDepartment of Public Health and Community Medicine, Central University of Kerala, Kasaragod, India.
Emily D WilliamsSchool of Health Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCross-cultural evidence on the factorial structure and invariance of the PHQ-9 and the GAD-7 is lacking for South Asia. Recommendations on the use of unit-weighted scores of these scales (the sum of items' scores) are not well-founded. This study aims to address these contextual and methodological gaps using data from a rural Indian population.

methodsThe study surveyed 1,209 participants of the Kerala Diabetes Prevention Program aged 30-60 years (

resultsFactor analysis supported the existence of a somatic and cognitive/affective subcomponent for both scales, but less explicitly for the GAD-7. Hierarchical omega values were 0.72 for the PHQ-9 and 0.76 for the GAD-7. Both scales showed full scalar invariance and full or partial residual invariance across age, gender, education, status of diabetes and over time. Effect sizes between categories measured by unit-weighted scores versus latent means followed a similar trend but were systematically higher for the latent means. For both disorders, female gender and lower education were associated with higher symptom severity scores, which corresponds with regional and global trends.

conclusionsFor both scales, psychometric properties were comparable to studies in western settings. Distinct clinical profiles (somatic-cognitive) were supported for depression, and to a lesser extent for anxiety. Unit-weighted scores of the full scales should be used with caution, while scoring subscales is not recommended. The stability of these scales supports their use and allows for meaningful comparison across tested subgroups. CLINICAL

trial registrationAustralia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12611000262909http://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=336603&isReview=true.

Indexed as

confirmatory bifactor modelingdepressiongeneralized anxiety disorder assessmentIndiameasurement invarianceomega hierarchicalPatient Health Questionnairesum score reliability

Identifiers

PMID34054677
PMCPMC8155718

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.