ArticleBJPsych open2021
Development and validation of the Maudsley Modified Patient Health Questionnaire (MM-PHQ-9).
Article in BJPsych open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Trial
- Charting the course of depression care: a meta-analysis of reliability generalization of the patient health questionnaire (PHQ- 9) as the measure.Discover mental health · 2025Article
- Explainable Multi-Layer Dynamic Ensemble Framework Optimized for Depression Detection and Severity Assessment.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- The Role of Subgenual Resting-State Connectivity Networks in Predicting Prognosis in Major Depressive Disorder.Biological psychiatry global open science · 2024Article
- "Longing is good": proof-of-concept for a novel psychological intervention to tackle self-blaming emotions.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Neural signatures of emotional biases predict clinical outcomes in difficult-to-treat depression.Research directions. Depression · 2024Article
- The Psychopathology of Worthlessness in Depression.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) is a widely used measure of depression in primary care. It was, however, originally designed as a diagnostic screening tool, and not for measuring change in response to antidepressant treatment. Although the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomology (QIDS-SR-16) has been extensively validated for outcome measurement, it is poorly adopted in UK primary care, and, although free for clinicians, has licensing restrictions for healthcare organisation use.
aimsWe aimed to develop a modified version of the PHQ-9, the Maudsley Modified PHQ-9 (MM-PHQ-9), for tracking symptom changes in primary care. We tested the measure's validity, reliability and factor structure.
methodA sample of 121 participants was recruited across three studies, and comprised 78 participants with major depressive disorder and 43 controls. MM-PHQ-9 scores were compared with the QIDS-SR-16 and Clinical Global Impressions improvement scale, for concurrent validity. Internal consistency of the scale was assessed, and principal component analysis was conducted to determine the items' factor structure.
resultsThe MM-PHQ-9 demonstrated good concurrent validity with the QIDS-SR-16, and excellent internal consistency. Sensitivity to change over a 14-week period was d = 0.41 compared with d = 0.61 on the QIDS-SR-16. Concurrent validity between the paper and mobile app versions of the MM-PHQ-9 was r = 0.67.
conclusionsThese results indicate that the MM-PHQ-9 is a valid and reliable measure of depressive symptoms in paper and mobile app format, although further validation is required. The measure was sensitive to change, demonstrating suitability for use in routine outcome assessment.
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.