Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41062246›Full record

ArticleBJGP open2026

Monitoring depression with the PHQ-9 in primary care: a qualitative study.

Brian Cf Ching, Rachel Dewar-Haggart, Carl R May, Geraldine Leydon, Tony Kendrick, Emilia Trapasso, Tasneem Patel, Molly Bird, Lauren Bridewell, Lien Bui and 8 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BJGP open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

18 authors.

Brian Cf ChingDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2179-9793
Rachel Dewar-HaggartSchool of Primary Care, Population Sciences & Medication Education, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3757-1152
Carl R MayFaculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0451-2690
Geraldine LeydonSchool of Primary Care, Population Sciences & Medication Education, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5986-3300
Tony KendrickSchool of Primary Care, Population Sciences & Medication Education, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1618-9381
Emilia TrapassoDepartment of Primary Care and Mental Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7539-7204
Tasneem PatelDepartment of Primary Care and Mental Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4496-7603
Molly BirdDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1676-1907
Lauren BridewellSchool of Primary Care, Population Sciences & Medication Education, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9569-7813
Lien BuiSchool of Primary Care, Population Sciences & Medication Education, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3434-4066
Emma CorcoranDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5811-4615
Jane S HahnDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4584-9441
Riya TiwariSchool of Primary Care, Population Sciences & Medication Education, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3002-3276
Mekeda X LoganDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7899-7531
Christopher DowrickDepartment of Primary Care and Mental Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4245-2203
Glyn LewisDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5205-8245
Mark GabbayDepartment of Primary Care and Mental Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0126-8485
Adam Wa GeraghtySchool of Primary Care, Population Sciences & Medication Education, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7984-8351

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrimary care guidelines recommend GPs consider using depression symptom questionnaires as patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to monitor depression in adults to inform treatment and evaluate management strategies. The PROMDEP randomised controlled trial assessed the use of the Patient Health Questionnaire's (PHQ-9) effectiveness and cost-effectiveness for monitoring depression. We gathered qualitative evidence on the views and experiences of participating patients and practitioners to inform interpretation of the findings.

aimTo explore the views and experiences of patients and practitioners of using the PHQ-9 in the PROMDEP trial of monitoring depression in primary care. DESIGN &

settingNested qualitative study and process evaluation of the trial in primary care in England and Wales.

methodTwenty-nine patients and 15 practitioners took part in semi-structured telephone or video interviews. Interview data were analysed using thematic analysis.

resultsPatients and practitioners both valued the PHQ-9 and reported limitations in its use for monitoring depression. This included its role in improving understanding of depression, impact on consultation and care, and integration within current primary care processes. In the context of the PROMDEP trial, our findings highlight potential reasons for the mixed trial findings, including how resistance in its use in practice may be owing to barriers that make it hard for practitioners to integrate the PHQ-9 in consultations.

conclusionMonitoring of depression using PROMs needs to be considered within the context of current primary care processes and resources. Further research is warranted to understand how the PHQ-9 can be successfully integrated into consultations.

Indexed as

depressiongeneral practicepatient reported outcome measuresprimary health carequalitative research

Identifiers

PMID41062246
PMCPMC13540354

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.