ArticleBJGP open2026
Monitoring depression with the PHQ-9 in primary care: a qualitative study.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.