Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42903343›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2026

Limitations of PHQ-9 as a first line mental health screener in primary care.

Jennifer Jane Newson, Dhanya Parameshwaran, Jason Schweitzer, Tara C Thiagarajan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 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

4 authors.

Jennifer Jane NewsonSapien Labs, Arlington, VA, United States.
Dhanya ParameshwaranSapien Labs Center for Human Brain and Mind at Krea, IFMR, Chennai, India.
Jason SchweitzerDepartment of Psychiatry, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, La Jolla, CA, United States.
Tara C ThiagarajanSapien Labs, Arlington, VA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The PHQ-9, originally designed as an assessment for depression, is now widely used as a first line screener in primary care and is often the sole mental health screener used. However, it is currently unknown how well the PHQ-9 performs as a general screener for mental distress. Here we aim to determine the sensitivity and specificity of the (PHQ-9) for capturing general or transdiagnostic mental distress, defined as experiencing 5 or more severe mental health symptoms. Methods: PHQ-9 responses were collected alongside responses to the transdiagnostic Mental Health Quotient (MHQ) assessment that captures 47 symptoms spanning 10 disorders as well as additional elements from RDoC in a sample of 5,750 respondents collected in 2022. PHQ-9 sum scores were compared with those with 5 or more symptoms from the MHQ. Results: At a sum score cut-off corresponding to moderately severe depression, PHQ-9 had low sensitivity, capturing only 46% of those with general mental distress. At a cut-off corresponding to mild depression, sensitivity improved to 93%, while specificity dropped to 57%. Concurrently, the PHQ-9 missed several symptoms that were highly prevalent in the sample population and individuals with Conclusions: Altogether, the PHQ-9, due to its origin as a depression screener, is not appropriate as a screener for general mental distress. In the context of primary care triage, this highlights the need for an alternative disorder agnostic first line screener that enables the identification of severe mental distress regardless of the specific profile of symptoms.

Indexed as

assessmentdepressionmental healthMHQPHQ-9primary carescreeningtriage

Identifiers

PMID42903343
PMCPMC13680475

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.