Published eLetters
If you would like to comment on this article, click on Submit a Response to This article, below. We welcome your input.
Jump to comment:
- Page navigation anchor for We agree with Prof Schulberg and go further electronicallyWe agree with Prof Schulberg and go further electronicallyShow More
We are delighted to receive a comment on our paper from Professor Schulberg. We agree with his point of screening for multiple conditions rather than single conditions. Our publication of the validity of the PHQ- 2 and PHQ-9 was an academic work but our heart is in multi-item screening tools. We have used the CHAT (ref 1) to screen for ten items including smoking, alcohol, drugs, gambling, depression, anxiety, anger, vio...
Competing Interests: None declared. - Page navigation anchor for The PHQ-2, PHQ-9, and Screening for Psychiatric IllnessesThe PHQ-2, PHQ-9, and Screening for Psychiatric IllnessesShow More
Inducing physicians to administer screening instruments for psychiatric illnesses is a complex undertaking. The initial step is to convince physicians that a screening instrument is psychometrically valid. Arroll and colleagues are to be commended, therefore, for generating data needed to inform primary care physicians about the psychometric strengths as well as limitations of the PHQ-2 and PHQ-9. While the data present...
Competing Interests: None declared. - Page navigation anchor for Screening simple enough to be routineScreening simple enough to be routineShow More
Dr. Arroll and his colleagues have given us a well-crafted and well- conducted study that validates the PHQ-2 and 9, underscoring their utility in primary care. Distilling screening for a disease as complex as depression down to just two questions by Spitzer and colleagues has now been additionally and independently validated in primary care.
The challenge remains for us to integrate the simple PHQ-2 questions in...
Competing Interests: None declared.