The PHQ-2/PHQ-9 Depression Screen: A Comprehensive Review for Internal Medicine Practice

Dr Neeraj Manikath , claude.ai

Abstract

Depression represents one of the most prevalent yet under-recognized comorbidities in internal medicine practice, significantly impacting outcomes across virtually all chronic diseases. The Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2 and PHQ-9) provides a validated, efficient, and practical screening tool that can be seamlessly integrated into routine clinical encounters. This review examines the evidence base, implementation strategies, and clinical pearls for utilizing depression screening as a vital sign in internal medicine practice.

Introduction: The Hidden Epidemic

Major depressive disorder (MDD) affects approximately 8.4% of adults in the United States annually, with lifetime prevalence estimates reaching 20.6%[1]. However, the true burden of depression in internal medicine practice extends far beyond these population-based statistics. Patients with chronic medical conditions experience depression at rates two to three times higher than the general population[2]. More critically, depression serves as both a consequence and a cause of poor medical outcomes, creating a vicious cycle that internists are uniquely positioned to interrupt.

The bidirectional relationship between depression and chronic disease is well-established. Depression increases the risk of incident coronary artery disease (CAD) by 60-80%[3], worsens glycemic control in diabetes mellitus (DM) with HbA1c elevations of 0.5-1.0%[4], and independently predicts mortality in congestive heart failure (CHF) with hazard ratios ranging from 1.5 to 2.5[5]. Conversely, chronic medical illness doubles the risk of developing depression, creating a complex interplay that demands systematic screening.

Despite this evidence, depression remains underdiagnosed in medical settings. Studies suggest that primary care physicians detect depression in fewer than 50% of affected patients[6]. The reasons are multifactorial: time constraints, competing clinical priorities, stigma, diagnostic uncertainty, and the tendency of patients to present with somatic rather than psychological complaints. The PHQ-2/PHQ-9 screening strategy directly addresses these barriers.

The Development and Validation of the PHQ Series

The Patient Health Questionnaire was developed by Spitzer, Kroenke, and Williams in 1999 as a self-administered version of the PRIME-MD diagnostic instrument[7]. The PHQ-9 was specifically designed to assess the nine DSM-IV criteria for major depressive disorder, while the PHQ-2 comprises the first two questions addressing anhedonia and depressed mood—the core diagnostic criteria.

The validation studies are robust. In the landmark 2001 study by Kroenke et al., the PHQ-9 demonstrated a sensitivity of 88% and specificity of 88% for major depression at a cutoff score of ≥10[8]. The PHQ-2, validated as an ultra-brief screening tool, shows a sensitivity of 83% and specificity of 92% at a cutoff of ≥3[9]. This two-stage screening approach—PHQ-2 for initial screening followed by PHQ-9 for positive screens—optimizes efficiency without sacrificing diagnostic accuracy.

The PHQ instruments have been validated across diverse populations, including primary care, specialty medical clinics, obstetric settings, and multiple ethnic and linguistic groups[10]. Importantly, the PHQ-9 has demonstrated responsiveness to change, making it valuable not only for diagnosis but also for monitoring treatment response[11].

The Clinical Imperative: Why Depression Screening Matters

Depression as a Disease Modifier

Depression is not merely a comorbidity; it fundamentally alters disease trajectories. In coronary artery disease, depression is associated with increased rates of recurrent myocardial infarction, cardiac mortality, and all-cause mortality even after adjusting for disease severity and other risk factors[12]. The mechanisms are multifactorial: autonomic dysregulation, enhanced platelet reactivity, increased inflammatory markers, and poor medication adherence.

In diabetes, depression creates a perfect storm of poor outcomes. Depressed patients demonstrate reduced self-care behaviors, including medication non-adherence, poor dietary choices, and decreased physical activity[13]. Meta-analyses reveal that depression is associated with a 38% increased risk of macrovascular complications and a 36% increased risk of microvascular complications[14]. The relationship is dose-dependent, with higher depression severity correlating with worse metabolic control.

Heart failure patients with depression experience higher rates of hospitalization, emergency department visits, and mortality[15]. Depression amplifies symptoms through multiple pathways: increased perception of dyspnea and fatigue, reduced exercise capacity, poor medication adherence, and activation of neurohormonal stress axes. Treating depression in CHF not only improves quality of life but may also reduce hospitalization rates and healthcare costs[16].

The Somatic Presentation: Why Patients Don't Volunteer the Diagnosis

A critical pearl for internists: depressed patients rarely present complaining of sadness. Instead, they present with fatigue, insomnia, chronic pain, gastrointestinal symptoms, or simply "not feeling well." Studies indicate that up to 69% of patients with major depression present exclusively with somatic complaints[17]. This somatization creates a diagnostic challenge that systematic screening helps overcome.

The cultural context matters. In many cultures, psychological distress is stigmatized while physical symptoms are more acceptable. Patients may not even recognize their symptoms as depression, particularly if they lack the prototypical profound sadness. This is where the structured PHQ questions become invaluable—they normalize the inquiry and provide patients permission to disclose psychological symptoms.

Implementation: The 30-Second Screen in Practice

The PHQ-2: Your Depression Vital Sign

The beauty of the PHQ-2 lies in its brevity and directness. The screening takes approximately 30 seconds and should be integrated into routine vital sign assessment for high-risk populations. The questions are:

"Over the past 2 weeks, how often have you been bothered by:

Little interest or pleasure in doing things?
Feeling down, depressed, or hopeless?"

Response options: Not at all (0), Several days (1), More than half the days (2), Nearly every day (3).

Critical Implementation Hack: Frame the questions as routine, not exceptional. Use language like: "I ask all my patients with [diabetes/heart disease/chronic illness] these two quick questions about mood because it affects how you feel and how your condition responds to treatment." This normalization reduces stigma and increases disclosure.

Scoring Pearl: A score of ≥3 (positive screen) warrants proceeding to the full PHQ-9. However, clinical judgment remains paramount. Even scores of 2 in patients with severe medical illness, recent major life stressors, or concerning statements should prompt further evaluation.

The PHQ-9: From Screening to Diagnosis

The PHQ-9 expands to assess all nine DSM criteria for major depression:

Little interest or pleasure in doing things
Feeling down, depressed, or hopeless
Trouble falling/staying asleep, sleeping too much
Feeling tired or having little energy
Poor appetite or overeating
Feeling bad about yourself or that you are a failure
Trouble concentrating on things
Moving or speaking slowly, or being fidgety/restless
Thoughts that you would be better off dead or hurting yourself

Each item is scored 0-3 using the same frequency scale as the PHQ-2. Total scores range from 0-27.

Interpretation Oyster: The commonly cited cutoff of ≥10 for major depression is based on sensitivity/specificity optimization, but the PHQ-9 provides severity gradations:

0-4: Minimal depression
5-9: Mild depression
10-14: Moderate depression
15-19: Moderately severe depression
20-27: Severe depression

The Question 9 Rule: Regardless of total score, any positive response to Question 9 (suicidal ideation) demands immediate safety assessment. This is non-negotiable and may require psychiatric consultation, increased monitoring, family involvement, or emergency intervention depending on acuity.

Who to Screen: Risk-Based Stratification

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends screening all adults for depression with "adequate systems in place to ensure accurate diagnosis, effective treatment, and appropriate follow-up"[18]. However, in time-constrained internal medicine practice, risk-based screening optimizes resource allocation.

High-Yield Screening Populations:

All patients with chronic medical conditions (CAD, DM, CHF, COPD, CKD, chronic pain)
Patients with unexplained somatic complaints or functional decline
Recent hospitalization or major medical event
Poor medication adherence or treatment resistance
Frequent healthcare utilization
Recent major life stressors (bereavement, divorce, job loss)
History of prior depression or family history
Substance use disorders

Practice Hack: Embed PHQ-2 screening into disease-specific visit templates. For example, diabetic flow sheets should prompt PHQ-2 screening alongside HbA1c, foot exams, and eye care. This systematization ensures screening doesn't depend on individual clinician memory.

Clinical Action: What to Do with Positive Screens

The Treatment Decision Point

A PHQ-9 score of ≥10 indicates probable major depression requiring intervention. Internists face a decision point: treat or refer?

When to Treat Yourself:

Mild to moderate depression (PHQ-9 10-19)
No active suicidal ideation with plan
No psychotic features
No bipolar disorder history
Patient preference for medication over psychotherapy alone
Limited access to mental health services
Depression clearly comorbid with medical condition you're managing

When to Refer:

Severe depression (PHQ-9 ≥20)
Active suicidal ideation with plan or intent
Psychotic features
Bipolar disorder or unclear diagnosis
Treatment-resistant depression (failed 2+ adequate trials)
Complex psychiatric comorbidity
Patient preference for psychotherapy
Pregnancy or lactation (specialist consultation recommended)

Initiating Pharmacotherapy: The Internist's Approach

For internists choosing to initiate treatment, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) remain first-line due to favorable tolerability, safety, and drug interaction profiles[19].

Practical First-Line Regimen:

Sertraline 50 mg daily (can start with 25 mg in elderly/anxious patients)
Alternative: Escitalopram 10 mg daily, Fluoxetine 20 mg daily, Citalopram 20 mg daily

Key Prescribing Pearls:

Set Expectations: "This medication typically takes 4-6 weeks to show full benefit, though some patients notice improvement in 2-3 weeks. Side effects, if they occur, usually happen in the first week but often resolve."
Common Side Effects Warning: Nausea, headache, initial anxiety/jitteriness, sexual dysfunction. Consider starting at half-dose for 1 week in sensitive patients.
The Activation Syndrome: Warn patients about potential initial increase in anxiety or restlessness in the first week. This is temporary and not a reason to discontinue. However, emergence of severe agitation, panic, or suicidal ideation requires immediate contact.
The FDA Black Box Pearl: While the FDA black box warning about increased suicidal thinking in young adults (18-24) is important to discuss, emphasize that untreated depression carries far greater suicide risk. Close follow-up mitigates this concern.
Drug Interactions: SSRIs inhibit various CYP450 enzymes (particularly fluoxetine and paroxetine). Check for interactions with warfarin, clopidogrel, NSAIDs (bleeding risk), tramadol, and other serotonergic agents.
Medical Comorbidity Considerations:
- Post-MI: SSRIs are safe and potentially cardioprotective[20]
- Diabetes: SSRIs don't adversely affect glycemic control
- CKD: Dose adjustment typically not needed until GFR <30
- Elderly: Start low (sertraline 25 mg), go slow, watch for hyponatremia (SIADH)

The Follow-Up Protocol: Essential for Success

Week 2 Follow-Up (phone call acceptable):

Assess side effects and tolerability
Reinforce timeline to benefit
Screen for worsening or suicidal ideation
Encourage continuation

Week 4-6 Follow-Up (in-person or telehealth):

Repeat PHQ-9 to assess response
Expected reduction: 5+ points or 50% improvement
If inadequate response: Increase dose (e.g., sertraline 50→100 mg)
If intolerable side effects: Switch agents

Week 12 Follow-Up:

Repeat PHQ-9
Full response goal: PHQ-9 <5
Partial response: Consider increasing to maximum dose or augmentation
No response: Consider referral to psychiatry

Remission Maintenance: Continue antidepressant for 6-12 months after achieving remission for first episode, longer for recurrent depression. Taper slowly when discontinuing (over 2-4 weeks) to avoid discontinuation syndrome.

Special Populations and Considerations

Depression in Medically Ill Patients: Diagnostic Challenges

The overlap between depression symptoms and medical illness creates diagnostic ambiguity. Fatigue, insomnia, appetite change, and concentration difficulties may reflect disease burden rather than depression. Two approaches help:

The Inclusive Approach: Count all symptoms regardless of attribution. Research suggests this maximizes sensitivity without substantially reducing specificity[21].
The Cognitive/Affective Focus: Emphasize symptoms less likely to be explained by medical illness: anhedonia, depressed mood, worthlessness, guilt, and suicidal ideation.

Clinical Hack: In unclear cases, a therapeutic trial often provides diagnostic clarity. If symptoms respond to antidepressant therapy, this supports the depression diagnosis.

The Collaborative Care Model: Evidence-Based Integration

The collaborative care model for depression management integrates mental health treatment into primary care through care managers, psychiatric consultation, and systematic follow-up. Multiple randomized trials demonstrate superiority over usual care, with number needed to treat of 5-7 for depression remission[22].

Key Components:

Systematic screening and diagnosis
Evidence-based treatment (pharmacotherapy and/or psychotherapy)
Care manager for patient education, monitoring, and coordination
Psychiatric consultant for complex cases
Treat-to-target approach using measurement-based care (PHQ-9 monitoring)
Relapse prevention

Even without formal collaborative care infrastructure, internists can adopt core principles: systematic screening, evidence-based treatment, regular measurement using PHQ-9, and low threshold for specialty consultation.

Documentation: Medical-Legal and Quality Considerations

Proper documentation serves multiple purposes: medical-legal protection, quality measurement, billing justification, and communication with other providers.

Essential Documentation Elements:

PHQ-2 and/or PHQ-9 scores (discrete data fields if possible)
Safety assessment for Question 9 positivity
Diagnosis using ICD-10 codes (F32.x for major depressive disorder, single episode; F33.x for recurrent)
Treatment plan or referral
Patient education provided
Follow-up plan

Billing Pearl: Depression screening is separately billable (CPT 96127) when performed with scoring and documentation. Time spent counseling and coordinating care can be counted toward evaluation and management level.

Quality Measures: Depression screening and follow-up are core quality metrics in many value-based payment models (HEDIS, MIPS). Systematic screening with documented action improves quality scores and reimbursement.

Common Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them

Pitfall 1: Screening Without Follow-Through

The USPSTF recommendation includes the caveat about "adequate systems" for diagnosis and treatment. Screening without capacity to respond to positive results is ethically problematic and potentially harmful. Before implementing systematic screening, ensure follow-up mechanisms are in place.

Solution: Develop referral pathways, identify psychiatric consultants, obtain credentialing for tele-psychiatry if available, and train staff in crisis response.

Pitfall 2: Treating the Score Instead of the Patient

The PHQ-9 is a tool, not a diagnosis. Clinical judgment remains essential. A patient with PHQ-9 of 9 who is actively suicidal requires urgent intervention. A patient with PHQ-9 of 12 who is grieving a recent loss may benefit from watchful waiting and supportive counseling rather than immediate pharmacotherapy.

Solution: Always assess context, acuity, functional impairment, and patient preferences alongside screening scores.

Pitfall 3: Inadequate Safety Assessment for Positive Question 9

Any positive response to Question 9 requires further exploration. The question asks about passive death wishes ("better off dead") and active suicidal thoughts. These require different levels of intervention.

Solution: Develop a standardized safety assessment protocol. Ask specifically about: intent, plan, means, protective factors, prior attempts, and support systems. Document this assessment. Have a low threshold for psychiatric consultation, emergency department evaluation, or crisis hotline referral (988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline).

Pitfall 4: Giving Up After One Failed Trial

Treatment-resistant depression is common; approximately 30-40% of patients don't respond adequately to first-line therapy[23]. Sequential trials of different agents, dose optimization, augmentation strategies, and ultimately psychiatric consultation lead to eventual response in most patients.

Solution: Set expectations early that medication adjustment may be needed. Develop comfort with switching SSRIs, using augmentation with bupropion or mirtazapine, and recognizing when specialty referral is warranted.

Pitfall 5: Neglecting Psychotherapy

While medication is often first-line in medical settings due to accessibility, cognitive-behavioral therapy and other psychotherapies demonstrate efficacy equal to medication for mild-to-moderate depression[24]. Combined treatment may be superior to either alone for moderate-to-severe depression.

Solution: Discuss psychotherapy as an option, provide referrals to therapists, and consider online/app-based CBT programs for patients with access barriers.

Pearls and Oysters: Advanced Clinical Insights

Pearl 1: The Bidirectional Treatment Benefit

Treating depression improves medical outcomes, and treating medical illness improves depression. Optimize both simultaneously. For example, cardiac rehabilitation for post-MI patients reduces both depression and cardiovascular events[25].

Pearl 2: The Inflammation Connection

Emerging evidence links depression to systemic inflammation, particularly elevated C-reactive protein and inflammatory cytokines[26]. This may explain the depression-chronic disease nexus and suggests that anti-inflammatory approaches (exercise, diet, NSAIDs in select cases) may have antidepressant effects.

Pearl 3: Medication Reconciliation for Iatrogenic Depression

Multiple medications cause or exacerbate depression: beta-blockers (particularly lipophilic agents), corticosteroids, interferons, some anticonvulsants, and others. Review the medication list before assuming primary depression.

Pearl 4: The Exercise Prescription

Exercise demonstrates antidepressant efficacy comparable to medication for mild-to-moderate depression[27]. The prescription specificity matters: moderate-intensity aerobic exercise, 30-45 minutes, 3-5 days per week. This "dose" achieves clinical benefit.

Pearl 5: Subsyndromal Depression Matters

Patients with PHQ-9 scores of 5-9 (mild depression) or subthreshold symptoms still experience functional impairment and increased medical complications. Consider low-intensity interventions: behavioral activation, exercise, psychoeducation, or watchful waiting with close follow-up.

Oyster 1: Depression Masquerading as Dementia

Pseudodementia—cognitive impairment due to depression—presents particularly in elderly patients. Clues include acute onset, patient emphasis on deficits (vs. denial in true dementia), and "I don't know" responses. PHQ-9 screening followed by antidepressant trial can be diagnostic and therapeutic.

Oyster 2: Mixed Features and Bipolar Spectrum

Patients with depression plus irritability, racing thoughts, decreased need for sleep, or brief episodes of elevated mood may have bipolar spectrum illness. SSRIs alone can worsen course. Screening tools like the Mood Disorder Questionnaire (MDQ) help identify these patients who require mood stabilizers and psychiatric referral.

Oyster 3: The Paradoxical Patient

Some patients with severe depression score surprisingly low on PHQ-9 due to alexithymia (inability to identify/describe emotions), minimization, or cultural factors. Trust clinical gestalt. If a patient looks depressed, functions poorly, and endorses hopelessness despite low PHQ-9, consider depression and explore alternative assessment approaches.

Future Directions and Emerging Evidence

The field of depression screening and treatment continues to evolve. Digital health tools, including smartphone apps for mood monitoring and delivering CBT, show promise for increasing access and engagement. Machine learning algorithms analyzing electronic health record data can identify high-risk patients for targeted screening. Novel rapid-acting antidepressants (esketamine, psychedelics in research settings) may transform treatment of severe, refractory depression. Integration of genetic testing (pharmacogenomics) to guide medication selection remains investigational but may improve precision in treatment selection.

Conclusion: The 30-Second Intervention That Changes Lives

The PHQ-2/PHQ-9 screening approach represents a rare convergence: an intervention that is evidence-based, quick, inexpensive, and potentially life-saving. Depression profoundly impacts the patients we care for daily—magnifying their symptoms, sabotaging our best medical treatments, and stealing their quality of life. By making depression screening as routine as measuring blood pressure, internists can identify and address this hidden epidemic.

The implementation is straightforward: ask two questions (PHQ-2), follow up positive screens with nine questions (PHQ-9), assess safety, and either treat or refer. The impact is profound: improved medication adherence, better disease control, reduced hospitalizations, enhanced quality of life, and saved lives.

Depression is not someone else's problem to address. It is integral to internal medicine practice, affecting outcomes in virtually every chronic disease we manage. The 30 seconds required for PHQ-2 screening yields returns measured in years of life and quality of life for our patients. In an era of increasingly complex and expensive medical interventions, this simple screen stands out as a high-value practice that every internist should embrace.

References

Hasin DS, et al. Epidemiology of adult DSM-5 major depressive disorder and its specifiers in the United States. JAMA Psychiatry. 2018;75(4):336-346.
Katon WJ. Epidemiology and treatment of depression in patients with chronic medical illness. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2011;13(1):7-23.
Nicholson A, et al. Depression as an aetiologic and prognostic factor in coronary heart disease: a meta-analysis of 6362 events among 146,538 participants in 54 observational studies. Eur Heart J. 2006;27(23):2763-2774.
Lustman PJ, et al. Depression and poor glycemic control: a meta-analytic review of the literature. Diabetes Care. 2000;23(7):934-942.
Rutledge T, et al. Depression in heart failure: a meta-analytic review of prevalence, intervention effects, and associations with clinical outcomes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48(8):1527-1537.
Mitchell AJ, et al. Clinical diagnosis of depression in primary care: a meta-analysis. Lancet. 2009;374(9690):609-619.
Spitzer RL, et al. Validation and utility of a self-report version of PRIME-MD: the PHQ primary care study. JAMA. 1999;282(18):1737-1744.
Kroenke K, et al. The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16(9):606-613.
Kroenke K, et al. The Patient Health Questionnaire-2: validity of a two-item depression screener. Med Care. 2003;41(11):1284-1292.
Levis B, et al. Accuracy of Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) for screening to detect major depression: individual participant data meta-analysis. BMJ. 2019;365:l1476.
Löwe B, et al. Monitoring depression treatment outcomes with the Patient Health Questionnaire-9. Med Care. 2004;42(12):1194-1201.
Lichtman JH, et al. Depression as a risk factor for poor prognosis among patients with acute coronary syndrome: systematic review and recommendations. Circulation. 2014;129(12):1350-1369.
Gonzalez JS, et al. Depression and diabetes treatment nonadherence: a meta-analysis. Diabetes Care. 2008;31(12):2398-2403.
Roy T, Lloyd CE. Epidemiology of depression and diabetes: a systematic review. J Affect Disord. 2012;142 Suppl:S8-21.
Rutledge T, et al. Depression and cardiovascular health care costs among women with suspected myocardial ischemia. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53(2):176-183.
Freedland KE, et al. Treatment of depression after coronary artery bypass surgery: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2009;66(4):387-396.
Simon GE, et al. An international study of the relation between somatic symptoms and depression. N Engl J Med. 1999;341(18):1329-1335.
US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for depression in adults: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2023;329(23):2057-2067.
Qaseem A, et al. Nonpharmacologic versus pharmacologic treatment of adult patients with major depressive disorder: a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164(5):350-359.
Glassman AH, et al. Sertraline treatment of major depression in patients with acute MI or unstable angina. JAMA. 2002;288(6):701-709.
Cavanaugh S, et al. Diagnosing depression in the hospitalized medically ill. Psychosomatics. 1983;24(9):809-815.
Archer J, et al. Collaborative care for depression and anxiety problems. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;10:CD006525.
Rush AJ, et al. Acute and longer-term outcomes in depressed outpatients requiring one or several treatment steps: a STAR*D report. Am J Psychiatry. 2006;163(11):1905-1917.
Cuijpers P, et al. A meta-analysis of cognitive-behavioural therapy for adult depression, alone and in comparison with other treatments. Can J Psychiatry. 2013;58(7):376-385.
Milani RV, Lavie CJ. Impact of cardiac rehabilitation on depression and its associated mortality. Am J Med. 2007;120(9):799-806.
Osimo EF, et al. Inflammatory markers in depression: a meta-analysis of mean differences and variability in 5,166 patients and 5,083 controls. Brain Behav Immun. 2020;87:901-909.
Schuch FB, et al. Exercise as a treatment for depression: a meta-analysis adjusting for publication bias. J Psychiatr Res. 2016;77:42-51.