Psychosomatic Medicine Tips for Better Browsing
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kroenke, K.
Right arrow Articles by Williams, J. B. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kroenke, K.
Right arrow Articles by Williams, J. B. W.
Related Collections
Right arrow Other Epidemiology
Right arrow Somatoform
Psychosomatic Medicine 64:258-266 (2002)
© 2002 American Psychosomatic Society

ORIGINAL ARTICLES

The PHQ-15: Validity of a New Measure for Evaluating the Severity of Somatic Symptoms

Kurt Kroenke, MD, Robert L. Spitzer, MD and Janet B. W. Williams, DSW

From the Regenstrief Institute for Health Care and Department of Medicine (K.K.), Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN; and the New York State Psychiatric Institute and Department of Psychiatry (R.L.S., J.B.W.), Columbia University, New York, NY.

Address reprint requests to: Kurt Kroenke, MD, Regenstrief Institute for Health Care, RG-6 1050 Wishard Blvd., Indianapolis, IN 46202. Email: Kkroenke{at}regenstrief.org For a complimentary copy of reproducible PHQ materials, contact: Robert L. Spitzer, MD. Email: rls8@columbia.edu


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 APPENDIX
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 REFERENCES
 
OBJECTIVE: Somatization is prevalent in primary care and is associated with substantial functional impairment and healthcare utilization. However, instruments for identifying and monitoring somatic symptoms are few in number and not widely used. Therefore, we examined the validity of a brief measure of the severity of somatic symptoms.

METHODS: The Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ) is a self-administered version of the PRIME-MD diagnostic instrument for common mental disorders. The PHQ-15 comprises 15 somatic symptoms from the PHQ, each symptom scored from 0 ("not bothered at all") to 2 ("bothered a lot"). The PHQ-15 was administered to 6000 patients in eight general internal medicine and family practice clinics and seven obstetrics-gynecology clinics. Outcomes included functional status as assessed by the 20-item Short-Form General Health Survey (SF-20), self-reported sick days and clinic visits, and symptom-related difficulty.

RESULTS: As PHQ-15 somatic symptom severity increased, there was a substantial stepwise decrement in functional status on all six SF-20 subscales. Also, symptom-related difficulty, sick days, and healthcare utilization increased. PHQ-15 scores of 5, 10, 15, represented cutoff points for low, medium, and high somatic symptom severity, respectively. Somatic and depressive symptom severity had differential effects on outcomes. Results were similar in the primary care and obstetrics-gynecology samples.

CONCLUSIONS: The PHQ-15 is a brief, self-administered questionnaire that may be useful in screening for somatization and in monitoring somatic symptom severity in clinical practice and research.

Key Words: somatization, • somatization disorder, • depression, • screening, • quality of life, • utilization.

Abbreviations: DSM-IV = Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition;; PHQ-9 = Patient Health Questionnaire depressive symptom severity scale;; PHQ-15 = Patient Health Questionnaire somatic symptom severity scale;; SF-20 = 20-item Short-Form General Health Survey.


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 APPENDIX
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 REFERENCES
 
Somatic symptoms account for more than half of all outpatient encounters (1), and at least one third of these somatic symptoms are medically unexplained (2–6). Somatization is the association of medically unexplained somatic symptoms with psychological distress and health-seeking behavior and is present in at least 10% to 15% of primary care patients (7–11). Indeed, somatization together with depression and anxiety constitute the three most common psychiatric problems seen in primary care (8, 12, 13). The detrimental impact of somatization on multiple domains of health-related quality of life remains considerable even after controlling for comorbid depression and anxiety (7–9, 11). Moreover, compared with depression and anxiety, somatization results in more healthcare utilization and greater clinician frustration (6, 14–17). Although somatization is often comorbid with depression and/or anxiety (just as depression and anxiety frequently coexist), a third or more of patients have somatization alone (8, 10–12, 18). The importance of recognizing and evaluating somatization has been heightened by recent evidence of the effectiveness of specific treatment strategies (19–21).

Measures to identify and monitor somatic symptoms are important if researchers are to study somatization and clinicians are to evaluate and manage it. Unlike depressive symptom measures, measures to assess somatic symptoms are less well established. Limitations of existing measures (11, 22–25) include one or more of the following: their length, the need to inquire about lifetime as well as current symptoms, a predominant focus on identifying DSM-IV somatization disorder (which accounts for only a small proportion of clinically significant somatization in primary care), validation in psychiatric rather than general medical patient populations, and an assessment of symptom counts alone rather than both the severity and number of somatic symptoms. The few studies comparing multiple somatic symptom measures in the same sample have not demonstrated the superiority of any one particular measure (26, 27). Consensus is further complicated by the ongoing debate about the optimal classification of somatoform disorders (17, 28–32).

PRIME-MD (Pfizer Inc, New York, NY) is a brief instrument for making criteria-based diagnoses of mental disorders commonly encountered in primary care (8, 33). The Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ) is an entirely self-administered version of the PRIME-MD that was recently validated in two studies involving 6000 patients in eight primary care clinics and seven obstetrics-gynecology clinics, respectively (34, 35). The PHQ assesses eight diagnoses, divided into threshold disorders (disorders that correspond to specific DSM-IV diagnoses: major depressive disorder, panic disorder, and bulimia nervosa) and subthreshold disorders (disorders whose criteria encompass fewer symptoms than are required for any specific DSM-IV diagnoses: other depressive disorder, other anxiety disorder, probable alcohol abuse/dependence, binge-eating disorder, and probable somatoform disorder).

In this article we analyze data for the 15-item somatic symptom scale, which we call the PHQ-15, to address two major questions. First, is the PHQ-15 a valid measure of somatic symptom severity as determined by its association with multiple domains of functional status as well as disability days and utilization? Second, how do somatic and depressive symptoms differ in their effects on these outcomes?


   METHODS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 METHODS
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 APPENDIX
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 REFERENCES
 
Description of the PHQ-15
The PHQ-15 is a somatic symptom subscale (Appendix) derived from the full PHQ. It inquires about 15 somatic symptoms or symptom clusters that account for more than 90% of the physical complaints (excluding upper respiratory tract symptoms) reported in the outpatient setting (1, 36). Also, the symptoms inquired about in the PHQ-15 include 14 of the 15 most prevalent DSM-IV somatization disorder somatic symptoms (ie, those with a prevalence of 3% or greater in the general population) (32). Thirteen of the PHQ-15 somatic symptoms are included in the PHQ somatic symptom module, in which subjects are asked to rate the severity of each symptom as 0 ("not bothered at all"), 1 ("bothered a little"), or 2 ("bothered a lot"). Two additional physical symptoms—feeling tired or having little energy, and trouble sleeping—are contained in the PHQ depression module, in which subjects are asked: "Over the last 2 weeks, how often have you been bothered by any of the following problems?" For scoring, response options for these two symptoms are coded as 0 ("not at all"), 1 ("several days"), or 2 ("more than half the days" or "nearly every day"). Thus, in determining the PHQ-15 score, each individual symptom is coded as 0, 1, or 2, and the total score ranges from 0 to 30. Appendix 1 displays the recommended format for the PHQ-15 if used as a somatic symptom severity scale separate from the full PHQ.

PHQ Study Samples and Procedures
From May 1997 to November 1998, 3890 patients, aged 18 years or older, were invited to participate in the PHQ Primary Care Study (34). One hundred ninety declined to participate, and 266 started but did not complete the questionnaire (often because there was inadequate time before seeing their physician). Data for 434 patients were not entered into the data set because the equivalent of approximately one page (20 items) of the PHQ was incomplete. This resulted in 3000 primary care patients (1422 from five general internal medicine clinics and 1578 from three family practice clinics).

From May 1997 to March 1999, 3636 patients, aged 18 years or older, were approached to participate in the PHQ Obstetrics-Gynecology Study (35). Two hundred forty-five patients declined to participate, and 127 started but did not complete the questionnaire. Data (equivalent of approximately one page) were missing for 264 of these patients, resulting in 3000 subjects from seven obstetrics-gynecology sites. All sites used one of two subject selection methods to minimize sampling bias: either consecutive patients for a given clinic session or every nth patient until the intended quota for that session was achieved. Patient characteristics are summarized in Table 1. Besides being entirely women, the obstetrics-gynecology sample had a younger average age, more Hispanic subjects, lower average education, and less medical comorbidity. Medical comorbidity was assessed by asking physicians to indicate the presence or absence of nine types of physical disorders: hypertension, heart disease, diabetes, liver disease, renal disease, arthritis, pulmonary disease, cancer, or other disorders.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1. Characteristics of Patients in the PHQ Primary Care and Obstetrics-Gynecology Studies
 
Sixty-two physicians participated in the PHQ Primary Care Study (21 general internal medicine and 41 family practice, 19 of whom were family practice residents). Their mean age was 37 years (SD = 6.5), and 63% were male. A total of 40 physicians and 21 nurse practitioners participated in the PHQ Obstetrics-Gynecology Study. Their mean age was 39 years (SD = 8.9), and 48% were male.

Before seeing the physician, all patients completed the PHQ as well as the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form General Health Survey (SF-20) (37). The SF-20 measures functional status in six domains (all scores from 0 to 100, where 100 = best health). Patients also reported the number of physician visits and disability days during the past 3 months and provided a global rating of symptom-related difficulty by responding to the following question: "How difficult have these problems made it for you to do your work, take care of things at home, or get along with other people?" Response categories for this global rating are "not difficult at all," "somewhat difficult," "very difficult," and "extremely difficult."

Analysis
The PHQ-15 is intended to function as a continuous measure of somatic symptom severity. For this article the PHQ-15 score was divided into several categories to illustrate more clearly the relationship between graded increases in somatic symptom severity and various health outcomes. The categories were minimal (PHQ-15 score = 0–4), low (score = 5–9), medium (score = 10–14), and high (score = 15–30) levels of somatic symptom severity. These categories were chosen for several reasons. The first was pragmatic: the cutoff points of 5, 10, and 15 are simple for clinicians to remember and apply. The second reason was empiric: using different cutoff points did not noticeably change the associations between increasing PHQ-15 severity and measures of construct validity. The third reason is that patients with the most severe symptoms (score of 15 or higher) constituted approximately 10% of the sample, a prevalence comparable with the lower boundary of prevalence estimates for clinically significant somatization in primary care (7, 8, 11).

The internal reliability of the PHQ-15 was assessed using Cronbach’s {alpha}. Construct validity of the PHQ-15 as a measure of somatization severity was assessed by examining functional status (the six SF-20 scales), disability days, symptom-related difficulty, and healthcare utilization (clinic visits) over the four PHQ-15 intervals.

The independent effects of somatic symptoms, depressive symptoms, and medical comorbidity on functional status and other outcomes were assessed using stepwise linear regression models. The PHQ has a nine-item depressive symptom severity scale (the PHQ-9) that ranges from 0 to 27. The PHQ-15 score, PHQ-9 score, and number of physical disorders were entered as independent variables in each model, adjusting for age, gender, minority status, education, and study site.


   RESULTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 METHODS
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 APPENDIX
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 REFERENCES
 
Distribution and Reliability of PHQ-15 Scores
Table 2 shows the distribution of PHQ-15 scores. Each sample was roughly divided into thirds, with scores of 0 to 4 representing the lower tertile of somatic symptom severity; 5 to 9, the middle tertile; and 10 or greater, the upper tertile. Within the upper tertile, one-third (or approximately 10% of both samples) had scores of 15 or greater. The internal reliability of the PHQ-15 was excellent, with a Cronbach’s {alpha} of 0.80 in both the primary care and obstetrics-gynecology samples. The 15 individual symptoms showed moderate associations with one other: the majority of item-item correlations in both samples were in the 0.20-to-0.29 (45%) or the 0.10-to-0.19 range (33%). Only 6% of the item-item correlations were less than 0.10, and 9% exceeded 0.40, with the highest being the correlation between trouble sleeping and fatigue (0.55).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 2. Distribution of PHQ-15 Somatic Symptom Severity Scores and Patient Characteristics in Primary Care and Obstetrics-Gynecology Samples
 
Association Between PHQ-15 Severity and Functional Status
Table 3 summarizes the strong associations between increasing PHQ-15 severity and worsening function on all six SF-20 scales. Several findings should be noted. First, the effects of increasing PHQ-15 severity are in the same direction for all scales in both samples, although the magnitude was somewhat less in obstetrics-gynecology patients. Second, the stepwise decrements in SF-20 scores with increasing PHQ-15 scores show a consistent pattern across all six domains. Third, most pairwise comparisons within each SF-20 scale between successive PHQ-15 levels of severity were highly significant (p < .001).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 3. Relationship Between PHQ-15 Somatic Symptom Severity and SF-20 Functional Status
 
Figure 1 illustrates graphically the relationship between increasing PHQ-15 scores and worsening functional status. Decrements in SF-20 scores are shown in terms of effect size, which is the difference in mean SF-20 scores, expressed as the number of standard deviations, between each PHQ-15 interval subgroup and the reference group. The reference group is the group with the lowest PHQ-15 scores (ie, 0–4), and for each SF-20 scale we used the pooled standard deviation for that scale. Effect sizes of 0.5 and 0.8 are typically considered moderate and large between-group differences, respectively (38). Moving from a lower level of somatic symptom severity to the next level typically approximated a moderate effect size for all SF-20 domains. The figure shows the effect sizes for the primary care sample; results for the obstetrics-gynecology sample (not shown) were similar.



View larger version (52K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 1. Relationship between somatic symptom severity as measured by the PHQ-15 and decline in functional status as measured by the six subscales of the SF-20. The decrement in SF-20 scores are shown as the difference between each PHQ-15 severity group and the reference group (ie, those with PHQ-15 scores of 0–4). SF-20 scores are adjusted for age, sex, education, and number of physical disorders. Effect size is the difference in adjusted means divided by the pooled standard deviation for that scale.

 
Table 4 shows the association between PHQ-15 severity levels and three other measures of construct validity: self-reported disability days, clinic visits, and the amount of difficulty patients globally attribute to their symptoms. Greater levels of somatization severity were associated with a stepwise increase in disability days, healthcare utilization, and symptom-related difficulty in activities and relationships.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 4. Relationship Between PHQ-15 Somatic Symptom Severity and Disability Days, Symptom-Related Difficulty, and Clinic Visits
 
Independent Effects of Somatic and Depressive Symptoms
Table 5 summarizes the results of the multivariate linear regression models examining the relative effects of somatic symptoms, depressive symptoms, and medical comorbidity on health outcomes. The partial R2 values shown in the table reflect the proportion of variance explained by these three independent variables, controlling for one another plus age, gender, minority status, education, and study site. For example, somatic symptom severity accounted for 35.2% of the variance in patients’ general health perceptions in the primary care sample, whereas depressive symptom severity and the number of physical disorders each accounted for 4.5% of the variance. Not only did the number of physical disorders explain only a small proportion of the variance for most health outcomes, it was only weakly correlated with somatic symptom severity in both the primary care (r = .10) and obstetrics-gynecology (r = .14) samples.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 5. Proportion of Variance in Health Outcomes Attributable to Somatic Symptoms, Depressive Symptoms, and Number of Physical Disorders
 
Of note, somatic and depressive symptoms have differential effects. Somatic symptom severity has the strongest association with general health perceptions, bodily pain, and physical and role functioning, whereas depressive symptom severity has its predominant effects on mental health and social functioning. With respect to clinic visits, somatic symptoms have a stronger association, whereas self-reported disability days are more strongly influenced by depressive symptoms.


   DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
APPENDIX
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 REFERENCES
 
Our data establish several desirable psychometric characteristics of the PHQ-15 as a measure of somatic symptom severity. First, the internal reliability of the PHQ-15 was high in both samples. Second, convergent validity was established by the strong association between PHQ-15 scores and functional status, disability days, and symptom-related difficulty. Third, discriminant validity was shown by the differential effects of somatic and depressive symptoms on various outcomes. Fourth, findings from the 3000 primary care patients were replicated in a second sample of 3000 obstetrics-gynecology patients, although the amount of change in various health outcomes with increasing PHQ-15 scores was somewhat less in the obstetrics-gynecology sample. The differences in magnitude of effect are probably due to demographic and comorbidity differences between the two samples, although the possibility of some other unmeasured construct cannot be excluded.

One limitation of the PHQ-15 as a self-administered measure is that it cannot distinguish between medically explained and unexplained symptoms, a distinction that typically requires a directed interview and clinical judgment. The PHQ-15 is therefore best characterized as a measure of somatic symptom severity rather than a diagnostic instrument for somatoform disorders. Patients who have high screening scores on the PHQ-15 should be further questioned to determine which symptoms might be medically unexplained. Unexplained symptom counts are more specific for somatoform disorders and predict adverse health consequences at lower thresholds. Still, total symptom counts (including unexplained and explained) are predictive of somatoform disorders (39, 40) and correlate strongly with psychological distress, functional impairment, and healthcare utilization (5, 14, 17, 41).

Two other study limitations should be noted. Because our sample was disproportionately female, studies involving more male patients are needed to determine the degree to which our findings can be extrapolated to men (42). Also, validity coefficients are based almost exclusively on self-report measures. Although patients are typically the criterion standard for evaluating somatic and depressive symptoms as well as functional status and health-related quality of life, independent measures of healthcare utilization would be desirable in subsequent studies.

The PHQ-15 score functions as a continuous measure. At the same time, scores of 5, 10, and 15 do represent valid and easy-to-remember thresholds demarcating low, medium, and high levels of somatic symptom severity. Moving from a lower to the next higher level of severity typically represented a moderate effect size for all functional status domains. In particular, scores of 15 or higher were associated with considerable impairment and high utilization. The fact that 8% to 10% of patients in the two samples have scores of 15 or greater is notable in that this is also the lower boundary of prevalence estimates for clinically significant somatization in primary care (7–9, 11).

Table 6 shows how the symptom coverage provided by the PHQ-15 compares favorably with other screeners for somatization: the World Health Organization Screener for Somatoform Disorders (22), the somatization scale from the Hopkins Symptom Checklist (23), and two screeners for somatization disorder developed by Swartz et al. (24) and Othmer and DeSouza (25). The PHQ-15 assesses 9 of the 12 WHO items, 7 of the 12 Hopkins items, 8 of the 11 Swartz et al. screen items, and 4 of the 7 Othmer and DeSouza screen items. This concordance rate of the PHQ-15 with the other instruments is superior to that of any two other instruments with one another. Of note, other measures designed to assess particular domains of somatization (eg, hypochondriasis and somatosensory amplification) or to screen for the somatic manifestations of depressive and anxiety disorders also correlate highly with one another (43). Although core diagnostic symptoms for depression, fatigue and sleep complaints are included in the PHQ-15 for several reasons. First, they are also included in one or more other somatization screening measures (Table 6). Second, 40% to 50% of primary care patients with fatigue or sleep complaints do not have a depressive or anxiety disorder diagnosis (44–46).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 6. Comparison of PHQ-15 With Other Somatization Screening Measuresa
 
Somatic and depressive symptoms have differential effects on various measures of health. The results in our two PHQ studies are similar to findings from the original PRIME-MD study, where somatoform disorders were most strongly associated with general health perceptions, bodily pain, role functioning, and clinic visits (17, 47). By controlling for depression severity and number of physical disorders, we have shown that the adverse consequences of somatic symptoms as measured by the PHQ-15 are not entirely mediated through coexisting depressive symptoms or medical comorbidity. There has been a long-standing focus in general medicine on treatment of physical disorders and recent attention to improved detection and management of depression. Our findings suggest that in certain subgroups of patients, that is, high utilizers or those with poor self-rated health, persistent pain, or impaired role functioning, the identification and management of residual or unresolved somatic symptoms may also be important.

The association between number of physical disorders and various health outcomes is surprisingly weak. In part this may be because we used a simple count of physical disorders rather than a more sophisticated medical comorbidity measure that can capture the severity as well as number of disorders. Also, it may be only those disorders that are symptomatic (and the severity of those symptoms) that determines impairment. Many physical disorders (eg, hypertension, well-controlled diabetes, and stable coronary artery disease) are minimally symptomatic and thus produce less impairment than mental disorders or symptomatic physical disorders (47, 48). In both our samples, there was only a weak correlation between the number of physical disorders and somatic symptoms. Also, the conventional wisdom that somatic symptoms in medical patients commonly are secondary to the side effects of prescribed medications is challenged by studies showing that symptom prevalence may be equally high in patients receiving placebo or no medication (49–51).

Valid measures for assessing somatization severity are important given the emerging evidence for effective treatments. Two recent critical reviews of the literature have shown that somatizing disorders can respond to antidepressants (96 controlled trials) as well as cognitive-behavioral therapy (31 controlled trials) (20, 21). Although depression also responds to these types of treatment, there may still be reasons for differentiating somatization and depression. First, the benefits of these two treatment modalities in reducing somatic symptoms do not appear to be mediated entirely through amelioration of depressive or other psychological symptoms (20, 21). Second, the majority of antidepressant trials conducted in patients with somatic symptom disorders have focused on specific symptom syndromes rather than patients with multiple unexplained complaints. Third, the cognitions and behaviors targeted in depressed patients receiving cognitive-behavioral therapy may be differ from those emphasized in somatizing patients.

Nonpharmacologic treatments other than cognitive-behavioral therapy, including operant behavioral therapy, relaxation therapy, biofeedback, and problem-solving therapy, may also be beneficial for patients with chronic symptoms, especially pain (52–56). There may be more to offer the somatizing patient than the rather noninterventionist approach shown by Smith et al. (19, 57) to reduce costs with modest to no impact on the patients’ quality of life. In patients with milder or less chronic versions of somatization, even simple measures, such as attention to symptom-specific concerns and expectations, reassurance, and follow-up, may be useful (58–60).

Treatment trials of somatizing patients using the PHQ-15 as an outcome measure are necessary to establish its sensitivity to change. Also, test-retest reliability should be evaluated because it is possible that somatization, like depression, may peak the day of the primary care visit and diminish shortly afterward before treatment can potentially have an effect. Additional somatization measures may be warranted in some trials because patients with multiple somatic symptoms frequently have one or several symptoms that cause greater distress or impairment than the others. Thus, instruments that focus on the predominant symptom(s), such as 1-to-10 severity scales (61) or other symptom-specific measures (62), may complement generic somatization scales such as the PHQ-15 in monitoring treatment outcomes. Meanwhile, our validation data from two studies involving a total of 6000 patients establish the PHQ-15 as a promising measure for identifying patients with potential somatization in clinical practice as well as assessing somatic symptom counts and severity in clinical research.


   APPENDIX
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 APPENDIX
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 REFERENCES
 


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 7. Patient Health Questionnaire 15-Item Somatic Symptom Severity Scale
 

   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 APPENDIX
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
REFERENCES
 
The development of the PHQ-15 was underwritten by an educational grant from Pfizer US Pharmaceuticals Inc., New York, New York.

Received for publication February 27, 2001.


   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 APPENDIX
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Schappert SM. National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 1989 summary. Vital Health Stat 13 1992; (110): 1–80.
  2. Kroenke K, Mangelsdorff AD. Common symptoms in ambulatory care: incidence, evaluation, therapy, and outcome. Am J Med 1989; 86: 262–6.[Medline]
  3. Marple RL, Kroenke K, Lucey CR, Wilder J, Lucas CA. Concerns and expectations in patients presenting with physical complaints: frequency, physician perceptions and actions, and 2-week outcome. Arch Intern Med 1997; 157: 1482–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  4. Kroenke K, Price RK. Symptoms in the community: prevalence, classification, and psychiatric comorbidity. Arch Intern Med 1993; 153: 2474–80.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JBW, Linzer M, Hahn SR, deGruy FV, Brody D. Physical symptoms in primary care: predictors of psychiatric disorders and functional impairment. Arch Fam Med 1994; 3: 774–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  6. Hartz AJ, Noyes R, Bentler SE, Damiano PC, Willard JC, Momany ET. Unexplained symptoms in primary care: perspectives of doctors and patients. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 2000; 22: 144–52.[Medline]
  7. Kirmayer LJ, Robbins JM. Three forms of somatization in primary care: prevalence, co-occurrence, and sociodemographic characteristics. J Nerv Ment Dis 1991; 179: 647–55.[Medline]
  8. Spitzer RL, Williams JBW, Kroenke K, Linzer M, deGruy FV, Hahn SR, Brody D, Johnson JG. Utility of a new procedure for diagnosing mental disorders in primary care: the PRIME-MD 1000 study. JAMA 1994; 272: 1749–56.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Gureje O, Simon GE, Ustun TB, Goldberg D. Somatization in cross-cultural perspective: a World Health Organization study in primary care. Am J Psychiatry 1997; 154: 989–95.[Abstract]
  10. Peveler R, Kilkenny L, Kinmonth AL. Medically unexplained physical symptoms in primary care: a comparison of self-report screening questionnaires and clinical opinion. J Psychosom Res 1997; 42: 245–52.[Medline]
  11. Escobar JI, Waitzkin H, Silver RC, Gara M, Holman A. Abridged somatization: a study in primary care. Psychosom Med 1998; 60: 466–72.[Abstract]
  12. Ormel J, Von Korff M, Ustun TB, Pini S, Korten A, Oldehinkel T. Common mental disorders and disability across cultures: results from the WHO Collaborative Study on Psychological Problems in General Health Care. JAMA 1994; 272: 1741–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Kroenke K. Somatization in primary care: it’s time for parity. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 2000; 22: 141–3.[Medline]
  14. Katon W, Lin E, Von Korff M, Russo J, Lipscomb P, Bush T. Somatization: a spectrum of severity. Am J Psychiatry 1991; 148: 34–40.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Smith GR. The course of somatization and its effects on utilization of health care resources. Psychosomatics 1994; 35: 263–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Hahn SR, Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JBW, Brody D, Linzer M, deGruy FV. The difficult patient in primary care: prevalence, psychopathology and impairment. J Gen Intern Med 1996; 11: 1–8.[Medline]
  17. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, deGruy FV, Hahn SR, Linzer M, Williams JBW, Brody D, Davies M. Multisomatoform disorder: an alternative to undifferentiated somatoform disorder for the somatizing patient in primary care. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1997; 54: 352–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Simon GE, Von Korff M. Somatization and psychiatric disorder in the NIMH Epidemiologic Catchment Area Study. Am J Psychiatry 1991; 148: 1494–500.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Smith GR, Rost K, Kashner TM. A trial of the effect of a standardized psychiatric consultation on health outcomes and costs in somatizing patients. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1995; 52: 238–43.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  20. O’Malley PG, Jackson JL, Tomkins G, Santoro J, Balden E, Kroenke K. Antidepressant therapy for unexplained symptoms and symptom syndromes: a critical review. J Fam Pract 1999; 48: 980–93.[Medline]
  21. Kroenke K, Swindle R. Cognitive-behavioral therapy for somatization and symptom syndromes: a critical review of controlled clinical trials. Psychother Psychosom 2000; 69: 205–15.[Medline]
  22. Tacchini G, Janca A, Isaac M. Somatoform Disorders Schedule, version 2.0. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1994.
  23. Derogatis LR, Lipman RS, Rickels K, Uhlenhuth EH, Covi L. The Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL): a self-report symptom inventory. Behav Sci 1974; 19: 1–15.[Medline]
  24. Swartz M, Hughes D, George L, Blazer D, Landerman R, Bucholz K. Developing a screening index for community studies of somatization disorder. J Psychiatr Res 1986; 20: 335–43.[Medline]
  25. Othmer E, DeSouza C. A screening test for somatization disorder (hysteria). Am J Psychiatry 1985; 142: 1146–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  26. Bucholz KK, Dinwiddie SH, Reich T, Shayka JJ, Cloninger CR. Comparison of screening proposals for somatization disorder: empirical analyses. Compr Psychiatry 1993; 34: 59–64.[Medline]
  27. Smith GR, Brown FW. Screening indexes in DSM-III-R somatization disorder. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 1990; 12: 148–52.[Medline]
  28. Lipowski ZJ. Somatization: the concept and its clinical application. Am J Psychiatry 1988; 145: 1358–68.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. Kellner R. Psychosomatic syndromes, somatization and somatoform disorders. Psychother Psychosom 1994; 61: 4–24.[Medline]
  30. Fava GA, Freyberger HJ, Bech P, Christodoulou G, Sensky T, Theorell T, Wise TN. Diagnostic criteria for use in psychosomatic research. Psychother Psychosom 1995; 63: 1–8.[Medline]
  31. Rief W, Hiller W. Toward empirically based criteria for somatoform disorders. J Psychosom Res 1999; 46: 507–18.[Medline]
  32. Liu G, Clark MR, Eaton WW. Structural factor analyses for medically unexplained somatic symptoms of somatization disorder in the Epidemiologic Catchment Area Study. J Psychosom Res 1997; 42: 245–52.
  33. Hahn SR, Kroenke K, Williams JBW, Spitzer RL. Evaluation of mental disorders with the PRIME-MD.In: Maruish M, editor. Handbook of Psychological Assessment in Primary Care Settings. Mahwah (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum; 2000: 191–253.
  34. Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JBW, Patient Health Questionnaire Study Group. Validity and utility of a self-report version of PRIME-MD: the PHQ Primary Care Study. JAMA 1999; 282: 1737–44.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  35. Spitzer RL, Williams JBW, Kroenke K, Hornyak R, McMurray J, Heartwell SF, for the Patient Health Questionnaire Obstetrics Gynecology Study Group. Validity and utility of the Patient Health Questionnaire in assessment of 3000 obstetric-gynecologic patients: the PRIME-MD Patient Health Questionnaire Obstetrics-Gynecology Study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000; 183: 759–69.[Medline]
  36. Kroenke K, Arrington ME, Mangelsdorff AD. The prevalence of symptoms in medical outpatients and the adequacy of therapy. Arch Intern Med 1990; 150: 1685–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  37. Stewart AL, Hays RD, Ware JE. The MOS Short-Form General Health Survey: reliability and validity in a patient population. Med Care 1988; 26: 724–32.[Medline]
  38. Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care 1989; 27: S178–S189.
  39. Kisely S, Goldberg D, Simon G. A comparison between somatic symptoms with and without clear organic cause: results of an international study. Psychol Med 1997; 27: 1011–9.[Medline]
  40. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, deGruy FV, Swindle R. A symptom checklist to screen for somatoform disorders in primary care. Psychosomatics 1998; 39: 263–72.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  41. Simon G, Gater R, Kisely S, Piccinelli M. Somatic symptoms of distress: an international primary care study. Psychosom Med 1996; 58: 481–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  42. Barsky AJ, Peekna HM, Borus JF. Somatic symptom reporting in women and men. J Gen Intern Med 2001; 16: 266–75.[Medline]
  43. Wyshak G, Barsky AJ, Klerman GL. Comparison of psychiatric screening tests in a general medical setting using ROC analysis. Med Care 1991; 29: 775–85.[Medline]
  44. Buchwald D, Pearlman T, Umali J, Schmaling K, Katon W. Functional status in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome, other fatiguing illnesses, and healthy individuals. Am J Med 1996; 171: 364–70.
  45. Cathebras PJ, Robbins JM, Kirmayer LJ, Hayton BC. Fatigue in primary care: prevalence, psychiatric comorbidity, illness behavior, and outcome. J Gen Intern Med 1992; 7: 276–86.[Medline]
  46. Simon GE, Von Korff M. Prevalence, burden, and treatment of insomnia in primary care. Am J Psychiatry 1997; 154: 1417–23.[Abstract]
  47. Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Linzer M, Hahn SR, Williams JBW, deGruy FV, Brody D, Davies M. Health-related quality of life in primary care patients with mental disorders: results from the PRIME-MD 1000 study. JAMA 1995; 274: 1511–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  48. Wells KB, Stewart A, Hays RD, Burnam A, Rogers W, Daniels M, Berry S, Greenfield S, Ware J. The functioning and well-being of depressed patients: results from the Medical Outcomes Study. JAMA 1989; 262: 914–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  49. Di Tullio M, Alli C, Avanzini F, Bettelli G, Colombo F, Devoto MA, Marchioli R, Mariotti G, Radice M, Taioli E, Tognoni G, Villella M, Zussino A. Prevalence of symptoms generally attributed to hypertension or its treatment: study on blood pressure in elderly outpatients (SPAA). J Hypertens 1988; 6 (Suppl 1): S87–90.
  50. TOMHS Research Group. The Treatment of Mild Hypertension Study. Arch Intern Med 1991; 151: 1413–23.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  51. Reidenberg MM, Lowenthal DT. Adverse nondrug reactions. N Engl J Med 1968; 279: 678–9.
  52. Mayou R, Bass C, Sharpe M, eds. Treatment of functional somatic symptoms. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1995.
  53. Nicholas MK, Wilson PH, Goyen J. Operant-behavioural and cognitive-behavioural treatment for chronic low back pain. Behav Res Ther 1991; 29: 225–38.[Medline]
  54. Compas BE, Haaga DAF, Keefe FJ, Leitenberg H, Williams DA. Sampling of empirically supported psychological treatments from health psychology: smoking, chronic pain, cancer, and bulimia nervosa. J Consult Clin Psychol 1998; 66: 89–112.[Medline]
  55. Keefe FJ, Dunsmore J, Burnett R. Behavioral and cognitive-behavioral approaches to chronic pain: recent advances and future directions. J Consult Clin Psychol 1992; 60: 528–36.[Medline]
  56. Wilkinson P, Mynors-Wallis L. Problem-solving therapy in the treatment of unexplained physical symptoms in primary care: a preliminary study. J Psychosom Res 1994; 38: 591–8.[Medline]
  57. Smith GR, Monson RA, Ray DC. Psychiatric consultation in somatization disorder: a randomized, controlled study. N Engl J Med 1986; 314: 1407–13.[Abstract]
  58. Thomas KB. General practice consultations: is there any point in being positive? BMJ 1995.
  59. Rao JK, Weinberger M, Kroenke K. Visit-specific expectations and satisfaction with care: a literature review. Arch Fam Med 2000; 9: 1148–55.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  60. Jackson JL, Kroenke K. The effect of unmet expectations among adults presenting with physical symptoms. Ann Intern Med 2001; 134: 889–97.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  61. Cohen SR, Mount BM, Bruera E, Provost M, Rowe J, Tong K. Validity of the McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire in the palliative care setting: a multi-centre Canadian study demonstrating the importance of the existential domain. Palliat Med 1997; 11: 3–20.[Medline]
  62. Kroenke K. Studying symptoms: sampling and measurement issues. Ann Intern Med 2001; 134: 844–55.[Abstract/Free Full Text]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Research on Social Work PracticeHome page
S. K. Price and S. L. Handrick
A Culturally Relevant and Responsive Approach to Screening for Perinatal Depression
Research on Social Work Practice, November 1, 2009; 19(6): 705 - 714.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 J Clin PharmacolHome page
C. Addy, P. Jumes, K. Rosko, S. Li, H. Li, A. Maes, A. O. Johnson-Levonas, J. Chodakewitz, S. A. Stoch, and J. A. Wagner
Pharmacokinetics, Safety, and Tolerability of Phentermine in Healthy Participants Receiving Taranabant, a Novel Cannabinoid-1 Receptor (CB1R) Inverse Agonist
J. Clin. Pharmacol., October 1, 2009; 49(10): 1228 - 1238.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 PsychosomaticsHome page
C. Nicolaidis, B. McFarland, M. Curry, and M. Gerrity
Differences in Physical and Mental Health Symptoms and Mental Health Utilization Associated With Intimate-Partner Violence Versus Childhood Abuse
Psychosomatics, July 1, 2009; 50(4): 340 - 346.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 FocusHome page
K. Kroenke
Efficacy of Treatment for Somatoform Disorders: A Review of Randomized Controlled Trials
Focus, July 1, 2009; 7(3): 414 - 423.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Ann Fam MedHome page
H. van Ravesteijn, K. Wittkampf, P. Lucassen, E. van de Lisdonk, H. van den Hoogen, H. van Weert, J. Huijser, A. Schene, C. van Weel, and A. Speckens
Detecting Somatoform Disorders in Primary Care With the PHQ-15
Ann. Fam. Med, May 1, 2009; 7(3): 232 - 238.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Psychosom. Med.Home page
R. C. Smith, J. C. Gardiner, Z. Luo, and K. Rost
Diagnostic Accuracy of Predicting Somatization From Patients' ICD-9 Diagnoses
Psychosom Med, April 1, 2009; 71(3): 366 - 371.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 GutHome page
L Van Oudenhove, J Vandenberghe, B Geeraerts, R Vos, P Persoons, B Fischler, K Demyttenaere, and J Tack
Determinants of symptoms in functional dyspepsia: gastric sensorimotor function, psychosocial factors or somatisation?
Gut, December 1, 2008; 57(12): 1666 - 1673.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Psychosom. Med.Home page
J. L. Jackson and K. Kroenke
Prevalence, Impact, and Prognosis of Multisomatoform Disorder in Primary Care: A 5-Year Follow-up Study
Psychosom Med, May 1, 2008; 70(4): 430 - 434.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Violence Against WomenHome page
H. Littleton, C. Radecki Breitkopf, and A. Berenson
Beyond the Campus: Unacknowledged Rape Among Low-Income Women
Violence Against Women, March 1, 2008; 14(3): 269 - 286.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 NEJMHome page
C. W. Hoge, D. McGurk, J. L. Thomas, A. L. Cox, C. C. Engel, and C. A. Castro
Mild Traumatic Brain Injury in U.S. Soldiers Returning from Iraq
N. Engl. J. Med., January 31, 2008; 358(5): 453 - 463.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 GutHome page
R Spiller, Q Aziz, F Creed, A Emmanuel, L Houghton, P Hungin, R Jones, D Kumar, G Rubin, N Trudgill, et al.
Guidelines on the irritable bowel syndrome: mechanisms and practical management
Gut, December 1, 2007; 56(12): 1770 - 1798.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Psychosom. Med.Home page
K. Kroenke
Efficacy of Treatment for Somatoform Disorders: A Review of Randomized Controlled Trials
Psychosom Med, November 1, 2007; 69(9): 881 - 888.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 NeurologyHome page
G. E. Tietjen, J. L. Brandes, K. B. Digre, S. Baggaley, V. T. Martin, A. Recober, L. O. Geweke, F. Hafeez, S. K. Aurora, N. A. Herial, et al.
History of childhood maltreatment is associated with comorbid depression in women with migraine
Neurology, September 4, 2007; 69(10): 959 - 968.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 PsychosomaticsHome page
K. Kroenke, M. Sharpe, and R. Sykes
Revising the Classification of Somatoform Disorders: Key Questions and Preliminary Recommendations
Psychosomatics, August 1, 2007; 48(4): 277 - 285.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Ann Fam MedHome page
J. I. Escobar, M. A. Gara, A. M. Diaz-Martinez, A. Interian, M. Warman, L. A. Allen, R. L. Woolfolk, E. Jahn, and D. Rodgers
Effectiveness of a Time-Limited Cognitive Behavior Therapy Type Intervention Among Primary Care Patients With Medically Unexplained Symptoms
Ann. Fam. Med, July 1, 2007; 5(4): 328 - 335.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Occup Med (Lond)Home page
J. A. S. Ross, J. I. Macdiarmid, L. M. Osman, S. J. Watt, D. J. Godden, and A. Lawson
Health status of professional divers and offshore oil industry workers
Occup. Med., June 1, 2007; 57(4): 254 - 261.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Psychosom. Med.Home page
J. L. Jackson, M. Passamonti, and K. Kroenke
Outcome and Impact of Mental Disorders in Primary Care at 5 years
Psychosom Med, April 1, 2007; 69(3): 270 - 276.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 ANN INTERN MEDHome page
K. Kroenke, R. L. Spitzer, J. B.W. Williams, P. O. Monahan, and B. Lowe
Anxiety Disorders in Primary Care: Prevalence, Impairment, Comorbidity, and Detection
Ann Intern Med, March 6, 2007; 146(5): 317 - 325.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 PediatricsHome page
H. Dubowitz, S. Feigelman, W. Lane, L. Prescott, K. Blackman, L. Grube, W. Meyer, and J. K. Tracy
Screening for Depression in an Urban Pediatric Primary Care Clinic
Pediatrics, March 1, 2007; 119(3): 435 - 443.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Psychosom. Med.Home page
G. S. Sayuk, J. E. Elwing, P. J. Lustman, and R. E. Clouse
Predictors of Premature Antidepressant Discontinuation in Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders
Psychosom Med, February 1, 2007; 69(2): 173 - 181.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 NeurologyHome page
G. E. Tietjen, J. L. Brandes, K. B. Digre, S. Baggaley, V. Martin, A. Recober, L. O. Geweke, F. Hafeez, S. K. Aurora, N. A. Herial, et al.
High prevalence of somatic symptoms and depression in women with disabling chronic headache
Neurology, January 9, 2007; 68(2): 134 - 140.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. PsychiatryHome page
C. W. Hoge, A. Terhakopian, C. A. Castro, S. C. Messer, and C. C. Engel
Association of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder With Somatic Symptoms, Health Care Visits, and Absenteeism Among Iraq War Veterans
Am J Psychiatry, January 1, 2007; 164(1): 150 - 153.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 PsychosomaticsHome page
A. Interian, L. A. Allen, M. A. Gara, J. I. Escobar, and A. M. Diaz-Martinez
Somatic Complaints in Primary Care: Further Examining the Validity of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-15)
Psychosomatics, October 1, 2006; 47(5): 392 - 398.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. PsychiatryHome page
T. A. Grieger, S. J. Cozza, R. J. Ursano, C. Hoge, P. E. Martinez, C. C. Engel, and H. J. Wain
Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Depression in Battle-Injured Soldiers
Am J Psychiatry, October 1, 2006; 163(10): 1777 - 1783.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Psychosom. Med.Home page
B. A. Arnow, E. M. Hunkeler, C. M. Blasey, J. Lee, M. J. Constantino, B. Fireman, H. C. Kraemer, R. Dea, R. Robinson, and C. Hayward
Comorbid depression, chronic pain, and disability in primary care.
Psychosom Med, March 1, 2006; 68(2): 262 - 268.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Arch Gen PsychiatryHome page
A. J. Barsky, E. J. Orav, and D. W. Bates
Somatization Increases Medical Utilization and Costs Independent of Psychiatric and Medical Comorbidity
Arch Gen Psychiatry, August 1, 2005; 62(8): 903 - 910.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Psychosom. Med.Home page
W. Rief, A. Martin, A. Klaiberg, and E. Brahler
Specific Effects of Depression, Panic, and Somatic Symptoms on Illness Behavior
Psychosom Med, July 1, 2005; 67(4): 596 - 601.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Psychosom. Med.Home page
M. J. Bair, R. L. Robinson, G. J. Eckert, P. E. Stang, T. W. Croghan, and K. Kroenke
Impact of Pain on Depression Treatment Response in Primary Care
Psychosom Med, January 1, 2004; 66(1): 17 - 22.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 PsychosomaticsHome page
D. F. Zatzick, J. E. Russo, and W. Katon
Somatic, Posttraumatic Stress, and Depressive Symptoms Among Injured Patients Treated in Trauma Surgery
Psychosomatics, December 1, 2003; 44(6): 479 - 484.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Psychosom. Med.Home page
B. Lowe, K. Grafe, K. Kroenke, S. Zipfel, A. Quenter, B. Wild, C. Fiehn, and W. Herzog
Predictors of Psychiatric Comorbidity in Medical Outpatients
Psychosom Med, September 1, 2003; 65(5): 764 - 770.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kroenke, K.
Right arrow Articles by Williams, J. B. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kroenke, K.
Right arrow Articles by Williams, J. B. W.
Related Collections
Right arrow Other Epidemiology
Right arrow Somatoform

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS