Skip to main content
NCBI home page
The British Journal of General Practice logoLink to The British Journal of General Practice
. 1999 Feb;49(439):95–98.

How disabling is depression? Evidence from a primary care sample. The Counselling Versus Antidepressants In Primary Care Study Group.

PMCID: PMC1313340  PMID: 10326258

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Major depression is an illness with a high prevalence and is most commonly seen and treated by general practitioners (GPs). AIM: To determine the level of disability in depressed patients seen in a primary care setting, and to investigate whether the level of disability was associated with the severity of the depression. METHOD: Prospective data collection, using the 36-item Shortened Form (SF-36), from the Medical Outcomes Study, as a measure of disability, and from the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) in a sample of depressed patients recruited from a Counselling versus Antidepressant in Primary Care (CAPC) study in the Trent Region. All patients met the research diagnostic criteria for major depression. RESULTS: Two hundred and fifty patients were assessed. These patients reported high levels of disability compared both with published norms and with other chronic physical illnesses. Increases in disability were especially noticeable in the domains of the SF-36 that were specific to mental illness. There was a significant correlation between scores on the SF-36 and the BDI. CONCLUSION: This study confirms that depressed patients in primary care report high levels of disability on the SF-36, and that the instrument is both specific to the domains expected to be affected by mental disorder and is sensitive to the severity of mood disturbance.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (42.3 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. BECK A. T., WARD C. H., MENDELSON M., MOCK J., ERBAUGH J. An inventory for measuring depression. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1961 Jun;4:561–571. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.1961.01710120031004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Beusterien K. M., Steinwald B., Ware J. E., Jr Usefulness of the SF-36 Health Survey in measuring health outcomes in the depressed elderly. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol. 1996 Jan;9(1):13–21. doi: 10.1177/089198879600900103. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Brazier J. E., Harper R., Jones N. M., O'Cathain A., Thomas K. J., Usherwood T., Westlake L. Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: new outcome measure for primary care. BMJ. 1992 Jul 18;305(6846):160–164. doi: 10.1136/bmj.305.6846.160. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. 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 Oct;101(4):364–370. doi: 10.1016/S0002-9343(96)00234-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Garratt A. M., Ruta D. A., Abdalla M. I., Buckingham J. K., Russell I. T. The SF36 health survey questionnaire: an outcome measure suitable for routine use within the NHS? BMJ. 1993 May 29;306(6890):1440–1444. doi: 10.1136/bmj.306.6890.1440. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Gask L. Listening to patients. Br J Psychiatry. 1997 Oct;171:301–302. doi: 10.1192/bjp.171.4.301. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Jenkinson C., Coulter A., Wright L. Short form 36 (SF36) health survey questionnaire: normative data for adults of working age. BMJ. 1993 May 29;306(6890):1437–1440. doi: 10.1136/bmj.306.6890.1437. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. McHorney C. A., Ware J. E., Jr, Raczek A. E. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med Care. 1993 Mar;31(3):247–263. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199303000-00006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Mintz J., Mintz L. I., Arruda M. J., Hwang S. S. Treatments of depression and the functional capacity to work. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1992 Oct;49(10):761–768. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.1992.01820100005001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Spitzer R. L., Endicott J., Robins E. Research diagnostic criteria: rationale and reliability. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1978 Jun;35(6):773–782. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.1978.01770300115013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Von Korff M., Ormel J., Katon W., Lin E. H. Disability and depression among high utilizers of health care. A longitudinal analysis. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1992 Feb;49(2):91–100. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.1992.01820020011002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Ware J. E., Jr, Sherbourne C. D. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992 Jun;30(6):473–483. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Ware J. E. Measuring patients' views: the optimum outcome measure. BMJ. 1993 May 29;306(6890):1429–1430. doi: 10.1136/bmj.306.6890.1429. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Wells K. B., Stewart A., Hays R. D., Burnam M. 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 Aug 18;262(7):914–919. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The British Journal of General Practice are provided here courtesy of Royal College of General Practitioners

RESOURCES