↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of the Factor Structure of the Patient Health Questionnaire for Somatic Symptoms (PHQ-15) in Germany, the Netherlands, and China. A Transcultural Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) Study

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychiatry, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparison of the Factor Structure of the Patient Health Questionnaire for Somatic Symptoms (PHQ-15) in Germany, the Netherlands, and China. A Transcultural Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) Study
Published in
Frontiers in Psychiatry, June 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00240
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rainer Leonhart, Lars de Vroege, Lan Zhang, Yang Liu, Zaiquan Dong, Rainer Schaefert, Sandra Nolte, Felix Fischer, Kurt Fritzsche, Christina M. van der Feltz-Cornelis

Abstract

Background: Persistent somatic symptoms are associated with psychological distress, impaired function, and medical help-seeking behavior. The Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-15 is used as a screening instrument for somatization and as a monitoring instrument for somatic symptom severity. A bifactorial model has been described, with one general factor and four orthogonal specific symptom factors. The objective of the present study was to assess and to clarify the factor structure of the PHQ-15 within and between different countries in Western Europe and China. Method: Cross-sectional secondary data analysis performed in three patient data samples from two Western European countries (Germany N = 2,517, the Netherlands N = 456) and from China (N = 1,329). Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA), and structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis were performed. Results: The general factor is found in every sample. However, although the outcomes of the PHQ-15 estimate severity of somatic symptoms in different facets, these subscales may have different meanings in the European and Chinese setting. Replication of the factorial structure was possible in the German and Dutch datasets but not in the dataset from China. For the Chinese dataset, a bifactorial model with a different structure for the cardiopulmonary factor is suggested. The PHQ-15 could discern somatization from anxiety and depression within the three samples. Conclusion: The PHQ-15 is a valid questionnaire that can discern somatization from anxiety and depression within different cultures like Europe or China. It can be fitted to a bifactorial model for categorical data, however, the model can only be recommended for use of the general factor. Application of the orthogonal subscales in non-European samples is not corroborated by the results. The differences cannot be ascribed to differences in health care settings or by differences in concomitant depression or anxiety but instead, a cultural factor involving concepts of disease may play a role in this as they may play a role in the translation of the questionnaire. Further research is needed to explore this, and replication studies are needed regarding the factorial structure of the PHQ-15 in China.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 13%
Student > Master 4 11%
Other 3 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 14 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 9 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 18%
Computer Science 2 5%
Unspecified 1 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 16 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 June 2018.
All research outputs
#18,154,932
of 23,322,258 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#6,361
of 10,428 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#238,915
of 329,750 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#145
of 179 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,322,258 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,428 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,750 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 179 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.