Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The Patient Health Questionnaire-15 (PHQ-15) is widely used to assess somatic symptom burden, but its latent structure remains uncertain. This study tested competing PHQ-15 factor models and their associations with demographic and psychological variables in a large, nationally representative UK sample (N = 1405). Confirmatory factor analyzes using WLSMV evaluated alternative structures reported in the literature. Several multifactor models showed acceptable fit, but a four-factor model comprising pain, cardiopulmonary, gastrointestinal, and fatigue domains provided the best overall fit and outperformed a one-factor solution. Inter-factor correlations were high, indicating substantial overlap between domains and supporting the utility of the total PHQ-15 score. Males reported slightly lower symptom burdens, and younger adults reported more somatic complaints. Findings support multidimensionality alongside a strong general somatic distress tendency, though the PHQ-15 does not fully align with ICD-11 bodily distress disorder criteria.

Keywords

somatization PHQ-15 factor analysis bodily distress disorder somatic

Introduction

Somatization describes the manifestation of psychological distress through physical symptoms (Stekel, 1924). The concept was advanced within psychosomatic medicine, which highlighted the interaction between emotional and physical processes (Alexander, 1950). Diagnostic criteria first appeared in the DSM-III (American Psychiatric Association, 1980), identifying somatic complaints lacking medical explanation. However, this symptom-based model faced criticism (De Figueiredo et al., 1980; Verhaest and Pierloot, 1980), leading to broader recognition of psychosocial influences (Lipowski, 1988). The ICD-10 (World Health Organization [WHO], 1992) included Somatoform Disorders, while the DSM-IV-TR (American Psychiatric Association, 2000) emphasized functional impairment. To address earlier limitations, the DSM-5 (American Psychiatric Association, 2013) introduced Somatic Symptom and Related Disorders, focusing on distress, preoccupation, and maladaptive behaviors. The ICD-11 (WHO, 2019) similarly defined Bodily Distress Disorder, highlighting persistent somatic symptoms with excessive attention and distress. These revisions align with Engel’s (1977) biopsychosocial model and Lipowski’s (1988) contextual approach to illness. Supporting this integrated view, biological studies have linked somatic disorders to genetic variants (Zannas and Chrousos, 2017), altered brain function (Borsook et al., 2012), and dysregulated stress systems (Wingenfeld et al., 2008). Psychological contributors include negative affectivity, maladaptive coping, and early trauma (Asmundson et al., 2010; Barsky et al., 2001; Henningsen et al., 2003). Cultural values (Kirmayer, 2004), limited social support (Lixia et al., 2022; Muntingh et al., 2016), and structural inequalities (Creed et al., 2012; Hinz et al., 2017; Konnopka et al., 2013) further influence symptom expression and reporting.

The Patient Health Questionnaire-15 (PHQ-15; Kroenke et al., 2002) is the most widely used measure of somatization, aligning with the DSM-5′s emphasis on distress/impairment and the ICD-11′s focus on persistent bodily symptoms (Terluin et al., 2022). It comprises 15 common physical complaints (Liu et al., 1997), each rated on a three-point scale (0–2) assessing the degree of bother over the past 4 weeks, producing a total score from 0 to 30. Although originally designed to assess somatic symptom severity, it has also been used to examine physical health problems and multiple mental health conditions (Grover et al., 2012; Jeong et al., 2014; Na et al., 2007; Shi et al., 2023; Yoon et al., 2014). PHQ-15 scores are strongly associated with depression, with higher somatic distress often correlating with greater depressive severity (Grover et al., 2012; Shi et al., 2023). There is also significant overlap with PTSD, where physical symptoms predict post-traumatic stress outcomes (Paredes-Echeverri et al., 2022; Soumoff et al., 2022; Sullivan et al., 2016). Somatic distress has also been linked to attachment anxiety and childhood trauma (Barends et al., 2022; Le et al., 2021; Sun et al., 2022). Distinguishing PHQ-15 subfactors is theoretically and practically important because different symptom clusters may reflect partially distinct mechanisms and have different implications for research and applied use. In clinical and public health settings, a total score can index overall somatic burden, but subscale profiles can clarify whether complaints are primarily pain-related, gastrointestinal, cardiopulmonary, or fatigue-related, which may support more precise communication, screening, and hypothesis testing. Subscales can also improve comparability across studies by clarifying whether associations with external variables are driven by broad somatic distress or by specific domains, and whether the same pattern replicates across populations and contexts. For these reasons, establishing the most defensible latent structure is necessary before interpreting domain-level scores or using them in downstream analyses.

However, factor-analytic studies of the PHQ-15 have yielded inconsistent findings regarding its dimensional structure. Schlechter et al. (2023) identified four factors pain, gastrointestinal, cardiopulmonary, and fatigue each strongly associated with depression and anxiety. Leonhart et al. (2018) also supported a four-factor solution, though model fit varied by cultural context, with some samples supporting a dominant single factor. Bifactor models (Witthöft et al., 2013) have converged on similar structures, although item loadings vary (Leonhart et al., 2018; Schlechter et al., 2023). For example, Terluin et al. (2022) labeled one factor musculoskeletal rather than pain, and Zhou et al. (2020) placed the menstrual cramps item within the pain domain. Exploratory analyses typically find three- or four-factor solutions (Kliem et al., 2014; Liao et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2016), while Comellas et al. (2015) supported a multidimensional model. Overall, cultural variation and item-specific inconsistencies suggest the PHQ-15’s dimensional structure is multifaceted and context-dependent.

This study uses Wave 7 data from the COVID-19 Psychological Research Consortium Study (C19PRC-UK; McBride et al., 2022), including 1405 participants representative of the UK population. Because the pandemic was associated with widespread disruption to physical and mental health (O’Mahony et al., 2022; Ran et al., 2020), these data offer a valuable context to examine the PHQ-15’s latent structure under heightened psychosocial stress. Using this large, diverse sample, we tested whether PHQ-15 items replicate previously proposed multifactor structures and clarified how somatic symptoms cluster in the general population. Accordingly, we compared competing factor-analytic models of the PHQ-15 and examined whether domain scores show differentiated associations with demographic characteristics and psychological distress beyond the total score.

This study tested three hypotheses about correlates of somatic symptom reporting. First, we expected women to report higher somatic symptom levels than men, consistent with evidence of more frequent and intense complaints among women, potentially linked to symptom perception, healthcare-seeking behavior, and psychosocial stress exposure (Atasoy et al., 2022; Ladwig et al., 2001). Second, we expected younger adults to report more symptoms than older adults, as somatic complaints appear more strongly related to psychological distress than to age-related physical decline (Hilderink et al., 2013). Third, we expected higher somatic symptom levels to correlate with psychological distress, including PTSD, sleep disturbances, GAD, and depression. PTSD is commonly accompanied by somatic symptoms (Gupta, 2013; Zhang et al., 2015), sleep disturbance often co-occurs with and may exacerbate somatic distress (Ionescu et al., 2021; Jiang et al., 2017), and robust links with GAD and depression likely reflect shared physiological and affective mechanisms (Bekhuis et al., 2016; Hoehn-Saric et al., 2004).

Method

Participants and design

This study drew on data from Wave 7 of the COVID-19 Psychological Research Consortium Study (C19PRC-UK-7), a longitudinal investigation of the pandemic’s psychosocial impacts (McBride et al., 2022). Full details on sampling and data collection are described elsewhere (McBride et al., 2020). Briefly, Wave 1 recruited 2025 adults (18+ years) via Qualtrics, using quota sampling for age, gender, and household income. By Wave 7, a total of 1405 participants completed the survey. All respondents were recontacts from earlier waves of the study, including the original baseline sample and top-up samples recruited during Waves 3, 4, and 6. Gender was assessed via self-report (“What is your gender?”: Male, Female, Transgender, Prefer not to say, Other); in the present analytic sample, two participants selected the “Transgender” response option and one selected “Prefer not to say”; due to very small cell sizes, analyses focus on male and female categories only. Of these, 49.8% identified as female (n = 702) and 50.2% as male (n = 700). We report and interpret results using the gender variable available in this dataset, and we use SAGER guidance to frame reporting and limitations where applicable (Heidari et al., 2016). Participants ranged in age from 18 to 65+ years, with a mean age of 48.85 years. The most common age groups were 45–54 (22.6%), 55–64 (19.6%), and 35–44 (18.2%). A full sociodemographic breakdown is available in Supplemental Table 2.

Procedures

Data collection was managed by Qualtrics, which partnered with over 20 online panel providers to recruit participants. Anonymized data were obtained from the C19PRC-UKW-7 repository in accordance with approved data use guidelines. The dataset was examined for missing values and outliers; where applicable, listwise deletion or mean/median imputation was applied. Distributions of the 15 PHQ-15 items were assessed for normality, and the menstruation item was excluded to ensure applicability across the full sample. Ethical approval for the study was granted by the University of Sheffield Research Ethics Committee (Reference number: 033759). Participants provided informed electronic consent prior to participation, were advised of their right to withdraw, and received debriefing information, including publicly available health resources. Personal identifiers were removed prior to deposit in secure open-access repositories.

Measures

Patient health questionnaire-15

The PHQ-15 (Kroenke et al., 2002) consists of 15 common physical complaints (Liu et al., 1997) rated for frequency over the past 4 weeks on a three-point scale from 0 (“not bothered at all”) to 2 (“bothered a lot”). Total scores range from 0 to 30, with higher scores indicating greater somatization. This measure aligns with DSM-5′s emphasis on distress/impairment and the ICD-11′s focus on persistent somatic symptoms (Terluin et al., 2022). It exhibits good internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.80; Cao et al., 2022; Sitnikova et al., 2017) and correlates strongly (r = 0.74) with the Somatic Symptom Scale-8 (Gierk et al., 2014). In this study, the 14-item version was used, with the menstruation item removed so that all participants could complete the measure.

Patient health questionnaire-9

The PHQ-9 (PHQ-9; Kroenke et al., 2001) is a nine-item self-report measure assessing depressive symptoms over the past 2 weeks. Items are rated from 0 (“not at all”) to 3 (“nearly every day”), with total scores ranging from 0 to 27. It shows excellent internal consistency (α ≈ 0.89) and strong test–retest reliability (r = 0.84; Kroenke et al., 2001).

Generalized anxiety disorder scale-7

The GAD-7 (Spitzer et al., 2006) assesses core symptoms of generalized anxiety over the past 2 weeks using 7 items scored from 0 to 3. Total scores range from 0 to 21, with higher scores indicating greater anxiety severity. The scale demonstrates excellent internal consistency (α = 0.92) and strong validity (Spitzer et al., 2006).

International trauma questionnaire

The ITQ (Cloitre et al., 2021) includes 18 items assessing PTSD and complex PTSD symptoms in line with ICD-11 criteria. Symptoms are rated from 0 (“not at all”) to 4 (“extremely”), capturing both core PTSD and disturbances in self-organization. It has strong construct validity and internal consistency (Cloitre et al., 2021).

Loneliness scale

This brief scale assesses perceived social isolation through three items rated on a three-point scale (Hughes et al., 2004). Total scores range from 3 to 9, with higher scores indicating greater loneliness. It has acceptable internal consistency (α ≈ 0.72) and correlates well with longer loneliness measures (Hughes et al., 2004).

Sleep disorders symptoms checklist-17

The SDS-CL-17 is a 17-item checklist screening for six common sleep disorders over the past year, including insomnia, apnea, and narcolepsy. Items are rated by frequency and grouped by disorder subtype. The measure has demonstrated good diagnostic accuracy and validity (Klingman et al., 2017).

Health service use scale

This custom measure was created from three items assessing healthcare use since the pandemic in the C19PRC-UKW-7 questionnaire, with yes/no questions about attending outpatient services, inpatient stays, or GP visits. Items are scored 0 (“No”) or 1 (“Yes”), with total scores from 0 to 3. Though not validated, it provides a brief index of recent health service use.

Data analysis

Analyzes proceeded in three steps. First, descriptive statistics were computed for all PHQ-15 items. The menstruation item was excluded so that all participants could be included in analyses. Second, we tested competing PHQ-15 factor structures using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), specifying models previously reported in the literature. Third, to examine external validity, we estimated associations between PHQ-15 total and domain scores and relevant demographic and psychological variables.

CFAs were estimated in Mplus version 8.1 (Muthén and Muthén, 2017) using WLSMV with THETA parameterization and a probit link, treating the 14 items as ordinal indicators. Missing data on PHQ items were handled using the WLSMV pairwise present approach for polychoric correlations (Mplus default for categorical outcomes). Candidate models were drawn from published studies (2013–2022) identified via a targeted peer-reviewed search and retained where item to factor mappings were clearly reported for the 14-item set (see Supplemental Table 3). Models originally derived via EFA were re-specified as CFA models for comparability; any cross-loading item reported in the source study was assigned to its strongest factor in the present specification. No EFA was conducted in the current dataset.

Model fit was evaluated using χ² (interpreted cautiously given sample size; Tanaka, 1987), CFI, TLI, RMSEA with 90% CI, and SRMR. We report both CFI and TLI for completeness, but prioritized RMSEA and SRMR alongside CFI (RMSEA ⩽ 0.06 and SRMR ⩽ 0.08 indicating good fit; CFI ⩾ 0.95 good, ⩾0.90 acceptable). Because WLSMV is not likelihood-based, information criteria such as BIC were not used for model comparison. Supplemental Table 6 presents maximum likelihood CFA results for comparison only; all substantive conclusions are based on the WLSMV analyses reported in the main text.

As an additional sensitivity analysis, a bifactor CFA was also specified in which all items loaded on a general somatic factor alongside the domain-specific factors, with the general and specific factors specified as orthogonal. Local fit was examined by reviewing the largest standardized residuals and modification indices. Descriptive statistics and group comparisons (e.g. t tests and ANOVAs) were conducted in SPSS (v27), whereas all CFA models were estimated in Mplus, as indicated in the relevant table captions.

Results

PHQ-14 item responses

After excluding the menstruation item, response patterns for the remaining 14 PHQ items were analyzed. Trouble sleeping (14.2%) and feeling tired (14.0%) were the most frequently endorsed symptoms in the “bothered a lot” category, followed by pain in the arms, legs, or joints (10.8%) and back pain (9.2%). These findings suggest that sleep disturbance, fatigue, and musculoskeletal complaints were the most prominent issues in this sample. In contrast, fainting spells showed the lowest endorsement, with 90.8% of participants reporting they were “not bothered at all,” and a mean score of just 0.11 (SD = 0.38). Mean item scores ranged from 0.11 (fainting spells) to 0.61 (trouble sleeping), indicating notable variability in symptom severity. Items related to somatic pain (e.g. pain in arms, back pain, and headaches) also showed moderate endorsement, while cardiopulmonary symptoms (e.g. chest pain, shortness of breath) and sexual problems were among the least frequently reported. Full item-level response distributions are provided in, Supplemental Table 7.

Fit statistics

Supplemental Table 1 presents model fit indices for all candidate PHQ-14 structures estimated using WLSMV. Overall, several multifactor models showed excellent fit. The four-factor model proposed by (Schlechter et al., 2023), which is equivalent in item assignment to Witthöft et al. (2013), provided the strongest overall balance of fit and interpretability. For this model, χ²(59) = 328.56, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.982, TLI = 0.976, RMSEA = 0.057 (90% CI (0.051, 0.063)), and SRMR = 0.038. Other multifactor solutions, including the four-factor models reported by Zhou et al. (2020) and Leonhart et al. (2018), also demonstrated similarly strong global fit, although their factor compositions differed. In contrast, the one-factor model showed weaker absolute fit, χ²(77) = 656.74, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.966, TLI = 0.960, RMSEA = 0.073 (90% CI (0.068, 0.078)), SRMR = 0.059.

WLSMV is not likelihood-based, so information criteria such as BIC were not used for model selection. Model comparisons were therefore based on CFI, RMSEA, and SRMR alongside theoretical coherence and interpretability. On this basis, the equivalent four-factor structure reported by (Schlechter et al., 2023; Witthöft et al., 2013) was retained as the preferred model. Local fit was inspected by reviewing residual correlations and modification indices; residual correlations ranged from −0.12 to 0.10, and the largest modification index was 90.88. No post hoc error covariances or cross-loadings were added, in order to preserve parsimony and maintain comparability with the published factor structures.

As a sensitivity analysis, a bifactor CFA was specified with a general somatic factor alongside four orthogonal domain-specific factors corresponding to the retained four-factor domains (Schlechter et al., 2023; Witthöft et al., 2013). This bifactor model did not yield an admissible solution under WLSMV estimation, with Mplus indicating a non-identification problem involving the two-indicator fatigue-specific factor.

Factor loadings

Supplemental Table 8 presents standardized factor loadings and factor inter-correlations for the best-fitting model, the four-factor CFA solution (Schlechter et al., 2023; Witthöft et al., 2013). All items showed statistically significant and substantial loadings on their intended factors. For example, gastrointestinal symptoms such as “Stomach pain” and “Nausea or indigestion” loaded at 0.83 and 0.85, respectively, on the Gastro factor, and even the PHQ’s less frequent symptom “Pain or problems during sexual intercourse” loaded strongly (0.83) on this factor. Fatigue-related items were also well represented: “Feeling tired or having low energy” had one of the highest loadings in the model (0.89 on the Fatigue factor), and “Trouble sleeping” loaded at 0.77. The Pain factor was defined by somatic pain complaints such as “Back pain” (0.74) and “Headaches” (0.78), while the Cardiopulmonary factor showed robust loadings from “Chest pain” (0.89) and “Heart pounding or racing” (0.87), among other items.

Inter-factor correlations were high, ranging from approximately 0.80 to 0.91 (Supplemental Table 8). The strongest associations were observed between the Gastro and Cardiopulmonary factors (r = 0.91) and between Pain and Cardiopulmonary (r = 0.89), indicating substantial overlap between those symptom domains. Even the lowest correlation (Gastro with Fatigue, r = 0.80) remained high. Overall, this pattern suggests that, although the four domains are empirically distinguishable, they are not independent, and a strong general somatic distress tendency likely underlies the PHQ-15 symptom clusters.

Subscale demographic scores

Supplemental Table 4 presents PHQ-15 subscale scores by gender and age group, alongside associated test statistics and effect sizes. Due to very small cell sizes for gender-minority categories (Transgender n = 2; Prefer not to say n = 1), subgroup comparisons are reported for male and female respondents only. Gender differences were statistically significant although small, with females reporting higher scores across all domains most notably for fatigue (test statistic = 8.51, effect size = 0.018). Age-related differences were more pronounced: younger adults (18–24) consistently reported higher symptom levels compared to older adults (65+), particularly for cardiopulmonary symptoms (test statistic = 13.93, effect size = 0.47), indicating a moderate to large effect.

Bivariate correlations

Supplemental Table 5 displays bivariate correlations between PHQ-15 subscale scores and psychological variables. Depression, GAD, PTSD, sleep disturbance, loneliness, and health service use were all significantly associated with greater somatic symptom severity across subscales and the total score. The strongest correlations were observed between depression and fatigue (r = 0.66, p < 0.001), and between total PHQ-15 scores and depression (r = 0.70, p < 0.001). However, this association should be interpreted cautiously because the PHQ-9 includes items assessing sleep disturbance and low energy/fatigue (items 3 and 4), which overlap directly with the PHQ-15 fatigue domain (items 14 and 15: trouble sleeping and feeling tired). This shared symptom content may inflate the observed correlation. Correlations between GAD and sleep disturbance were also strong (both r = 0.654, p < 0.001), supporting convergent validity.

Discussion

The primary aim of this study was to test alternative factor analytic models of the PHQ-15 and identify the best-fitting structure using data from a large, nationally representative sample in Wave 7 of the COVID-19 Psychological Research Consortium Study (C19PRC-UK; McBride et al., 2022). A secondary aim was to describe the distribution of subscale scores across gender and age groups and to examine the unique predictive validity of each subscale in relation to key psychological and health-related variables. Our descriptive data showed a well-balanced gender distribution and a diverse age range, enhancing the applicability of our findings to various sociodemographic groups.

Consistent with the findings of Schlechter et al. (2023) and Witthöft et al. (2013) findings, our analyses showed that a four-factor model (with Pain, Cardiopulmonary, Gastrointestinal, and Fatigue dimensions) provided the best fit to the PHQ-15 data. The clear superiority of this multifactor solution, coupled with the only moderate fit of a one-factor model (which had a higher RMSEA and worse misfit), indicates that somatic symptom complaints are better represented by multiple specific factors rather than a single general factor. Notably, when we attempted to explicitly model a general somatic factor alongside the four specific factors (bifactor model), the solution did not properly converge, likely due to the instability caused by the two-item Fatigue factor. This empirical issue underscores the difficulty in partitioning PHQ-15 variance into distinct orthogonal components, even though the high first-order factor correlations suggest a strong common somatic distress factor underpinning all items.

Findings from previous studies support the interpretation that a dominant general factor may underlie PHQ-15 responses. Terluin et al. (2022) reported that over 85% of total score variance was attributable to a general factor, indicating essential unidimensionality. Similarly, Leonhart et al. (2018) found that the PHQ-15 subscale structure failed to replicate in Chinese samples, suggesting that multidimensional models developed in European contexts may lack cross-cultural generalizability. Witthöft et al. (2013) also demonstrated strong general factor loadings in a bifactor structure, although formal indices of unidimensionality were not reported. Taken together, our findings and those of prior studies suggest that while the PHQ-15′s items can be grouped into multiple symptom domains, in practice it also functions largely as a unidimensional measure in applied and cross-cultural settings.

Overall, our findings suggest that while somatic symptoms may cluster in multiple ways, the selection of a scoring model should be guided primarily by the best-fitting factor analytic solution, as determined by statistical fit and conceptual clarity. However, it is important to note that the PHQ-15 does not fully align with ICD-11 criteria for diagnosing bodily distress disorder (BDD), as ICD-11 emphasizes distress and functional impairment rather than symptom frequency alone. Thus, development or adoption of a new scale specifically designed to align with ICD-11′s BDD diagnostic criteria may be warranted.

Notably, this study advances the literature by examining PHQ-15 factor structures within a large, diverse sample during a period of heightened psychosocial stress, namely the COVID-19 pandemic. Unlike many earlier studies, it draws on data collected amid significant societal disruption, contributing to the limited body of research on somatic symptom patterns during global health crises. However, without comparative pre-pandemic data, no causal conclusions can be drawn about the specific impact of COVID-19 on symptom presentation. This pandemic-era context provides unique insights into how gender and age in particular could be more vulnerable to stress-related somatic complaints.

Our first hypothesis posited that women would exhibit higher somatic symptom levels in pain, cardiopulmonary, gastrointestinal, and fatigue factors (Leonhart et al., 2018; Schlechter et al., 2023; Witthöft et al., 2013; Zhou et al., 2020). An Analysis of Variance (ANOVA; Supplementary Analysis 10) supported this prediction: women consistently showed elevated scores, particularly in fatigue. These findings align with prior work suggesting that group differences in somatic symptom reporting may reflect psychosocial factors (e.g. gendered norms around symptom appraisal and help-seeking) and, as discussed in the wider literature, sex-related biological processes (e.g. hormonal influences on some symptom domains; Barsky et al., 2001; Heitkemper and Jarrett, 1992; Osborne and Davis, 2022). However, sex assigned at birth was not measured in this dataset, so biological mechanisms cannot be evaluated in the present study. Effect sizes were modest, indicating that gender differences in somatic expression may be subtler in general population samples than in clinical cohorts (Lanzara et al., 2018; Marcus et al., 2005). It is also possible that gender category alone does not adequately explain variation in symptom reporting, as contextual factors such as caregiving burden, social stress exposure, and access to healthcare may contribute to disparities. Future research should measure sex assigned at birth and gender identity more explicitly to support clearer interpretation of potential mechanisms. Studies using structural equation modeling may also help to disentangle biological, psychological, and sociocultural influences on somatic symptom reporting.

Consistent with our second hypothesis, younger adults reported higher somatic symptom levels than older adults across all four domains (pain, cardiopulmonary, gastrointestinal, and fatigue). This aligns with Hilderink et al. (2013), who suggested somatic symptoms are more strongly linked to psychological distress than to physical aging, and may therefore be more common among younger individuals under elevated distress. Although other studies have linked higher somatic burden to older age (Goulia et al., 2012; Rief et al., 2001), our reverse pattern may reflect pandemic-specific stressors. In our data, younger adults, particularly those aged 18–34, reported significantly higher depression, anxiety, and paranoia (Supplementary Analysis 9), all associated with increased somatic complaints (Schlechter et al., 2023; Terluin et al., 2022). They also experienced disproportionate disruption to employment, education, and social networks during lockdowns (Varma et al., 2021), likely intensifying distress and symptom reporting. By contrast, older adults may have shown greater resilience despite higher medical risk, and symptom levels did not differ significantly across older age groups. Clinically, these findings highlight the importance of interpreting somatic profiles in their sociohistorical context, and longitudinal research is needed to test whether younger adults’ elevated symptom burden persists beyond pandemic-related stress.

Aligned with our third hypothesis, each somatic domain of pain, cardiopulmonary, gastrointestinal, and fatigue showed strong positive associations with psychological variables including depression, generalized anxiety, PTSD, and sleep disturbances. These findings reinforce the conceptualization of somatic symptoms as closely intertwined with emotional distress, consistent with prior literature highlighting their overlap with affective and anxiety-related conditions (Shi et al., 2023). The strongest associations were observed for depression, anxiety, and sleep difficulties, suggesting that these variables may reflect a broader underlying distress construct captured by the PHQ-15 total score.

Loneliness was associated with somatic symptoms to a lesser extent, while health service use showed the weakest associations. This suggests that somatic complaints are closely tied to internal psychological states but do not always translate into help-seeking. Overall, the findings emphasize the importance of assessing psychological comorbidities when interpreting somatic symptoms, while domain scores may still offer clinically useful nuance. For instance, the fatigue domain showed the strongest association with depressive symptoms, but this should be interpreted cautiously because the PHQ-9 includes sleep disturbance and low energy items that overlap with the PHQ-15 fatigue items, which likely inflates this correlation. As a sensitivity analysis, we recalculated the PHQ-9 depression score excluding items 3 and 4 and re-examined its association with the PHQ fatigue domain. The correlation remained moderate-to-strong (r = 0.579, p < 0.001), suggesting that the observed association was not entirely driven by overlapping item content. Future studies could test this more rigorously by examining depression scores that exclude overlapping items or by using depression measures that do not include somatic symptoms.

Likewise, robust ties between cardiopulmonary complaints and PTSD suggest the potential utility of interventions addressing both psychological trauma and related physiological symptoms (Sullivan et al., 2016). Clinically, this distinction is significant: health professionals could use the total PHQ-15 as a broad screener, then focus on specific subscales (e.g. fatigue, gastrointestinal) to tailor interventions more precisely, especially for younger adults contending with pandemic-induced stress or women manifesting higher fatigue complaints.

Our study underscores the complexity inherent in measuring and interpreting somatic complaints. While (Schlechter et al., 2023; Witthöft et al., 2013) four-factor model best fit our sample, the relatively small differences in correlations across domains point to considerable overlap among somatic symptoms. For clinicians and researchers, this dual finding implies that the PHQ-15 can be used both as a total score (capturing general somatic distress) and as separate subscales (highlighting domain-specific patterns). It should be noted that, by using an estimator appropriate for ordinal data (WLSMV), the present study provides a more accurate test of these factor structures than some prior analyses that treated the PHQ-15 as continuous. This approach may partially explain why multiple models showed generally good fit in our dataset. However, several limitations merit caution. First, although quota sampling is designed to mirror population distributions, it is not purely random and could skew participant characteristics in unanticipated ways. Second, few participants identified as transgender or gender diverse, limiting the generalizability of findings about gender-based differences. Third, because data was self-reported, recall bias and social desirability effects may influence responses. Lastly, the cross-sectional nature of Wave 7 data precludes definitive causal inferences. Observed relationships between somatic symptoms and psychological distress likely involve bidirectional or complex interactions that warrant longitudinal examination. Nevertheless, the novelty of capturing PHQ-15 data during the COVID-19 pandemic lends unique value. Such real-world crisis data help distinguish transient, high-stress influences on somatic reporting from more stable, trait-like expressions of somatic distress, offering potential guidance for clinicians managing pandemic-era (or other crisis-related) mental health concerns.

Given that older adults did not consistently report more somatic complaints and that younger individuals displayed elevated symptom levels, further research is needed to unravel how life stage, stress, and broader social contexts intersect. Longitudinal tracking pre- and post-pandemic would clarify whether the observed age patterns represent a stable trend or a unique result of COVID-19 lockdowns. Investigating other major crises, such as economic recessions or natural disasters, could identify shared factors that amplify somatic presentations in younger cohorts. Moreover, specific subscales of the PHQ-15 could be examined in clinical populations. If certain domains, such as fatigue, predict particular outcomes (e.g. severity of depression) more effectively, these targeted insights could refine diagnostic and therapeutic strategies. Integrating additional psychosocial variables (e.g. social isolation, caregiver responsibilities, economic strain) would also help clarify why some individuals exhibit higher somatic distress. Ultimately, a multifaceted and context-sensitive approach appears essential to advancing both theoretical and practical understandings of somatic symptomatology.

In conclusion, this research substantially refines our understanding of the PHQ-15′s latent structure by situating the analysis within the heightened stress of a global pandemic. The findings underscore that a four-factor model (pain, cardiopulmonary, gastrointestinal, and fatigue) best explains somatic symptom patterns, yet high inter-factor correlations confirm the utility of a total PHQ-15 score for capturing broad somatic distress. Nevertheless, the PHQ-15′s structure does not adequately correspond to the ICD-11 diagnostic framework for bodily distress disorder, suggesting the need for a new or adapted measure that better addresses ICD-11′s emphasis on distress and impairment. Moreover, results revealed only small effect sizes regarding gender differences, suggesting that while women exhibit slightly higher symptom levels, broader psychosocial influences may be more critical than gender alone. Notably, the trend of younger adults reporting higher somatic complaints challenges the conventional view that somatic symptom severity increases with age. Such results point to the significant impact of acute stressors, including lockdowns and financial uncertainties, especially for younger populations who may have fewer coping resources or support systems. Clinically, these findings suggest that practitioners could screen with the total PHQ-15 and then delve deeper into specific symptom clusters for more tailored interventions. From a public health perspective, the elevated distress in younger cohorts during the pandemic emphasizes the need for targeted mental health strategies. Future studies should investigate whether these patterns persist post-pandemic, offering insights into the long-term trajectories of somatic distress under evolving social and economic conditions.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-hpq-10.1177_13591053261442550 – Supplemental material for Modeling the PHQ-15: The factor structure of somatic symptoms in a large community sample

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-hpq-10.1177_13591053261442550 for Modeling the PHQ-15: The factor structure of somatic symptoms in a large community sample by James Cunningham, Mark Shevlin and Eoin McElroy in Journal of Health Psychology

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

James Cunningham

Mark Shevlin

Ethical considerations

Ethical approval for the project was provided by the University of Sheffield Research Ethics Committee (Reference number: 033759).

Consent to participate

All participants provided written informed consent prior to taking part in the study.

Consent for publication

Consent for publication is not applicable to this article as it does not contain any identifiable data.

Author contributions

James Cunningham: Writing review & editing, Writing original draft, Visualization, Software, Resources, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis. Mark Shevlin: Supervision, Resources, Project administration, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation. Eoin McElroy: Validation, Conceptualization.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data availability statement

All materials are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.*

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Alexander

(1950) Psychosomatic Medicine: Its Principles and Applications. W. W. Norton & Co.

American Psychiatric Association (1980) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-III. American Psychiatric Association Publishing.

American Psychiatric Association (2000) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR). American Psychiatric Association. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890423349

American Psychiatric Association (2013) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-5. American Psychiatric Association.

Asmundson

Abramowitz

Richter

, et al. (2010) Health anxiety: Current perspectives and future directions. Current Psychiatry Reports 12(4): 306–312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-010-0123-9

Atasoy

Henningsen

Sattel

, et al. (2022) Stability and predictors of somatic symptoms in men and women over 10 years: A real-world perspective from the prospective MONICA/KORA study. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 162: 111022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2022.111022

Barends

van der Wouden

Claassen-van Dessel

, et al. (2022) Potentially traumatic events, social support and burden of persistent somatic symptoms: A longitudinal study. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 159: 110945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2022.110945

Barsky

Peekna

Borus

(2001) Somatic symptom reporting in women and men. Journal of General Internal Medicine 16(4): 266–275. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016004266.x

Bekhuis

Schoevers

van Borkulo

, et al. (2016) The network structure of major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder and somatic symptomatology. Psychological Medicine 46(14): 2989–2998. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033291716001550

10.

Borsook

Maleki

Becerra

, et al. (2012) Understanding migraine through the lens of maladaptive stress responses: A model disease of allostatic load. Neuron 73(2): 219–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2012.01.001

11.

Cao

Wei

Fritzsche

, et al. (2022) Detecting DSM-5 somatic symptom disorder in general hospitals in China: B-criteria instrument has better accuracy-A secondary analysis. Frontiers in Psychiatry 13: 935597. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.935597

12.

Cloitre

Hyland

Prins

, et al. (2021) The International Trauma Questionnaire (ITQ) measures reliable and clinically significant treatment-related change in PTSD and complex PTSD. European Journal of Psychotraumatology 12(1): 1930961. https://doi.org/10.1080/20008198.2021.1930961

13.

Comellas

Makhashvili

Chikovani

, et al. (2015) Patterns of somatic distress among conflict-affected persons in the Republic of Georgia. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 78(5): 466–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2015.01.015

14.

Creed

Davies

Jackson

, et al. (2012) The epidemiology of multiple somatic symptoms. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 72(4): 311–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2012.01.009

15.

De Figueiredo

Baiardi

Long

(1980) Briquet syndrome in a man with chronic intractable pain. Johns Hopkins Medical Journal 147(3): 102–106.

16.

Engel

(1977) The need for a new medical model: A challenge for biomedicine. Science 196(4286): 129–136. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.847460

17.

Gierk

Kohlmann

Kroenke

, et al. (2014) The somatic symptom scale-8 (SSS-8): A brief measure of somatic symptom burden. JAMA Internal Medicine 174(3): 399–407. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.12179

18.

Goulia

Papadimitriou

Machado

, et al. (2012) Does psychological distress vary between younger and older adults in health and disease? Journal of Psychosomatic Research 72(2): 120–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2011.11.011

19.

Grover

Kumar

Chakrabarti

, et al. (2012) Prevalence and type of functional somatic complaints in patients with first-episode depression. East Asian Archives of Psychiatry 22(4): 146–153.

20.

Gupta

(2013) Review of somatic symptoms in post-traumatic stress disorder. International Review of Psychiatry 25(1): 86–99. https://doi.org/10.3109/09540261.2012.736367

21.

Heidari

Babor

De Castro

, et al. (2016) Sex and gender equity in research: Rationale for the SAGER guidelines and recommended use. Research Integrity and Peer Review 1(1): 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-016-0007-6

22.

Heitkemper

Jarrett

(1992) Pattern of gastrointestinal and somatic symptoms across the menstrual cycle. Gastroenterology 102(2): 505–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-5085(92)90097-I

23.

Henningsen

Zimmermann

Sattel

(2003) Medically unexplained physical symptoms, anxiety, and depression: A meta-analytic review. Psychosomatic Medicine 65(4): 528–533. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.psy.0000075977.90337.e7

24.

Hilderink

Collard

Rosmalen

, et al. (2013) Prevalence of somatoform disorders and medically unexplained symptoms in old age populations in comparison with younger age groups: A systematic review. Ageing Research Reviews 12(1): 151–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2012.04.004

25.

Hinz

Ernst

Glaesmer

, et al. (2017) Frequency of somatic symptoms in the general population: normative values for the Patient Health Questionnaire-15 (PHQ-15). Journal of Psychosomatic Research 96: 27–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2016.12.017

26.

Hoehn-Saric

McLeod

Funderburk

, et al. (2004) Somatic symptoms and physiologic responses in generalized anxiety disorder and panic disorder: An ambulatory monitor study. Archives of General Psychiatry 61(9): 913–921. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.61.9.913

27.

Hughes

Waite

Hawkley

, et al. (2004) A short scale for measuring loneliness in large surveys. Research on Aging 26(6): 655–672. https://doi.org/10.1177/0164027504268574

28.

Ionescu

Popa-Velea

Mihăilescu

, et al. (2021) Somatic symptoms and sleep disorders: A literature review of their relationship, comorbidities and treatment. Healthcare 9(9): 1128. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare9091128

29.

Jeong

Han

Park

, et al. (2014) Influence of the number and severity of somatic symptoms on the severity of depression and suicidality in community-dwelling elders. Asia-Pacific Psychiatry 6(3): 274–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/appy.12138

30.

Jiang

Tang

Xie

, et al. (2017) Influence of sleep disorders on somatic symptoms, mental health, and quality of life in patients with chronic constipation. Medicine 96(7): e6093. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000006093

31.

Kirmayer

(2004) The cultural diversity of healing: Meaning, metaphor and mechanism. British Medical Bulletin 69(1): 33–48. https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldh006

32.

Kliem

Beller

Kröger

, et al. (2014) Dimensional latent structure of somatic symptom reporting in two representative population studies: Results from taxometric analyses. Psychological Assessment 26(2): 484–492. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035721

33.

Klingman

Jungquist

Perlis

(2017) Introducing the sleep disorders symptom checklist-25: A primary care friendly and comprehensive screener for sleep disorders. Sleep Medicine Research 8(1): 17–25. https://doi.org/10.17241/smr.2017.00010

34.

Konnopka

Kaufmann

König

, et al. (2013) Association of costs with somatic symptom severity in patients with medically unexplained symptoms. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 75(4): 370–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2013.08.011

35.

Kroenke

Spitzer

Williams

(2001) The PHQ-9: Validity of a brief depression severity measure. Journal of General Internal Medicine 16(9): 606–613. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x

36.

Kroenke

Spitzer

Williams

(2002) The PHQ-15: Validity of a new measure for evaluating the severity of somatic symptoms. Psychosomatic Medicine 64(2): 258–266.

37.

Ladwig

Marten-Mittag

Erazo

, et al. (2001) Identifying somatization disorder in a population-based health examination survey: psychosocial burden and gender differences. Psychosomatics 42(6): 511–518. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.psy.42.6.511

38.

Lanzara

Scipioni

Conti

(2018) A clinical-psychological perspective on somatization among immigrants: A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology 9: 2792. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02792

39.

Leonhart

de Vroege

Zhang

, et al. (2018) 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. Frontiers in Psychiatry 9: 240. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00240

40.

Geist

Bearss

, et al. (2021) Childhood adversity and attachment anxiety predict adult symptom severity and health anxiety. Child Abuse & Neglect 120: 105216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2021.105216

41.

Liao

Huang

, et al. (2016) The relation between the Patient Health Questionnaire-15 and DSM somatic diagnoses. BMC Psychiatry 16(1): 351. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-016-1068-2

42.

Lipowski

(1988) Somatization: The concept and its clinical application. American Journal of Psychiatry 145(11): 1358–1368. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.145.11.1358

43.

Liu

Clark

Eaton

(1997) Structural factor analyses for medically unexplained somatic symptoms of somatization disorder in the Epidemiologic Catchment Area Study. Psychological Medicine 27(3): 617–626.

44.

Lixia

Xiaoming

Lei

, et al. (2022) A cross-sectional study of the psychological status of 33,706 hospital workers at the late stage of the COVID-19 outbreak. Journal of Affective Disorders 297: 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2021.10.013

45.

Marcus

Young

Kerber

, et al. (2005) Gender differences in depression: Findings from the STAR*D study. Journal of Affective Disorders 87(2-3): 141–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2004.09.008

46.

McBride

Butter

Murphy

, et al. (2022) Tracking the psychological and socio-economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: A methodological report from Wave 5 of the COVID-19 Psychological Research Consortium (C19PRC) study. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research 31(4): e1928. https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.1928

47.

McBride

Murphy

Shevlin

, et al. (2020) Monitoring the psychological, social, and economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in the population: Context, design and conduct of the longitudinal COVID-19 psychological research consortium (C19PRC) study. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research. Epub ahead of print 9 November 2020. https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.1861

48.

Muntingh

van der Feltz-Cornelis

van Marwijk

, et al. (2016) Collaborative care for anxiety disorders in primary care: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Family Practice 17(1): 62. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-016-0466-3

49.

Muthén

(2017) Mplus. In: van der Linden

(ed.) Handbook of Item Response Theory. Chapman & Hall/CRC, pp.507–518.

50.

Kim

Lee

, et al. (2007) The relationship between depressive symptoms in outpatients with chronic illness and health care costs. Yonsei Medical Journal 48(5): 787–794. https://doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2007.48.5.787

51.

Osborne

Davis

(2022) Sex and gender differences in pain. International Review of Neurobiology 164: 277–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.irn.2022.06.013

52.

O’Mahony

Buwalda

Blair

, et al. (2022) Impact of long COVID on health and quality of life. HRB Open Research 5: 31. https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13516.1

53.

Paredes-Echeverri

Guthrie

Perez

(2022) Toward a possible trauma subtype of functional neurological disorder: Impact on symptom severity and physical health. Frontiers in Psychiatry 13: 1040911. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.1040911

54.

Ran

Wang

, et al. (2020) Psychological resilience, depression, anxiety, and somatization symptoms in response to COVID-19: A study of the general population in China at the peak of its epidemic. Social Science & Medicine 262: 113261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113261

55.

Rief

Hessel

Braehler

(2001) Somatization symptoms and hypochondriacal features in the general population. Psychosomatic Medicine 63(4): 595–602.

56.

Schlechter

Hellmann

Morina

(2023) Assessing somatic symptoms with the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-15) in Syrian refugees. Assessment 30(4): 1211–1225. https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911221086986

57.

Shi

Wang

Zhao

, et al. (2023) Sex differences in residual somatic symptoms in patients with first-episode depression after acute-phase treatment. BMC Psychiatry 23(1): 119. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-023-04612-3

58.

Sitnikova

Dijkstra-Kersten

SMA

Mokkink

, et al. (2017) Systematic review of measurement properties of questionnaires measuring somatization in primary care patients. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 103: 42–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2017.10.005

59.

Soumoff

Clark

Spinks

, et al. (2022) Somatic symptom severity, not injury severity, predicts probable posttraumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder in wounded service members. Journal of Traumatic Stress 35(1): 210–221. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.22722

60.

Spitzer

Kroenke

Williams

, et al. (2006) A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: The GAD-7. Archive of Internal Medicine 166(10): 1092–1097. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092

61.

Stekel

(1924) Poetry and Neurosis: Contributions to the psychology of the artist and of artistic creative ability. Psychoanalytic Review 11(1): 48–60.

62.

Sullivan

Barr

Kintzle

, et al. (2016) PTSD and physical health symptoms among veterans: Association with child and relationship functioning. Marriage & Family Review 52(7): 689–705. https://doi.org/10.1080/01494929.2016.1157122

63.

Sun

Zhang

, et al. (2022) The association between childhood trauma and the age of onset in drug-free bipolar depression. Psychiatry Research 310: 114469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2022.114469

64.

Tanaka

(1987) “How Big is Big Enough?”: Sample size and goodness of fit in structural equation models with latent variables. Child Development 58(1): 134–146. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130296

65.

Terluin

Barends

van der Horst

, et al. (2022) Head-to-head comparison of somatic symptom scales: The Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-15) and the somatization scale of the four-dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ-S). Journal of Psychosomatic Research 162: 111031. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2022.111031

66.

Varma

Junge

Meaklim

, et al. (2021) Younger people are more vulnerable to stress, anxiety and depression during COVID-19 pandemic: A global cross-sectional survey. Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology & Biological Psychiatry 109: 110236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnpbp.2020.110236

67.

Verhaest

Pierloot

(1980) An attempt at an empirical delimitation of neurasthenic neurosis and its relation with some character traits. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 62(2): 166–176. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0447.1980.tb00604.x

68.

Wingenfeld

Heim

Schmidt

, et al. (2008) HPA axis reactivity and lymphocyte glucocorticoid sensitivity in fibromyalgia syndrome and chronic pelvic pain. Psychosomatic Medicine 70(1): 65–72. https://doi.org/10.1097/psy.0b013e31815ff3ce

69.

Witthöft

Hiller

Loch

, et al. (2013) The latent structure of medically unexplained symptoms and its relation to functional somatic syndromes. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine 20(2): 172–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12529-012-9237-2

70.

World Health Organization (1992) The ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders: Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Guidelines. World Health Organization.

71.

Yoon

Lee

Han

, et al. (2014) Usefulness of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 for Korean medical students. Academic Psychiatry 38(6): 661–667. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40596-014-0140-9

72.

Zannas

Chrousos

(2017) Epigenetic programming by stress and glucocorticoids along the human lifespan. Molecular Psychiatry 22(5): 640–646. https://doi.org/10.1038/mp.2017.35

73.

Zhang

Zhu

, et al. (2015) Posttraumatic stress disorder and somatic symptoms among child and adolescent survivors following the Lushan earthquake in China: A six-month longitudinal study. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 79(2): 100–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2015.06.001

74.

Zhang

Fritzsche

Liu

, et al. (2016) Validation of the Chinese version of the PHQ-15 in a tertiary hospital. BMC Psychiatry 16(1): 89. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-016-0798-5

75.

Zhou

Rief

(2020) Are comparisons of mental disorders between Chinese and German students possible? An examination of measurement invariance for the PHQ-15, PHQ-9 and GAD-7. BMC Psychiatry 20(1): 480. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-020-02859-8

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.10 MB

0.00 MB