HHS Public Access

Author manuscript
JAMA. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 May 13.
Author Manuscript

Published in final edited form as:

JAMA. 2015 December 8; 314(22): 2373–2383. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.15845.

Prevalence of Depression and Depressive Symptoms Among

Resident Physicians A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Douglas A. Mata, MD, MPH, Marco A. Ramos, MPhil, MSEd, Narinder Bansal, PhD, Rida
Khan, BS, Constance Guille, MD, MS, Emanuele Di Angelantonio, MD, PhD, and Srijan Sen,
MD, PhD
Department of Pathology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston,
Author Manuscript

Massachusetts (Mata); Department of Psychiatry, Yale School of Medicine, Yale University, New
Haven, Connecticut (Ramos); Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of
Cambridge, Cambridge, England (Bansal, Di Angelantonio); Department of Medicine, Baylor
College of Medicine, Texas Medical Center, Houston (Khan); Department of Psychiatry and
Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston (Guille); Molecular and
Behavioral Neuroscience Institute, Department of Psychiatry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
(Sen).

Abstract
IMPORTANCE—Physicians in training are at high risk for depression. However, the estimated
prevalence of this disorder varies substantially between studies.

OBJECTIVE—To provide a summary estimate of depression or depressive symptom prevalence

Author Manuscript

among resident physicians.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION—Systematic search of EMBASE, ERIC,

MEDLINE, and PsycINFO for studies with information on the prevalence of depression or
depressive symptoms among resident physicians published between January 1963 and September
2015. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were published in the peer-reviewed literature and
used a validated method to assess for depression or depressive symptoms.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS—Information on study characteristics and depression

or depressive symptom prevalence was extracted independently by 2 trained investigators.

Corresponding Author: Douglas A. Mata, MD, MPH, Department of Pathology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical
Author Manuscript

School, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA 02115 (dmata@bwh.harvard.edu)..

Author Contributions: Dr Mata had full access to the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the
accuracy of the data analysis.
Study concept and design: Mata.
Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.
Drafting of the manuscript: Mata, Ramos.
Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.
Statistical analysis: Mata, Bansal, Di Angelantonio. Obtained funding: Guille, Sen.
Administrative, technical, or material support: Guille, Sen.
Study supervision: Guille, Sen.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures: All authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of
Interest and none were reported.
Disclaimer: The opinions, results, and conclusions reported in this article are those of the authors and are independent from the
funding sources.
 Mata et al. Page 2

Estimates were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Differences by study-level

Author Manuscript

characteristics were estimated using meta-regression.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES—Point or period prevalence of depression or

depressive symptoms as assessed by structured interview or validated questionnaire.

RESULTS—Data were extracted from 31 cross-sectional studies (9447 individuals) and 23

longitudinal studies (8113 individuals). Three studies used clinical interviews and 51 used self-
report instruments. The overall pooled prevalence of depression or depressive symptoms was
28.8% (4969/17 560 individuals, 95% CI, 25.3%-32.5%), with high between-study heterogeneity
(Q = 1247, τ2 = 0.39, I2 = 95.8%, P < .001). Prevalence estimates ranged from 20.9% for the 9-
item Patient Health Questionnaire with a cutoff of 10 or more (741/3577 individuals, 95% CI,
17.5%-24.7%, Q = 14.4, τ2 = 0.04, I2 = 79.2%) to 43.2% for the 2-item PRIME-MD (1349/2891
individuals, 95% CI, 37.6%-49.0%, Q = 45.6, τ2 = 0.09, I2 = 84.6%). There was an increased
prevalence with increasing calendar year (slope = 0.5% increase per year, adjusted for assessment
Author Manuscript

modality; 95% CI, 0.03%-0.9%, P = .04). In a secondary analysis of 7 longitudinal studies, the
median absolute increase in depressive symptoms with the onset of residency training was 15.8%
(range, 0.3%-26.3%; relative risk, 4.5). No statistically significant differences were observed
between cross-sectional vs longitudinal studies, studies of only interns vs only upper-level
residents, or studies of nonsurgical vs both nonsurgical and surgical residents.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE—In this systematic review, the summary estimate of the
prevalence of depression or depressive symptoms among resident physicians was 28.8%, ranging
from 20.9% to 43.2% depending on the instrument used, and increased with calendar year. Further
research is needed to identify effective strategies for preventing and treating depression among
physicians in training.

Studies have suggested that resident physicians experience higher rates of depression than
Author Manuscript

the general public.1-5 Beyond the effects of depression on individuals, resident depression
has been linked to poor-quality patient care and increased medical errors.6-8 However,
estimates of the prevalence of depression or depressive symptoms vary across studies, from
3% to 60%.9,10 Studies also report conflicting findings about resident depression depending
on specialty, postgraduate year, sex, and other characteristics.4,11-13 A reliable estimate of
depression prevalence during medical training is important for informing efforts to prevent,
treat, and identify causes of depression among residents.14 We conducted a systematic
review and meta-analysis of published studies of depression or depressive symptoms in
graduate medical trainees.

Methods
Author Manuscript

Search Strategy and Study Eligibility

Cross-sectional and longitudinal studies published between January 1963 and September
2015 that reported on the prevalence of depression or depressive symptoms in interns,
resident physicians, or both were identified using EMBASE, ERIC, MEDLINE, and
PsycINFO (independently performed by D.A.M. and M.A.R.); by screening the reference
lists of articles identified; and by correspondence with study investigators using the approach
recommended by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

JAMA. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 May 13.

 Mata et al. Page 3

(PRISMA) guidelines (Figure 1).15 The computer-based searches combined terms related to
Author Manuscript

interns, resident physicians, and study design with those related to depression, without
language restriction (full details of the search strategy are provided in eMethods 1 in the
Supplement). Studies were included if they reported data on resident physicians, were
published in peer-reviewed journals, and used a validated method to assess for depression or
depressive symptoms.16

Data Extraction and Quality Assessment

The following information was independently extracted from each article by 2 trained
investigators (D.A.M. and M.A.R.) using a standardized form: study design, geographic
location, years of survey, specialty, postgraduate level, sample size, average age of
participants, number and percentage of male participants, diagnostic or screening method
used, outcome definition (ie, specific diagnostic criteria or screening instrument cutoff), and
Author Manuscript

reported prevalence of depression or depressive symptoms. The most comprehensive

publication was used when there were several involving the same population of residents. A
modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality of
nonrandomized studies included in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.17 This scale
assesses quality in several domains: sample representativeness and size, comparability
between respondents and nonrespondents, ascertainment of depressive symptoms, and
statistical quality (full details regarding scoring are provided in eMethods 2 in the
Supplement). Studies were judged to be at low risk of bias (≥3 points) or high risk of bias
(<3 points). All discrepancies were resolved by discussion and adjudication of a third
reviewer (S.S.).

Data Synthesis and Analysis

Author Manuscript

Prevalence estimates of depression or depressive symptoms were calculated by pooling the

study-specific estimates using random-effects meta-analysis that accounted for between-
study heterogeneity.18 Binomial proportion confidence intervals for individual studies were
calculated using the Clopper-Pearson method, which allows for asymmetry. When
longitudinal studies reported prevalence estimates made at different time periods within the
year, the overall period prevalence for the time period was used. Between-study
heterogeneity was assessed by standard χ2 tests and the I2 statistic (ie, the percentage of
variability in prevalence estimates due to heterogeneity rather than sampling error, or
chance, with values ≥75% indicating considerable heterogeneity)19,20 and by comparing
results from studies grouped according to prespecified study-level characteristics (study
design, country, year of baseline survey, specialty, postgraduate level, Newcastle-Ottawa
Scale components, age, sex, and diagnostic method) using stratified meta-analysis and meta-
Author Manuscript

regression.21,22 The influence of individual studies on the overall prevalence estimate was
explored by serially excluding each study in a sensitivity analysis. A secondary analysis
restricted to longitudinal studies reporting both preresidency and intraresidency depressive
symptom prevalence estimates was performed to better isolate associations with the
residency experience from associations with assessment tools. Bias secondary to small study
effects was investigated by funnel plot and Egger test.23,24 All analyses were performed
using R version 3.2.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing).25 Statistical tests were 2-
sided and used a significance threshold of P < .05.

JAMA. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 May 13.

 Mata et al. Page 4

Results
Author Manuscript

Study Characteristics
Thirty-one cross-sectional10-13,26-52 and 23 longitudinal4,6-8,53-71 studies involving a total of
17 560 individuals were included in the study (Figure 1, Table 1, and Table 2). Thirty-five
took place in North America, 9 in Asia, 5 in Europe, 4 in South America, and 1 in Africa.
Twenty-eight studies recruited residents from multiple specialties, while 26 recruited
exclusively from single specialties. Thirteen studies included interns only, 36 included both
interns and residents, and 5 included upper-level residents only. The median number of
participants per study was 141 (range, 27-2323). Eleven studies assessed for depressive
symptoms using the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI),72 11 used the Center for
Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D),73 8 used the 2-item Primary Care
Evaluation of Mental Disorders questionnaire (PRIME-MD),74 7 used the 9-item Patient
Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9),75 4 used the Zung Self-rating Depression Scale (SDS),76 3
Author Manuscript

used the Harvard Department of Psychiatry/National Depression Screening Day Scale

(HANDS),77 and 7 used other methods.78-82 Three assessed for depression using structured
interviews.83 The diagnostic criteria and scoring cutoffs used by the studies are summarized
in Table 1. When evaluated by Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment criteria, out of 5
possible points, 3 studies received 5 points, 13 received 4 points, 23 received 3 points, 10
received 2 points, 4 received 1 point, and 1 received 0 points (scores for individual studies
are presented in eTable 1 in the Supplement).

Prevalence of Depression or Depressive Symptoms Among Resident Physicians

Meta-analytic pooling of the prevalence estimates of depression or depressive symptoms
reported by the 54 studies yielded a summary prevalence of 28.8% (4969/17 560 individuals,
Author Manuscript

95% CI, 25.3%-32.5%), with significant evidence of between-study heterogeneity (Q =

1247, P < .001, τ2 = 0.39, I2 = 95.8%) (Figure 2). Sensitivity analysis, in which the meta-
analysis was serially repeated after exclusion of each study, demonstrated that no individual
study affected the overall prevalence estimate by more than 1% (eTable 2 in the
Supplement).

To provide a range of the depression or depressive symptom prevalence estimates identified

by these methodologically diverse studies, estimates were stratified by screening instrument
and cutoff score (Figure 3). Summary prevalence estimates ranged from 20.9% for the
PHQ-9 with cutoff of 10 or more (741/3577 individuals, 95% CI, 17.5%-24.7%, Q = 14.4,
τ2 = 0.04, I2 = 79.2%) to 43.2% for the 2-item PRIME-MD (1349/2891 individuals, 95% CI,
37.6%-49.0%, Q = 45.6, τ2 = 0.09, I2 = 84.6%). The 8 studies using the 2-item PRIME-MD
yielded significantly higher estimates than did the others (Q = 69.0, P < .001). In contrast,
Author Manuscript

there were no significant differences between estimates made using the CES-D, PHQ-9,
HANDS, BDI, or Zung SDS (Q = 8.65, P = .12), suggesting that variation between
instruments did not explain the heterogeneity in the observed depression or depressive
symptom prevalence estimates. A model including only those studies4,7,34,47,48,50,60,66 using
inventories with specificities greater than 88% yielded a prevalence estimate of 20.2%
(1119/5425, 95% CI, 18.0%-22.6%, Q = 22.0, P < .01, τ2 = 0.02, I2 = 68.2%).

JAMA. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 May 13.

 Mata et al. Page 5

Prevalence of Depression or Depressive Symptoms by Study-Level Characteristics

Author Manuscript

Among all 54 studies, the prevalence of depression or depressive symptoms significantly

increased with baseline survey year (slope = 0.5% per calendar-year increase; 95% CI,
0.03%-0.9%; test of moderator, Q = 4.4, P = .04). This association persisted when studies
using the 2-item PRIME-MD were excluded and the analysis was restricted to the 23 studies
using the CES-D, PHQ-9, HANDS, BDI, or Zung SDS presented in Figure 3 (slope = 0.6%
per calendar-year increase; 95% CI, 0.1%-1.2%, P = .02).

Among the full set of studies, no statistically significant differences in prevalence estimates
were noted between cross-sectional vs longitudinal studies (2851/9447, 29.1% [95% CI,
23.9% to 34.9%] vs 2111/8113, 28.4% [95% CI, 24.2% to 33.0%]; test for subgroup
differences, Q = 0.04, P = .85), studies in the United States vs elsewhere (3026/10 883,
26.6% [95% CI, 21.9% to 31.9%] vs 1936/6677, 31.1% [95% CI, 26.0% to 36.7%]; Q = 1.4,
Author Manuscript

P = .23), studies of non-surgical vs both nonsurgical and surgical residents (1570/5841,

28.9% [95% CI, 24.7% to 33.4%] vs 3392/11 719, 28.8% [95% CI, 23.6% to 34.7%]; Q = 0,
P = .98), or studies of only interns vs those of only upper-level residents (1411/5127, 31.9%
[95% CI, 25.4% to 39.1%] vs 211/1061, 26.6% [95% CI, 14.9% to 42.8%]; Q = 0.9, P = .62)
(Figure 4). There were no significant associations between prevalence and mean or median
age (slope = −1.0% per year [95% CI, −2.8% to 0.8%]; Q = 1.2, P = .28) or percentage of
males (slope = 3.4% per percentage increase in males [95% CI, −28.9% to 22.1%]; Q = 0.1,
P = .79).

When evaluated by Newcastle-Ottawa criteria, studies with lower total overall quality scores
yielded higher depression estimates (660/1658, 36.7% [95% CI, 30.2%-43.7%] vs 4302/15
902, 26.1% [95% CI, 22.4%-30.2%]; Q = 7.3, P = .007) (Figure 5). In terms of individual
quality assessment criteria, higher prevalence estimates were found among studies with less
Author Manuscript

representative participant populations (569/1472, 37.7% [95% CI, 32.4%-43.2%] vs 4393/16

088, 26.8% [95% CI, 23.1%-30.9%]; Q = 10.4, P = .001) and less valid assessment methods
(1835/4425, 36.2% [95% CI, 29.9%-43.0%] vs 3127/13 135, 25.7% [95% CI,
22.6%-29.0%]; Q = 8.6, P = .003). No statistically significant differences in prevalence
estimates were noted when studies were stratified by respondent/nonrespondent
comparability criteria (Q = 0.11, P = .75) or by quality of descriptive statistic reporting (Q =
0.23, P = .63).

Heterogeneity Within Screening Instruments

To identify potential sources of heterogeneity independent of assessment modality,
heterogeneity was examined within the studies using common instruments when at least 5
studies were available and at least 2 studies were in each comparator subgroup. Among the 7
Author Manuscript

studies using the CES-D and a cutoff of 16 or greater, heterogeneity was not accounted for
by study design (Q = 0.3, P = .61), baseline survey year (Q = 1.3, P = .25), specialty (Q =
0.2, P = .70), sample size (Q = 2.1, P = .15), age (Q = 0.7, P = .41), or sex (Q = 0.7, P = .41)
(full results are provided in eTable3 in the Supplement). Among the 8 studies using the 2-
item PRIME-MD, heterogeneity was partially explained by study design (cross-sectional
studies yielded higher estimates, 49.8% vs 41.3%; Q = 5.2, P = .02) and respondent/
nonrespondent comparability (studies that established comparability yielded lower

JAMA. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 May 13.

 Mata et al. Page 6

estimates, 39.6% vs 50.4%; Q = 10.3, P = .001) but was not significantly explained by
Author Manuscript

sample size (Q = 0.2, P = .64), sex (Q = 2.7, P = .10), baseline survey year (Q = 0.1, P = .
80), or Newcastle-Ottawa score (Q = 0.2, P = .64). Among 7 studies using the 21-item BDI
with cutoff of 10 or greater, heterogeneity was in part explained by country (United States vs
other, 10.7% vs 44.6%; Q = 30.7, P < .001), baseline survey year (Q = 13.4, P < .001), and
sex (Q = 10.7, P = .001), but not by specialty (Q = 0.3, P = .58), postgraduate year (Q = 0, P
= .99), age (Q = 1.3, P = .26), or respondent/nonrespondent comparability (Q = 0, P = .99).

Secondary Analysis of Longitudinal Studies

In a secondary analysis of 7 longitudinal studies,4,58,59,66-68,70 the temporal relationship
between exposure to residency training and increased depressive symptoms was assessed
(Table 3). Because studies used different assessment instruments, the relative change in
depressive symptoms was calculated for each study individually (ie, follow-up divided by
Author Manuscript

baseline prevalence), and then the relative changes derived from individual studies were
meta-analyzed. Overall, the median absolute increase in depressive symptoms with the onset
of residency training was 15.8% (range, 0.3%-26.3%; relative risk, 4.5).

Assessment of Publication Bias

Although visual inspection of the funnel plot revealed relatively minimal asymmetry
(eFigure in the Supplement), there was evidence of small studies effect (Egger test P = .02),
with smaller studies (<200 participants) reporting more extreme depression prevalence
estimates than larger studies (32.0% [95% CI, 27.1%-37.4%] vs 24.5% [95% CI,
20.0%-29.7%]; Q = 4.2, P = .04) (Figure 5).

Discussion
Author Manuscript

This systematic review and meta-analysis of 54 studies involving 17 560 physicians in

training demonstrated that between 20.9% and 43.2% of trainees screened positive for
depression or depressive symptoms during residency. Because the development of
depression has been linked to a higher risk of future depressive episodes and greater long-
term morbidity, these findings may affect the long-term health of resident doctors.84,85
Depression among residents may also affect patients, given established associations between
physician depression and lower-quality care.6-8 These findings highlight an important issue
in graduate medical education.

In interpreting the results of this meta-analysis, it is important to note that the vast majority
of participants were assessed through self-report inventories that measured depressive
symptoms, rather than gold-standard diagnostic clinical interviews for major depressive
Author Manuscript

disorder. The sensitivity and specificity of these instruments for diagnosing major depressive
disorder vary substantially (eTable 4 in the Supplement).86 Instruments such as the 2-item
PRIME-MD have low specificity (66%, 95% CI, 48%-84%) and should be viewed as
screening tools. In contrast, other commonly used instruments, such as the PHQ-9, have
high sensitivity (88%, 95% CI, 74%-96%) and specificity (88%, 95% CI, 85%-90%) for
diagnosing major depressive disorder and have been shown to be comparable with clinician-
administered assessments. Furthermore, although self-report measures of depressive

JAMA. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 May 13.

 Mata et al. Page 7

symptoms have limitations, there is evidence that among medical trainees the absence of
Author Manuscript

anonymity in formal diagnostic assessments may compromise accurate assessment of

sensitive personal information such as depressive symptoms.87 To reflect the heterogeneity
of the measures included in this meta-analysis, a range of prevalence estimates (ie,
20.9%-43.2%) was reported in addition to a single measure (ie, 28.8%).

This study found an increase in depressive symptoms among residents over time that in part
explained the heterogeneity between studies. This increase, while modest, is notable given
efforts by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education,88 European Working
Time Directive,89 and others90 to limit trainee duty hours and improve work conditions. The
identified trend may reflect the medical community's increased awareness of depression or
developments external to medical education.91 Future studies should explore specific factors
that may explain this trend.
Author Manuscript

A secondary analysis restricted to longitudinal studies found a significant increase in

depressive symptoms among trainees after the start of residency. The median absolute
increase in depressive symptoms among trainees was 15.8% (range, 0.3%-26.3%) within a
year of beginning training. This finding, in combination with evidence that the prevalence of
depressive symptoms is similar across specialties and countries, suggests that the underlying
causes of depressive symptoms are common to the residency experience. Identifying the
factors that negatively affect trainee mental health may help inform the development of
effective interventions for the reduction of depression that would be generalizable to
different countries and specialties.

Variation in study sample size contributed importantly to the observed heterogeneity in the
data. Studies with fewer participants generally yielded more extreme prevalence estimates,
Author Manuscript

suggesting the presence of publication bias. Furthermore, some studies used screening
instruments in nonstandard ways (eg, with cutoff scores that have not been validated). These
variations were captured in part by Newcastle-Ottawa score, which assessed the risk of bias
in each study. Studies with higher risk of bias yielded higher prevalence estimates of
depressive symptoms. Study design (ie, cross-sectional vs longitudinal), country, survey
years, specialty, postgraduate level, age, and sex also contributed to the heterogeneity
between studies.

Limitations should be considered when interpreting the findings of this study. First, a
substantial amount of the heterogeneity among the studies remained unexplained by the
variables examined. Unexamined factors, such as the institutional cultures of specific
residency programs, may contribute to the risk for depressive symptoms among trainees. A
better understanding of program culture and working environments may help elucidate some
Author Manuscript

of the root causes of depressive symptoms. Second, the data were derived from studies that
used different designs and involved different groups of trainees (eg, from different countries,
specialties, and years of training). For example, all but 3 studies used screening tools to
measure depressive symptoms, and the 3 that employed structured interviews used
convenience samples not representative of the resident population at large. Because the
studies were heterogeneous with respect to screening inventories and resident populations,
the prevalence of major depressive disorder could not be precisely determined. However, a

JAMA. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 May 13.

 Mata et al. Page 8

secondary meta-analysis of studies using validated, high-specificity (>88%) inventories

Author Manuscript

involving 5425 participants yielded a prevalence of 20.2%, which may better reflect the true
prevalence of major depression. Third, the analysis relied on aggregated published data. A
multicenter prospective study using a single validated measure of depression and structured
diagnostic interviews in a random subset of participants would provide a more accurate
estimate of the prevalence of depression among physicians in training.

Conclusions
In this systematic review, the summary estimate of the prevalence of depression or
depressive symptoms among resident physicians was 28.8%, ranging from 20.9% to 43.2%
depending on the instrument used, and increased with time. Further research is needed to
identify effective strategies for preventing and treating depression among physicians in
training.
Author Manuscript

Supplementary Material
Refer to Web version on PubMed Central for supplementary material.

Acknowledgments
Funding/Support: This work was supported in part by a US Department of State Fulbright Scholarship (D.A.M.),
National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding (R01MH101459 to S.S.), and NIH Medical Scientist Training Program
funding (TG 2T32GM07205 to M.A.R.).

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The study funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection,
management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and
decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
Author Manuscript

REFERENCES
1. Schneider SE, Phillips WM. Depression and anxiety in medical, surgical, and pediatric interns.
Psychol Rep. 1993; 72(3 pt 2):1145–1146. [PubMed: 8337317]
2. Kessler RC, Berglund P, Demler O, Jin R, Merikangas KR, Walters EE. Lifetime prevalence and
age-of-onset distributions of DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication.
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2005; 62(6):593–602. [PubMed: 15939837]
3. Dyrbye LN, Thomas MR, Shanafelt TD. Systematic review of depression, anxiety, and other
indicators of psychological distress among US and Canadian medical students. Acad Med. 2006;
81(4):354–373. [PubMed: 16565188]
4. Sen S, Kranzler HR, Krystal JH, et al. A prospective cohort study investigating factors associated
with depression during medical internship. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2010; 67(6):557–565. [PubMed:
20368500]
5. Joules N, Williams DM, Thompson AW. Depression in resident physicians: a systematic review.
Author Manuscript

Open J Depress. 2014; 03(03):89–100.

6. West CP, Huschka MM, Novotny PJ, et al. Association of perceived medical errors with resident
distress and empathy: a prospective longitudinal study. JAMA. 2006; 296(9):1071–1078. [PubMed:
16954486]
7. Fahrenkopf AM, Sectish TC, Barger LK, et al. Rates of medication errors among depressed and
burnt out residents: prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2008; 336(7642):488–491. [PubMed: 18258931]
8. West CP, Tan AD, Habermann TM, Sloan JA, Shanafelt TD. Association of resident fatigue and
distress with perceived medical errors. JAMA. 2009; 302(12):1294–1300. [PubMed: 19773564]

JAMA. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 May 13.

 Mata et al. Page 9

9. Buddeberg-Fischer B, Klaghofer R, Buddeberg C. Stress at work and well-being in junior residents

[in German]. Z Psychosom Med Psychother. 2005; 51(2):163–178. [PubMed: 15931600]
Author Manuscript

10. Yousuf A, Ishaque S, Qidwai W. Depression and its associated risk factors in medical and surgical
post graduate trainees at a teaching hospital: a cross sectional survey from a developing country. J
Pak Med Assoc. 2011; 61(10):968–973. [PubMed: 22356028]
11. Hsu K, Marshall V. Prevalence of depression and distress in a large sample of Canadian residents,
interns, and fellows. Am J Psychiatry. 1987; 144(12):1561–1566. [PubMed: 3688279]
12. Kirsling RA, Kochar MS, Chan CH. An evaluation of mood states among first-year residents.
Psychol Rep. 1989; 65(2):355–366. [PubMed: 2798654]
13. Hsieh Y-H, Hsu C-Y, Liu C-Y, Huang T-L. The levels of stress and depression among interns and
clerks in three medical centers in Taiwan: a cross-sectional study. Chang Gung Med J. 2011; 34(3):
278–285. [PubMed: 21733357]
14. Shanafelt TD, Sloan JA, Habermann TM. The well-being of physicians. Am J Med. 2003; 114(6):
513–519. [PubMed: 12727590]
15. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for
systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. Open Med. 2009; 3(3):e123–e130.
Author Manuscript

[PubMed: 21603045]
16. Kerr LK, Kerr LD Jr. Screening tools for depression in primary care: the effects of culture, gender,
and somatic symptoms on the detection of depression. West J Med. 2001; 175(5):349–352.
[PubMed: 11694495]
17. Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of
nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol. 2010; 25(9):603–605. [PubMed:
20652370]
18. Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR. A basic introduction to fixed-effect and
random-effects models for meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods. 2010; 1(2):97–111. [PubMed:
26061376]
19. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002; 21(11):
1539–1558. [PubMed: 12111919]
20. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.
BMJ. 2003; 327(7414):557–560. [PubMed: 12958120]
Author Manuscript

21. Sterne JAC, Jüni P, Schulz KF, Altman DG, Bartlett C, Egger M. Statistical methods for assessing
the influence of study characteristics on treatment effects in ‘meta-epidemiological’ research. Stat
Med. 2002; 21(11):1513–1524. [PubMed: 12111917]
22. van Houwelingen HC, Arends LR, Stijnen T. Advanced methods in meta-analysis: multivariate
approach and meta-regression. Stat Med. 2002; 21(4):589–624. [PubMed: 11836738]
23. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple,
graphical test. BMJ. 1997; 315(7109):629–634. [PubMed: 9310563]
24. Sterne JAC, Egger M. Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis: guidelines on choice of
axis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001; 54(10):1046–1055. [PubMed: 11576817]
25. [November 6, 2015] The R project for statistical computing. http://www.R-project.org/.
26. Waring EM. Emotional illness in psychiatric trainees. Br J Psychiatry. 1974; 125(0):10–11.
[PubMed: 4851848]
27. Valko RJ, Clayton PJ. Depression in the internship. Dis Nerv Syst. 1975; 36(1):26–29. [PubMed:
1109883]
Author Manuscript

28. Steinert Y, Magonet G, Rubin G, Carson K. Emotional well-being of house staff: comparison of
residency training programs. Can Fam Physician. 1991; 37:2130–2138. [PubMed: 21229086]
29. Godenick MT, Musham C, Palesch Y, Hainer BL, Michels PJ. Physical and psychological health of
family practice residents. Fam Med. 1995; 27(10):646–651. [PubMed: 8582557]
30. Hainer BL, Palesch Y. Symptoms of depression in residents: a South Carolina Family Practice
Research Consortium study. Acad Med. 1998; 73(12):1305–1310. [PubMed: 9883209]
31. Raviola G, Machoki M, Mwaikambo E, Good MJD. HIV, disease plague, demoralization and
“burnout”: resident experience of the medical profession in Nairobi, Kenya. Cult Med Psychiatry.
2002; 26(1):55–86. [PubMed: 12088098]

JAMA. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 May 13.

 Mata et al. Page 10

32. Shanafelt TD, Bradley KA, Wipf JE, Back AL. Burnout and self-reported patient care in an
internal medicine residency program. Ann Intern Med. 2002; 136(5):358–367. [PubMed:
Author Manuscript

11874308]
33. Oriel K, Plane MB, Mundt M. Family medicine residents and the impostor phenomenon. Fam
Med. 2004; 36(4):248–252. [PubMed: 15057614]
34. Earle L, Kelly L. Coping strategies, depression, and anxiety among Ontario family medicine
residents. Can Fam Physician. 2005; 51:242–243. [PubMed: 16926935]
35. Becker JL, Milad MP, Klock SC. Burnout, depression, and career satisfaction: cross-sectional
study of obstetrics and gynecology residents. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 195(5):1444–1449.
[PubMed: 17074551]
36. Cruz EP. Burnout syndrome as a risk factor of depression in medical residents. Med Interna Mex.
2006; 22(4):282–286.
37. Yi MS, Luckhaupt SE, Mrus JM, et al. Religion, spirituality, and depressive symptoms in primary
care house officers. Ambul Pediatr. 2006; 6(2):84–90. [PubMed: 16530144]
38. Demir F, Ay P, Erbaş M, Ozdil M, Yaşar E. The prevalence of depression and its associated factors
among resident doctors working in a training hospital in Istanbul [in Turkish]. Turk Psikiyatri
Author Manuscript

Derg. 2007; 18(1):31–37. [PubMed: 17364266]

39. Hasanović M, Herenda S. Post traumatic stress disorder, depression and anxiety among family
medicine residents after 1992-95 war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Psychiatr Danub. 2008; 20(3):
277–285. [PubMed: 18827753]
40. Sakata Y, Wada K, Tsutsumi A, et al. Effort-reward imbalance and depression in Japanese medical
residents. J Occup Health. 2008; 50(6):498–504. [PubMed: 18946190]
41. Sánchez MJB, Islas CLR, Escobar, Rico LES. Symptoms of anxiety and depression in resident
physicians at high risk of stress. Psiquiatr Biol. 2008; 15(5):147–152.
42. Goebert D, Thompson D, Takeshita J, et al. Depressive symptoms in medical students and
residents: a multischool study. Acad Med. 2009; 84(2):236–241. [PubMed: 19174678]
43. Waldman SV, Diez JCL, Arazi HC, Linetzky B, Guinjoan S, Grancelli H. Burnout, perceived
stress, and depression among cardiology residents in Argentina. Acad Psychiatry. 2009; 33(4):
296–301. [PubMed: 19690109]
44. Lam TP, Wong JGWS, Ip MSM, Lam KF, Pang SL. Psychological well-being of interns in Hong
Author Manuscript

Kong: what causes them stress and what helps them. Med Teach. 2010; 32(3):e120–e126.
[PubMed: 20218827]
45. Costa EF, Santana YS, Santos AT, Martins LA, Melo EV, Andrade TM. Depressive symptoms
among medical intern students in a Brazilian public university [in Portuguese]. Rev Assoc Médica
Bras. 2012; 58(1):53–59.
46. Govardhan LM, Pinelli V, Schnatz PF. Burnout, depression and job satisfaction in obstetrics and
gynecology residents. Conn Med. 2012; 76(7):389–395. [PubMed: 23248861]
47. de Oliveira GS Jr, Chang R, Fitzgerald PC, et al. The prevalence of burnout and depression and
their association with adherence to safety and practice standards: a survey of United States
anesthesiology trainees. Anesth Analg. 2013; 117(1):182–193. [PubMed: 23687232]
48. Al-Ghafri G, Al-Sinawi H, Al-Muniri A, et al. Prevalence of depressive symptoms as elicited by
Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) among medical trainees in Oman. Asian J Psychiatr. 2014;
8:59–62. [PubMed: 24655629]
49. Dyrbye LN, West CP, Satele D, et al. Burnout among US medical students, residents, and early
career physicians relative to the general US population. Acad Med. 2014; 89(3):443–451.
Author Manuscript

[PubMed: 24448053]
50. Stoesser K, Cobb NM. Self-treatment and informal treatment for depression among resident
physicians. Fam Med. 2014; 46(10):797–801. [PubMed: 25646832]
51. Al-Maddah EM, Al-Dabal BK, Khalil MS. Prevalence of sleep deprivation and relation with
depressive symptoms among medical residents in King Fahd University Hospital, Saudi Arabia.
Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J. 2015; 15(1):e78–e84. [PubMed: 25685390]
52. Pereira-Lima K, Loureiro SR. Burnout, anxiety, depression, and social skills in medical residents.
Psychol Health Med. 2015; 20(3):353–362. [PubMed: 25030412]

JAMA. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 May 13.

 Mata et al. Page 11

53. Ford CV, Wentz DK. The internship year: a study of sleep, mood states, and psychophysiologic
parameters. South Med J. 1984; 77(11):1435–1442. [PubMed: 6494967]
Author Manuscript

54. Reuben DB. Depressive symptoms in medical house officers: effects of level of training and work
rotation. Arch Intern Med. 1985; 145(2):286–288. [PubMed: 3977488]
55. Revicki DA, Gallery ME, Whitley TW, Allison EJ. Impact of work environment characteristics on
work-related stress and depression in emergency medicine residents: a longitudinal study. J
Community Appl Soc Psychol. 1993; 3(4):273–284.
56. Gopal R, Glasheen JJ, Miyoshi TJ, Prochazka AV. Burnout and internal medicine resident work-
hour restrictions. Arch Intern Med. 2005; 165(22):2595–2600. [PubMed: 16344416]
57. Katz ED, Sharp L, Ferguson E. Depression among emergency medicine residents over an academic
year. Acad Emerg Med. 2006; 13(3):284–287. [PubMed: 16495424]
58. Rosen IM, Gimotty PA, Shea JA, Bellini LM. Evolution of sleep quantity, sleep deprivation, mood
disturbances, empathy, and burnout among interns. Acad Med. 2006; 81(1):82–85. [PubMed:
16377826]
59. Wada K, Sakata Y, Fujino Y, et al. The association of needlestick injury with depressive symptoms
among first-year medical residents in Japan. Ind Health. 2007; 45(6):750–755. [PubMed:
Author Manuscript

18212469]
60. Landrigan CP, Fahrenkopf AM, Lewin D, et al. Effects of the Accreditation Council for Graduate
Medical Education duty hour limits on sleep, work hours, and safety. Pediatrics. 2008; 122(2):
250–258. [PubMed: 18676540]
61. Buddeberg-Fischer B, Stamm M, Buddeberg C, Klaghofer R. Anxiety and depression in residents:
results of a Swiss longitudinal study [in German]. Z Psychosom Med Psychother. 2009; 55(1):37–
50. [PubMed: 19353511]
62. Campbell J, Prochazka AV, Yamashita T, Gopal R. Predictors of persistent burnout in internal
medicine residents: a prospective cohort study. Acad Med. 2010; 85(10):1630–1634. [PubMed:
20881685]
63. Beckman TJ, Reed DA, Shanafelt TD, West CP. Resident physician well-being and assessments of
their knowledge and clinical performance. J Gen Intern Med. 2012; 27(3):325–330. [PubMed:
21948207]
64. Weigl M, Hornung S, Petru R, Glaser J, Angerer P. Depressive symptoms in junior doctors: a
Author Manuscript

follow-up study on work-related determinants. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2012; 85(5):559–
570. [PubMed: 21956449]
65. West CP, Tan AD, Shanafelt TD. Association of resident fatigue and distress with occupational
blood and body fluid exposures and motor vehicle incidents. Mayo Clin Proc. 2012; 87(12):1138–
1144. [PubMed: 23218084]
66. Sen S, Kranzler HR, Didwania AK, et al. Effects of the 2011 duty hour reforms on interns and their
patients: a prospective longitudinal cohort study. JAMA Intern Med. 2013; 173(8):657–662.
[PubMed: 23529201]
67. Velásquez-Pérez L, Colin-Piana R, González-González M. Coping with medical residency:
depression burnout [in Spanish]. Gac Med Mex. 2013; 149(2):183–195. [PubMed: 23652185]
68. Kleim B, Thörn HA, Ehlert U. Positive interpretation bias predicts well-being in medical interns.
Front Psychol. 2014; 5:640. [PubMed: 25009521]
69. Cubero DIG, Fumis RRL, de Sá TH, et al. Burnout in medical oncology fellows: a prospective
multicenter cohort study in Brazilian institutions. J Cancer Educ. published online May 9, 2015
doi: 10.1007/s13187-015-0850-z.
Author Manuscript

70. Ito M, Seo E, Ogawa R, Sanuki M, Maeno T, Maeno T. Can we predict future depression in
residents before the start of clinical training? Med Educ. 2015; 49(2):215–223. [PubMed:
25626752]
71. Jiménez-López JL, Arenas-Osuna J, Angeles-Garay U. Depression, anxiety and suicide risk
symptoms among medical residents over an academic year [in Spanish]. Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro
Soc. 2015; 53(1):20–28. [PubMed: 25680640]
72. Beck AT, Ward CH, Mendelson M, Mock J, Erbaugh J. An inventory for measuring depression.
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1961; 4:561–571. [PubMed: 13688369]

JAMA. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 May 13.

 Mata et al. Page 12

73. Radloff LS. The CES-D scale: a self-report depression scale for research in the general population.
Appl Psychol Meas. 1977; 1(3):385–401.
Author Manuscript

74. Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JB. Validation and utility of a self-report version of PRIME-MD:
the PHQ primary care study. JAMA. 1999; 282(18):1737–1744. [PubMed: 10568646]
75. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB. The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. J
Gen Intern Med. 2001; 16(9):606–613. [PubMed: 11556941]
76. Biggs JT, Wylie LT, Ziegler VE. Validity of the Zung Self-rating Depression Scale. Br J Psychiatry.
1978; 132:381–385. [PubMed: 638392]
77. Baer L, Jacobs DG, Meszler-Reizes J, et al. Development of a brief screening instrument: the
HANDS. Psychother Psychosom. 2000; 69(1):35–41. [PubMed: 10601833]
78. Hamilton M. A rating scale for depression. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1960; 23:56–62.
[PubMed: 14399272]
79. 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):1–15. [PubMed: 4808738]
80. Spielberger, CD. Manual for the State-Trait Personality Inventory (Form Y). Consulting
Psychologists Press; Palo Alto, CA: 1983.
Author Manuscript

81. Wilkinson MJB, Barczak P. Psychiatric screening in general practice: comparison of the general
health questionnaire and the hospital anxiety depression scale. J R Coll Gen Pract. 1988; 38(312):
311–313. [PubMed: 3255827]
82. Brown TA, Chorpita BF, Korotitsch W, Barlow DH. Psychometric properties of the Depression
Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) in clinical samples. Behav Res Ther. 1997; 35(1):79–89. [PubMed:
9009048]
83. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 4th ed..
American Psychiatric Association; Washington, DC: 1994.
84. Clarke DM, Currie KC. Depression, anxiety and their relationship with chronic diseases: a review
of the epidemiology, risk and treatment evidence. Med J Aust. 2009; 190((7)(suppl)):S54–S60.
[PubMed: 19351294]
85. Glassman AH, Shapiro PA. Depression and the course of coronary artery disease. Am J Psychiatry.
1998; 155(1):4–11. [PubMed: 9433332]
86. Williams JW Jr, Pignone M, Ramirez G, Perez Stellato C. Identifying depression in primary care: a
Author Manuscript

literature synthesis of case-finding instruments. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2002; 24(4):225–237.

[PubMed: 12100833]
87. Myers M. On the importance of anonymity in surveying medical student depression. Acad
Psychiatry. 2003; 27(1):19–20. [PubMed: 12824116]
88. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Report of the ACGME Work Group on
Resident Duty Hours. Jun 11.2002
89. [November 6, 2015] Organisation of working time: Council Directive 93/104/EC. http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:31993L0104.
90. [November 6, 2015] Final report on doctor work reform.. Steering Committee on Doctor Work
Hour, Hospital Authority. https://www.ha.org.hk/haho/ho/hesd/
FinalReportonDWR_2009_10_Full_Version.pdf.
91. Daskivich TJ, Jardine DA, Tseng J, et al. Promotion of wellness and mental health awareness
among physicians in training: perspective of a national, multispecialty panel of residents and
fellows. J Grad Med Educ. 2015; 7(1):143–147. [PubMed: 26217450]
Author Manuscript

JAMA. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 May 13.

 Mata et al. Page 13
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Figure 1. Flow Diagram for Identifying Studies on the Prevalence of Depression or Depressive
Symptoms Among Resident Physicians
All studies identified by hand searching reference lists were found in the database search.
For simplicity, this number is not duplicated in the diagram.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

JAMA. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 May 13.

 Mata et al. Page 14
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Figure 2. Meta-analysis of the Prevalence of Depression or Depressive Symptoms Among

Author Manuscript

Resident Physicians
Contributing studies are stratified by screening modality and ordered by increasing sample
size. The area of each square is proportional to the inverse variance of the estimate. The
dotted line marks the overall summary estimate for all studies, 28.8% (4969/17 560
individuals, 95% CI, 25.3%-32.5%, Q = 1247.11, τ2 = 0.39, I2 = 95.8% [95% CI,
95.0%-96.4%], P < .001). (Refer to footnotes of Table 1 and Table 2 for expanded names of
diagnostic instruments.)

JAMA. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 May 13.

 Mata et al. Page 15
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Figure 3. Meta-analyses of the Prevalence of Depressive Symptoms Among Resident Physicians

in Subsets of Studies Stratified by Screening Modality and Cutoff Score
The area of each diamond is proportional to the inverse variance of the estimate. BDI
indicates Beck Depression Inventory; CES-D, Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression
Scale; HANDS, Harvard Department of Psychiatry/National Depression Screening Day
Scale; PHQ-9, 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire; PRIME-MD, 2-item Primary Care
Evaluation of Mental Disorders questionnaire; Zung SDS, Zung Self-rating Depression
Scale.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

JAMA. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 May 13.

 Mata et al. Page 16
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Figure 4. Meta-analyses of the Prevalence of Depression or Depressive Symptoms Among

Resident Physicians Stratified by Study-Level Characteristics
The area of each diamond is proportional to the inverse variance of the estimate.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

JAMA. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 May 13.

 Mata et al. Page 17
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Figure 5. Meta-analyses of the Prevalence of Depression or Depressive Symptoms Among

Resident Physicians Stratified by Newcastle-Ottawa Scale Components and by Total Score
The area of each diamond is proportional to the inverse variance of the estimate.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

JAMA. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 May 13.

 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

Table 1

Selected Characteristics of the 31 Cross-sectional Studies Included in This Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Source Country Survey Years Specialty PGY No. of Participants Age, y Men, No. (%) Diagnostic Method Outcome Definition NOS
Mata et al.

de Oliveira et al,47 United States 2011 Anesthesia 1-4 1384 No. (%) 850 (57.0) HANDS >9 5
2013 ≤30 y:
779
(54.0)

Waldman et al,43 Argentina 2007 Cardiology 3-4 106 Mean 70 (66.0) 21-Item BDI ≥10 3
2009 (SD),
29.1 (2.4)

Hasanović and Bosnia and Herzegovina 2004 Family medicine ≥1 78 Median 12 (15.4) HSCL-25 ≥1.75 3
Herenda,39 2008 (range),
NR
(30-45)

Godenick et al,29 United States 1992 Family medicine 1-4 164 Mean 133 (74.7) 21-Item BDI ≥10 3
1995 (SD),
30.3 (4.6)

Oriel et al,33 2004 United States NR Family medicine 1-4 185 Mean 87 (47.0) 9-Item survey DSM-IV criteria 1
(range),
33
(26-57)

Earle and Kelly,34 Canada 2002 Family medicine ≥1 254 Mean 90 (35.4) PHQ-9 ≥10 4
2005 (SD), 29
(NR)

Hainer and United States 1993-1996 Family medicine 1-3 268 Mean 239 (68.3) 21-Item BDI ≥10 4
Palesch,30 1998 (SD),
30.4 (5.2)

Lam et al,44 2010 Hong Kong 2005 General internship 1 95 Mean 48 (49.5) DASS-21 ≥10 3
(range),

JAMA. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 May 13.

24.4
(23-28)

Sakata et al,40 2008 Japan 2005 General internship 1-2 196 Mean 149 (76) CES-D ≥19 3
(SD),
27.3 (2.9)

Hsieh et al,13 2011 Taiwan 2004-2005 General internship 1 302 NR 216 (71.5) Zung SDS ≥41 2

Costa et al,45 2012 Brazil 2008 Internal medicine 1 84 Mean 45 (53.6) 21-Item BDI ≥10 3
(SD),
24.6 (3.8)

Shanafelt et al,32 United States 2001 Internal medicine 1-3 115 NR 54 (47.0) PRIME-MD Yes to either item 0
2002
Page 18
 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

Source Country Survey Years Specialty PGY No. of Participants Age, y Men, No. (%) Diagnostic Method Outcome Definition NOS

Yi et al,37 2006 United States 2003 Medical and pediatric ≥1 227 Mean 95 (42) CES-D ≥10 3
(SD),
28.7 (3.8)
Mata et al.

Raviola et al,31 Kenya 1997-1999 Medical and surgical 3-4 50 Mean NR Structured interview DSM-IV criteria 2
2002 (SD), 33
(NR)

Valko and United States 1972 Medical and surgical 1 53 NR NR Structured interview DSM-II criteria 2
Clayton,27 1975

Kirsling et al,12 United States 1987-1988 Medical and surgical 1 58 NR 38 (62.3) 21-Item BDI ≥10 3
1989

Cruz EP,36 2006 Mexico NR Medical and surgical 1-6 80 Mean 53 (66.3) Zung SDS ≥41 1
(SD),
27.5 (1.8)

Demir et al,38 2007 Turkey 2004 Medical and surgical ≥1 86 Mean 38 (44.2) 21-Item BDI ≥11 3
(SD),
28.2 (3.2)

Sánchez et al,41 Mexico 2007-2008 Medical and surgical 1-3 90 Mean 49 (54.4) HAM-D ≥8 4
2008 (SD),
28.6 (0.5)

Al Ghafri et al,48 Oman 2011 Medical and surgical 1-4 132 73%<30 y 42 (31.8) PHQ-9 ≥12 3
2014

Al-Maddah et al,51 Saudi Arabia 2012 Medical and surgical 1-5 171 Median 72 (42) 21-Item BDI ≥10 3
2015 (range),
NR
(25-35)

Yousuf et al,10 Pakistan 2008 Medical and surgical ≥1 172 No. (%) 111 (64.5) Zung SDS ≥45 2
2011 <30 y:
104
(70.3)

JAMA. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 May 13.

Steinert et al,28 Canada 1984 Medical and surgical 1-6 255 Mean 182 (71.4) Zung SDS ≥50 4
1991 (range),
27.7
(21-52)

Stoesser and United States 2009 Medical and surgical ≥1 260 Mean 126 (50.2) PHQ-9 ≥10 4
Cobb,50 2014 (range),
30.8
(25-55)

Pereira-Lima and Brazil 2012 Medical and surgical 1-5 305 Mean 159 (52.1) PHQ-4 ≥3 4
Loureiro,52 2015 (SD), 28
(2.5)

Goebert et al,42 United States 2003-2004 Medical and surgical 1-4 532 NR 254 (48) CES-D ≥16 3
2009
Page 19
 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

Source Country Survey Years Specialty PGY No. of Participants Age, y Men, No. (%) Diagnostic Method Outcome Definition NOS

Dyrbye et al,49 United States 2011-2012 Medical and surgical 1-7 1701 Median 824 (48.6) PRIME-MD Yes to either item 3
2014 (range),
31 (NR)
Mata et al.

Hsu and Canada 1984-1985 Medical and surgical ≥1 1785 Mean 1184 (66.3) CES-D ≥16 4
Marshall,11 1987 (SD), 29
(4.2)

Govardhan et al,46 United States 2009 Ob/gyn 1-4 56 Mean 5 (8.8) CES-D >16 3
2012 (SD),
30.1 (3.0)

Becker et al,35 United States 2004 Ob/gyn 1-4 120 Mean 26 (20.8) CES-D ≥16 3
2006 (SD),
29.3 (3.0)

Waring EM,26 1974 United Kingdom NR Psychiatry ≥1 83 NR NR GHQ ≥12 2

Abbreviations: BDI, Beck Depression Inventory; CES-D, Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale;DASS-21, 21-item Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale; DSM, Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders; GHQ, General Health Questionnaire; HADS-D, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; HAM-D, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale; HANDS, Harvard Department of
Psychiatry/National Depression Screening Day Scale; HSCL-25, 25-item Hopkins Symptom Checklist; NOS, Newcastle-Ottawa score; NR, not reported; PGY, postgraduate year; PHQ-9, 9-item Patient
Health Questionnaire; PRIME-MD, 2-item Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders questionnaire; SSTDS, Spielberger State-Trait Depression Scale; Zung SDS, Zung Self-rating Depression Scale.

JAMA. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 May 13.

Page 20
 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

Table 2

Selected Characteristics of the 23 Longitudinal Studies Included in This Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Source Country Survey Years Specialty PGY No. of Participants Age, y Men, No. (%) Diagnostic Method Outcome Definition NOS
Mata et al.

Katz et al,57 2006 United States 2003-2004 Emergency medicine 1-4 31 Median 33 (66.0) CES-D >14 3
(range), 29
(24-49)

Revicki et al,55 United States 1989-1992 Emergency medicine 1-3 1117 Mean 827 (74.0) CES-D >16 4
1993 (SD), 30
(3.6)

Kleim et al,68 2014 Switzerland NR General rotating internship 1 47 Mean 20 (42.5) PHQ-9 ≥5 2
(SD), 24
(2)

Ito et al,70 2015 Japan 2011 General rotating internship 1 1209 Mean a CES-D ≥16 4
(SD), 26 668 (65.5)
(3)

Rosen et al,58 2006 United States 2002-2003 Internal medicine 1 47 NR 28 (48.3) 13-Item BDI ≥8 2

Reuben DB,54 1985 United States 1981-1982 Internal medicine 1-3 68 NR NR CES-D ≥16 1

Campbell et al,62 United States 2003-2008 Internal medicine 1-3 86 Mean 44 (51.1) PRIME-MD Yes to either item 1
2010 (SD), NR
(26-40)

Wada et al,59 2007 Japan 2005-2006 Internal medicine 1 99 Median 71 (71.7) CES-D ≥19 4
(range),
NR
(24-39)

Gopal et al,56 2005 United States 2003-2004 Internal medicine 1-3 121 Median 53 (43.8) PRIME-MD Yes to either item 2
(range),
NR
(26-40)

JAMA. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 May 13.

West et al,6 2006 United States 2003-2006 Internal medicine 1-3 149 No. (%) 94 (51.1) PRIME-MD Yes to either item 2
≤30 y: 129
(70.1)

Beckman et al,63 United States 2009-2010 Internal medicine 1-3 202 ≥24 116 (57.4) PRIME-MD Yes to either item 3
2012

West et al,8 2009 United States 2003-2009 Internal medicine 1-3 239 No. (%) 236 (62.1) PRIME-MD Yes to either item 3
≤30 y: 240
(63.2)

West et al,65 2012 United States 2007-2011 Internal medicine 1-3 278 No. (%) 208 (61.2) PRIME-MD Yes to either item 3
≤30 y: 209
(84.3)
Page 21
 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

Source Country Survey Years Specialty PGY No. of Participants Age, y Men, No. (%) Diagnostic Method Outcome Definition NOS

Ford and Wentz,53 United States NR Medical and surgical 1 27 Median 22 (81.4) Structured interview DSM-III criteria 3
1984 (range), 26
(NR)
Mata et al.

Jiménez-López et Mexico NR Medical and surgical 2 100 Mean 70 (64.8) 13-Item BDI ≥5 2
al,71 2015 (SD), 26.4
(1.8)

Buddeberg-Fischer Switzerland 2001-2007 Medical and surgical 2, 4, 6 390 Mean 176 (45.1) HADS-D ≥8 3
et al,61 2009 (SD), 33
(2.2)

Weigl et al,54 2012 Germany NR Medical and surgical 2-3 415 Mean 218 (52.5) 10-Item SSTDS >24.21 4
(SD), 30.5
(2.7)

Sen et al,4 2010 United States 2007-2009 Medical and surgical 1 740 Mean 337 (45.6) PHQ-9 ≥10 5
(SD), 27.9
(2.8)

Sen et al,66 2013 United States 2009-2011 Medical and surgical 1 2323 Mean 1140 (49.1) PHQ-9 ≥10 5
(SD), 27.6
(2.9)

Cubero et al,69 Brazil 2010-2011 Medical oncology ≥1 50 Median 29 (53.7) 21-Item BDI b 3
(IQR), ≥16
2015
28.4
(27.4-29.7)

Velásquez-Pérez et Mexico 2010-2011 Neurology, neurosurgery, psychiatry 1 43 Mean 26 (60.5) 21-Item BDI ≥10 3
al,67 2013 (range), 25
(24-41)

Fahrenkopf et al,7 United States 2003 Pediatrics 1-3 123 No. (%) 37 (30.1) HANDS ≥9 4
2008 <30 y: 76
(62.0)

Landrigan et al,60 United States 2003-2004 Pediatrics 1-3 209 Mean 64 (30.4) HANDS >9 4

JAMA. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 May 13.

2008 (SD), 29.7
(NR)

Abbreviations: BDI, Beck Depression Inventory; CES-D, Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale; DSM-III, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Third Edition); HADS-D,
Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; HANDS, Harvard Department of Psychiatry/National Depression Screening Day Scale; NOS, Newcastle-Ottawa score; NR, not reported; PGY, postgraduate year;
PHQ-9, 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire; PRIME-MD, 2-item Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders questionnaire; SSTDS, Spielberger State-Trait Depression Scale.
a
Based on a subset of participants.
b
The authors do not explicitly report a cutoff, but the study they cite suggests that it is 16.
Page 22
 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

Table 3

Secondary Analysis of 7 Longitudinal Studies Reporting Prevalence Estimates Both Prior to and During Internship

Baseline Follow-up Comparison

Mata et al.

Source Instrument Cutoff Follow-up No. Depressed Total No. Prevalence, % No. Depressed Total No. Prevalence, % Absolute Relative
(95% CI) (95% CI) Increase, % Increase
(95%CI) Ratio, (95%
CI)
Velásquez- 21-Item BDI ≥10 1y 1 43 2.3 (0.1-12.3) 5 32 15.6 (5.3-32.8) 13.3 (13.2-13.4) 6.7 (6.6-7.0)
Pérez et al,67
2013

Rosen et al,58 13-Item BDI ≥8 1y 2 58 3.4 (0.4-11.9) 14 47 29.8 (17.3-44.9) 26.3 (26.3-26.5) 8.6 (8.6-8.9)
2006

Kleim et al,68 PHQ-9 ≥5 3 mo 12 47 25.5 (13.9-40.4) 20 47 42.6 (28.3-57.8) 17.0 (17.0-17.3) 1.7 (1.7-1.7)
2014

Wada et al,59 CES-D ≥19 1y 16 62 25.8 (15.5-38.5) 12 46 26.1 (14.3-41.1) 0.3 (0.1-0.5) 1.0 (1.0-1.0)
2007

Sen et al,4 2010 PHQ-9 ≥10 1y 29 740 3.9 (2.6-5.6) 190 740 25.7 (22.6-29.0 21.8 (21.8-21.8) 6.6 (6.6-6.6)

Ito et al,70 2015 CES-D ≥16 3 mo 189 1209 15.6 (13.6-17.8) 238 1020 23.3 (20.8-26.1) 7.7 (7.7-7.7) 1.5 (1.5-1.5)

Sen et al,66 PHQ-9 ≥10 1y 86 2323 3.7 (3.0-4.6) 454 2323 19.5 (18.0-21.2) 15.8 (15.8-15.8) 5.3 (5.3-5.3)
2013

Abbreviations: BDI, Beck Depression Inventory; CES-D, Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale; PHQ-9, 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire.

JAMA. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 May 13.

Page 23