Articles
RESEARCH ARTICLE
“Doctor, my back hurts and I cannot sleep.”
Depression in primary care patients: Reasons
for consultation and perceived depression
stigma
Ines HeinzID 1,2*, Sabrina Baldofski1, Katja Beesdo-Baum3,4, Susanne Knappe3,4,
Elisabeth Kohls 1☯
, Christine Rummel-Kluge 1☯
1 Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Medical Faculty, University Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany,
2 German Alliance Against Depression, Leipzig, Germany, 3 Behavioral Epidemiology, Institute of Clinical
Psychology and Psychotherapy, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany, 4 Center for Clinical
Epidemiology and Longitudinal Studies, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
☯ These authors contributed equally to this work. * ines.heinz@medizin.uni-leipzig.de
Abstract
Background
General practitioners (GPs) play a significant role in depression care. Recognition of
depression is crucial for adequate treatment but is impeded by a high portion of depressed
patients only reporting physical symptoms to their GP. Among the many reasons for this
phenomenon is mental health stigma. We investigated how patients with depression differed
from patients without depression regarding the types and number of complaints presented
to their GP, as well as their depression stigma. For the subgroup of patients with depression,
potential associations between perceived depression stigma and number and types of pre-
sented complaints were investigated to see if these might reflect the patient’s intention to
conceal mental health symptoms due to fear of being stigmatized by others. Further, we
investigated if perceived depression stigma is related to depression treatment.
Methods
Data on depressive symptoms (assessed by the Depression Screening Questionnaire;
DSQ), depression stigma (assessed by the Depressions Stigma Scale; DSS), type of com-
plaints reported to the GP and treatment-related factors were collected from 3,563 unse-
lected primary care patients of 253 GPs in a cross-sectional epidemiological study (“VERA
study”) in six different German regions. Data of a total of 3,069 patients was used for analy-
sis on complaints reported to the GP (subsample of the VERA study), and for 2,682 out of
3,069 patients data on a stigma questionnaire was available.
Results
Nearly half of the primary care patients with depression (42.2%) reported only physical com-
plaints to their GP. Compared to patients without a depression diagnosis, patients with
PLOS ONE
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248069 March 5, 2021 1 / 16
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
OPEN ACCESS
Citation: Heinz I, Baldofski S, Beesdo-Baum K,
Knappe S, Kohls E, Rummel-Kluge C (2021)
“Doctor, my back hurts and I cannot sleep.”
Depression in primary care patients: Reasons for
consultation and perceived depression stigma.
PLoS ONE 16(3): e0248069. https://doi.org/
10.1371/journal.pone.0248069
Editor: Kenji Hashimoto, Chiba Daigaku, JAPAN
Received: October 6, 2020
Accepted: February 18, 2021
Published: March 5, 2021
Copyright: © 2021 Heinz et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License, which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original
author and source are credited.
Data Availability Statement: All relevant data are
within the manuscript and its Supporting
Information files.
Funding: Data for this study was obtained through
the VERA Project that was financially supported by
the German Federal Ministry of Health
(Bundesgesundheitsministerium) under the grant
number II A 5- 2513 FSB 011 (grant recipient
KBB). The sponsors had no influence on study
design, data collection and analysis, decision to
publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
depression reported twice as many complaints to their GP with a mean of 2.02 (1.33) vs. 1.2
(0.69), including a more frequent combination of physical and mental symptoms (28.8% vs.
3.5%). Patients with depression showed higher total stigma compared to patients without
depression, Mdn = 48 (IQR 40–54) vs. Mdn = 46.3 (IQR 29–53), due to higher perceived
stigma, Mdn = 27 (IQR 21–32) vs. Mdn = 25.9 (IQR 20–29). Perceived stigma was associ-
ated with male gender (beta -.14, p = .005) and a lack of pharmacological treatment (beta
-.14, p = .021) in patients with a depression diagnosis.
Conclusion
The number of complaints presented to the GP might function as a marker to actively
explore depression in primary care patients, in particular when both physical and mental
symptoms are reported. Perceived depression stigma should also be addressed especially
in male patients. Further research should clarify the role of perceived stigma as a potential
inhibitor of pharmacological treatment of depression in primary care.
Introduction
Depression is among the leading causes for disability-adjusted life years [1]. Effective and evi-
dence-based treatments are available [2], nevertheless more than 50% of patients do not
receive depression-specific treatment [3, 4], or else experience delays to treatment due to a
variety of reasons [5, 6]. Among them are both structural and financial barriers, as well as a
low perceived need for professional help and fear of being stigmatized [5–7].
General practitioners (GPs) play a significant role in the detection, diagnosis, referral and
treatment of depression, which is defined by a high point-prevalence of depressive episodes in
primary care patients of 8–17% [8, 9]. This result was recently confirmed in an epidemiological
study of primary care patients in Germany with a point-prevalence of 14.3%, according to self-
reports [10]. Moreover, the majority of individuals with depression are being treated in pri-
mary care rather than in specialized care, while the treatment of depression according to
guidelines depends heavily on a correct diagnosis (e.g. [4]). Studies in primary care settings
have shown that only every second patient with depression is diagnosed correctly [10].
Several reasons for the false-negative detection of depression are discussed in the literature,
such as heterogeneous depression symptoms, lacking objective laboratory markers, time
restrictions and lacking reimbursements in primary care settings that impede the necessary
exploration and evaluation for a differential diagnosis [10, 11]. Further, studies revealed that
44–69% of patients with depression report only their physical symptoms [12–14]. Other stud-
ies have shown that both a correct GP diagnosis and further adequate treatment rely heavily
on the symptoms reported by the patient during consultation [10, 13, 15, 16]. The detection
rate for individuals that report only physical symptoms is therefore much lower than for those
that report physical and mental symptoms [15].
Different reasons for the association between depression and patients reporting mainly
physical instead of mental complaints have been discussed, among them the stigma associated
with the depression. Depression stigma might result in defense mechanisms such as masking
certain symptoms and emphasizing somatic aspects so as to disguise mental health problems
that may require treatment in anticipation of negative consequences [14, 16, 17].
Stigma is described as a discrediting attribute (e.g. physical attribute, religion, skin color,
mental health disorder) by which the carrier deviates from the expected social norm [18].
PLOS ONE Reasons for consultation and perceived depression stigma in primary care patients
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248069 March 5, 2021 2 / 16
Competing interests: We declare the following
competing interests: CRK received lecture
honoraria from Recordati and Servier outside and
independent of the submitted work. This does not
alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on
sharing data and materials. KBB, SK, EK, SB and IH
have nothing to declare.
Among the leading concepts of stigma is the one developed by Link and colleagues, describing
stigma by use of the following five interrelated components: 1. labeling (creating labels for
social salient attributes), 2. stereotyping (linking those labels to undesirable characteristics), 3.
separating (the labeled, stigmatized group), 4. emotional reaction (of stigmatizers as well as
stigmatized persons influencing their subsequent behavior), and 5. status loss and discrimina-
tion (of stigmatized persons) [19]. Another often cited concept of stigma was developed by
Corrigan [6], who defined stigma with three core components of stereotypes, prejudices and
discrimination, while distinguishing between two types of stigma: Public stigma, which refers
to the (discriminating) reactions of the society towards a stigmatized person or group (e.g.
withholding a job) based on stereotypes (e.g. “Individuals with depression are incompetent.”),
and prejudices (believing in these stereotypes) [6, 20]. When public stigma is internalized by
an individual belonging to the stigmatized group, it may result in self-stigma [6, 21, 22],
thereby lowering the individual’s self-esteem [20, 23]. This process appears to be moderated by
further factors, e.g. if an individual is conscious about the public stigma [24] and in agreement
with public stigmatizing attitudes [20]. Two further related types of stigma have been found in
the literature: Personal stigma, which describes a person’s attitudes toward a mental health dis-
order regardless of whether he/she belongs to the stigmatized group [7, 25, 26], and perceived
stigma, which is related to public stigma and describes an individual’s belief about public atti-
tudes towards a mental health disorder [6, 7, 26–28]. Some authors have used public and per-
ceived stigma synonymously [7, 29]. Beside the different types and concepts of stigma,
different measures exist to assess the various stigma types [19, 21].
Several studies and theories can be found in the literature describing the association between
different stigma types and help-seeking for mental health disorders. Despite mixed results, there
is evidence that different types of stigma can influence different stages of the help-seeking process
(e.g. [7, 30, 31]). Self-stigma appears to be associated with less help-seeking intentions and behav-
iors at an early stage of the help-seeking process. Studies assessing self-stigma via the Self-Stigma
of Seeking Help (SSOSH) scale [31, 32] or by the Internalized Stigma of Mental Illness (ISMI)
scale [33] have also found that being labeled “mentally ill” may pose a potential threat to an indi-
vidual’s self-esteem. Like self-stigma, there is some evidence that personal stigma may also impact
help-seeking at an early stage, e.g. by not appraising symptoms as a mental health problem and a
perceived need for professional help. Schomerus and colleagues [30] assessed personal stigmatiz-
ing attitudes by observing participants’ attitudes of blaming mentally ill people (according to the
Self–Stigma of Mental Illness Scale (SSMIS) [34]), their discrimination of mentally ill people and
the social distance they maintain towards them (Social Distance Scale, [35]). The authors con-
cluded that participants who supported discrimination or blaming a person with a mental illness
showed lower self-identification of having a mental health problem themselves, as well as a lower
perceived need for help. Likewise, Griffith and colleagues reported that within a sample of 2,000
Australian adults, a positive association was found between personal depression stigma, assessed
with the DSS [25, 27], and the belief to deal with depression alone [26].
While personal stigma has been shown to impair early stages of help-seeking, i.e. avoiding
professional help, perceived and public stigma do not appear to have comparable effects on ini-
tial help-seeking [7, 17, 21, 22, 29, 30, 33]. Schomerus and colleagues [22] assessed a person´s
beliefs about public attitudes towards seeking psychiatric help with use of the 17-item ADSP
scale (anticipated discrimination when seeing a psychiatrist), revealing no association between
beliefs and help-seeking intentions. Meanwhile, the authors also found that participant´s per-
sonal attitudes, assessed by their desire for social distance, decreased their help seeking inten-
tions. A systematic review on active help-seeking and mental-health related stigma obtained
similar results: public stigma, mainly assessed with the Perceived Devaluation Discrimination
Scale [36] and its adaptations, was not linked to active help-seeking [7]. Similar results have
PLOS ONE Reasons for consultation and perceived depression stigma in primary care patients
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248069 March 5, 2021 3 / 16
been reported for perceived stigma, which was assessed with the Perceived Devaluation Dis-
crimination Scale, and which was not found to be associated with barriers to depression care
such as a low perceived need, negative treatment expectations or treatment seeking attitudes
and behaviors [29, 33]. However, in these same studies, self-stigma, assessed by the 29-item
Internalized Stigma of Mental Illness (ISMI) scale [37], showed a strong association with barri-
ers to care and treatment seeking attitudes and behaviors respectively.
Some studies have indicated that perceived stigma may also be a relevant factor in later
stages of the help-seeking process by impeding engagement in and maintenance of depression
treatment as well as treatment outcomes [38–40]. However, the full scope of the influence of
perceived stigma remains unknown.
The current study investigates depression stigma in a large sample of primary care patients
in Germany with and without depression (based on self-reports) as well as their reported com-
plaints to the GP (including type and number of complaints). To our knowledge, there are
only two studies available that have investigated whether primary care patients with depression
differed from primary care patients without depression in regard to the number of reported
complaints to their GP [14, 41]. Both studies reported a higher number of physical complaints
reported to the GP by patients with depression with a mean of 4.4 (SD = 4.2) and 4.5 (SD = 2.3) respectively, compared to patients without depression with a mean of 1.2 (SD = 1.9) and 1.8 (SD = 1.3) respectively.
Based on previous literature, we state the following hypotheses:
1. In line with previous findings regarding reported complaints to the GP, we assume that
patients with depression will present more physical than mental complaints, as well as more
symptoms in total, in comparison to patients without depression [14, 41].
2. Patients with depression will not differ in personal depression stigma from patients without
depression, as personal depression stigma has been reported to deter help-seeking at an
early stage (i.e. the wish to deal with the problem alone instead of seeking professional help,
e.g. from a GP [26]).
3. With regard to perceived depression stigma, patients with depression will show higher stigma
scores than patients without depression, as has been found in other studies [25, 41, 42].
4. Further, for the subgroup of patients with depression, we will explore to which degree per-
ceived depression stigma is relevant at this stage of the help seeking process (consulting a
GP). This will be determined through associations between the number and types of
reported complaints for consultation (mental vs. physical), as well as the factors related to
the treatment of depression (type of treatment, help-seeking behaviors and/or referral to
specialized care).
Materials and methods
Sample and procedures
As part of a cross-sectional epidemiological study investigating the diagnosis and treatment of
depression in the primary care setting in Germany (VERA study), 269 randomly selected GPs
of six regions in Germany (Dresden, Leipzig, Frankfurt/ Kassel/ Fulda, München, Berlin,
Hamburg) stratified by location (city, town, rural) were recruited to participate in a survey at
the end of 2013 and the beginning of 2014 (response rate 5.8%). These regions were selected
based on their representativeness for the heterogeneous geographical situation within the fed-
eral territory of Germany. In total, 253 GPs and 3,563 unselected patients (response rate 55.9%
of suitable patients) took part in the survey by completing a GP and a patient questionnaire,
PLOS ONE Reasons for consultation and perceived depression stigma in primary care patients
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248069 March 5, 2021 4 / 16
respectively. The patient questionnaire consisted of a compulsory Part A and a voluntary Part
B. Part A contained the Depression-Screening-Questionnaire (DSQ; [43]) and asked patients
to state the complaints for which they consulted their GP. Meanwhile, Part B contained the
Depression Stigma Scale (DSS; [27, 28]). As illustrated in Fig 1, 64 of the 3,563 unselected
patients were excluded (no patient questionnaire available), resulting in 3,499 patients with
questionnaire data suitable for analysis. Another 132 cases were excluded because there was no
corresponding GP questionnaire. Of the remaining 3,367 patients, 298 cases were excluded
due to missing data in the DSQ items and/or items to assess complaints to consult the GP for
this analysis. Therefore, the final sample in which we analyzed complaints reported when con-
sulting a GP with regard to depression diagnosis consisted of 3,069 patients. Of these patients,
387 cases were excluded due to missing data in the DSS. Depression stigma analysis were
therefore performed for a sub sample of 2,682 patients (see results section). A detailed descrip-
tion of the design of the VERA study can be found elsewhere [4, 10].
Written informed consent was obtained prior to study participation from all participating
GPs and patients. The study was approved by the ethics committee of the Technische Universi-
tät Dresden on 2013.10.07 under the reference number EK 392102013 and according to the
Declaration of Helsinki.
Instruments
Sociodemographic data. Sociodemographic information including age (in years), gender,
marital and occupational status was collected. Marital and occupational status was dichoto-
mized into “single” vs. “not single” and “occupied” vs. “not occupied”, respectively.
Fig 1. Flow chart of sampling process.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248069.g001
PLOS ONE Reasons for consultation and perceived depression stigma in primary care patients
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248069 March 5, 2021 5 / 16
Depression diagnosis. Depressive symptoms were rated by patients according to ICD-10
criteria using the Depression-Screening-Questionnaire (DSQ; [43]). In total, 12 items regard-
ing depressive symptoms during the preceding 2 weeks were rated on a three-point Likert-
scale (0 = “not at all”, 1 = “sometimes”, 2 = “most of the days”). If at least 3 items were
endorsed with “most of the days” and the sum score was higher than 7 (i.e. at least 4 symptoms
were present), the study diagnosis “depression” was coded (according to [44]). Depression
severity was rated as follows: “mild depression” if at least 3 items were indicated for “most of
the days” and the sum score exceeded 7, “moderate depression” if at least 5 symptoms were
indicated for “most of the days” and the score exceeded 11, and “severe depression” if at least 7
symptoms were indicated for “most of the days” and the score exceeded 16 (according to [4]).
Depression severity was dichotomized into “mild” vs. “moderate or severe”. The DSQ demon-
strated good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha of 0.83) as well as high inter-rater reliabil-
ity (kappa = 0.84–0.89) in a German study with primary care patients [45].
Complaints reported to the GP. Patients provided information regarding the complaints
they reported during their consultation with a GP through use of a multiple-choice question-
naire containing seven response categories (physical complaints or illnesses; sleeping prob-
lems; pain; depression or depressiveness or desperation; anxiety problems; other mental health
problems; another reason). Multiple answers were possible. For the category “another reason”,
follow up appointment and referral due to any emergency were given without asking for the
type of complaint. “Physical complaints” were counted if a patient indicated a physical com-
plaint or illness, sleeping problems or pain as the reason they consulted the GP. “Mental com-
plaints” were counted if a patient indicated they sought help from a GP for either depression,
depressiveness or desperation, anxiety problems or other mental health problems. “Physical
and mental complaints” were counted if a patient indicated at least one reason from each of
the aforementioned categories. The items used to assess complaints reported to the GP were
developed by the researchers (psychologists, senior psychiatrists and GPs), as there was no
established instrument available.
Depression treatment and treatment-related factors. Patients who endorsed at least 2
DSQ items with either “sometimes” or “most of the days” were asked to document their cur-
rent and planned future treatment of depression. In addition, GPs provided information for
each patient regarding the type of treatment he/she had received prior to the reference date
(i.e. the day when the questionnaires were completed), as well as any other treatment of
depression. In order to maximize sensitivity in identification, treatments were assumed to be
present if they were mentioned by the patient and/or the GP. Treatment was categorized
according to Trautmann [4] into (1) psychotherapy, (2) antidepressants, (3) other treatment,
and (4) no treatment. According to the National Disease Management Guidelines, Unipolar
Depression, the evidence-based recommendations for diagnosis and treatment of unipolar
depression in Germany [46] with either psychotherapy or antidepressants are indicated to
treat mild to moderate depression, whereas a combination of both is indicated in the case of
severe depression. For a more detailed description of the categorization of treatments, please
refer to Trautmann [4] (supplementary material, eTable 1).
To assess referral to and/or help-seeking from specialized care (i.e. psychiatrist, psychother-
apist, inpatient treatment), patients were asked if their GP had referred them to specialized
care or if they had sought specialist help by themselves due to their depressive symptoms.
Depression stigma. Attitudes towards depression were assessed by the standardized
Depression Stigma Scale (DSS), a commonly used instrument to assess depression stigma in
the general public as well as depressed individuals [27, 28]. The DSS measures perceived and
personal stigma with 18 items which are scored on a five-point Likert Scale ranging from 1 =
“strongly disagree” to 5 = “strongly agree” [28]. Items cover common prejudices including
PLOS ONE Reasons for consultation and perceived depression stigma in primary care patients
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248069 March 5, 2021 6 / 16
depression as weakness of character or personal fault, unpredictability and dangerousness,
shame, avoidance, and discrimination. For nine items the participant indicates to what extent
he/she agrees with a statement reflecting personal depression stigma (e.g. “Depression is a sign
of personal weakness.”). In the remaining nine items, the participant rates what he/she thinks
the broad public believes about these same statements (e.g. “Most people believe that depres-
sion is a sign of personal weakness”), thereby reflecting perceived depression stigma. Higher
sum scores on each subscale (range 9–45) and as a total score (range 18–90) indicate more stig-
matizing attitudes. The DSS has shown high test-retest reliability as well as moderate to high
internal consistency across various countries and in different populations (Cronbach´s alpha
ranging from .70 - .82 for subscales and total scale) [25, 28, 47–49]. We used the German ver-
sion of the DSS [49], which has been translated both forward and back from the original
English DSS in accordance with the guidelines of the World Health Organization [50] by a
native German speaker and a German mental health professional. The DSS factor-structure
depends on language, sample and cultural context and was subject to previous studies [48, 51–
54]. To date, the factor-structure of the German version of the DSS has not been investigated.
Statistical analysis
Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 25.0. A two-tailed α = 0.05 was applied to statistical testing. First, to examine group differences between patients with
and without a depression diagnosis, χ2 tests were used for categorical variables (gender, marital status, occupational status and reported complaints). Bonferroni correction was applied for
post-hoc analysis in case of multiple tests. Group differences for continuous variables were
analyzed using Mann-Whitney U tests, as all continuous outcome variables (age, number of reported complaints per patient, DSS sum score and subscale scores) were non-normally dis-
tributed, as indicated by the Shapiro-Wilks test (all p < .05). Additional exploratory analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) examined group differences in DSS sum scores and subscale
scores, respectively, when adjusting for age, gender and marital status.
Second, in order to examine whether sociodemographic and treatment-related factors pre-
dicted DSS perceived stigma scores (dependent variable) in the subgroup of patients with
depression, a multiple linear regression analysis was applied with the following predictor vari-
ables: age, gender, severity of depression (according to self-report DSQ), number and type of
complaints reported to the GP, help-seeking from specialized care and depression treatment.
Categorical variables with more than two categories (depression severity, complaints and
depression treatment) were recoded into binary dummy variables. The variable “treatment
according to guidelines”, which combines the type of depression treatment and depression
severity, was initially included in the regression analysis but did not become significant. There-
fore, depression severity and treatment were included as separate predictors since their poten-
tial association with perceived stigma is of great practical interest. All predictor variables were
entered simultaneously. The dummy variables for “no treatment” and “reporting only physical
complaints to the GP” had to be excluded from the regression analysis due to multicollinearity.
All effect sizes were interpreted as suggested by Cohen [55], i.e. 0.2 was considered a small
effect, 0.5 a medium, and 0.8 a large effect.
Results
Sample
At the reference date, 430 out of 3,069 patients (14.0%) reported a current depressive episode
according to the ICD-10 criteria, i.e. they received a depression diagnosis based on the DSQ.
Of these patients, 261 (60.7%) reported a mild depressive episode, 114 (26.5%) reported a
PLOS ONE Reasons for consultation and perceived depression stigma in primary care patients
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248069 March 5, 2021 7 / 16
moderate depressive episode and 55 (12.8%) reported a severe depressive episode. Differences
between patients with (n = 430) and without (n = 2,639) depression with regards to sociode- mographic information, depression stigma and complaints reported to the GP are displayed in
Table 1. All analyses of depression stigma were conducted for a reduced sample due to missing
data: 2,357 (76.8%) participants of the total sample (3,069) answered all DSS items without
missing values. For 712 patients with missing values in the subscales, data was computed by
the patient´s subscale mean score for non-missing items if the patient answered at least 7 out
Table 1. Sociodemographic characteristics, depression stigma and complaints reported to the GP in patients with and without depression.
Patients with depression a
(n = 430) Patients without depression
(n = 2,639) Test Effect size
N (%) or M (SD) N (%) or M (SD) Age (years) 50.22 (15.81) 53.9 (17.12) U = 489,994.50 r = .08
p < 0.01 Gender
b
Male 137 (31.9%) 1,061 (40.2%) χ2 (1) = 10.89 φ = .06 Female 293 (68.1%) 1,576 (59.8%) p = .001
Marital status b
Not single 210 (49.8%) 1,561 (60.0%) χ2 (1) = 15.73 φ = .07 Single 212 (50.2%) 1,040 (40.0%) p < .001
Occupational status b
Occupied 254 (60.2%) 1,572 (60.0%) χ2 (1) = .03 φ = .00 Not occupied 168 (39.8%) 1,020 (39.3%) p = .858
Number of reported complaints per patient 2.02 (1.33) 1.2 (0.69) U = 362,665.50 r = .25 p < .001
Type of complaints reported to the GP 430 (14%) 2,639 (86%) χ2 (4) = 449.81 φ = .38 p < .001
Number of patients only stating physical complaints 190 (42.2%) 1560 (59.1%) χ2 (1) = 33.62 φ = .11 p < .001
Number of patients only stating mental complaints 42 (9.8%) 59 (2.2%) χ2 (1) = 65.90 φ = .15 p < .001
Number of patients stating physical and mental
complaints
124 (28.8%) 93 (3.5%) χ2 (1) = 360.57 φ = .34 p < .001
Number of patients stating no complaints 19 (4.4%) 213 (8.1%) χ2 (1) = 7.06 φ = .05 p = .008
Number of patients with other reasons c
55 (28.8%) 714 (27.1%) χ2 (1) = 40.07 φ = .11 p < .001
Depression stigma b Median (IQR) Median (IQR)
DSS sum score 48 (40–54) 46.3 (29–53) U = 420,759.50 r = .00 p = .047
DSS personal stigma 20 (16–24) 20.25 (16.9–25) U = 441,133.00 r = .03 p = .118
DSS perceived stigma 27 (21–32) 25.9(20–29) U = 399,821.50 r = .08 p < .001
N = Number of patients; % = percent calculated for valid cases; M = mean; SD = standard deviation; DSS = Depression Stigma Scale. a
according to DSQ self-report. b
reduced sample size due to missing data, valid percentage are reported. c
follow up appointments and emergency cases
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248069.t001
PLOS ONE Reasons for consultation and perceived depression stigma in primary care patients
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248069 March 5, 2021 8 / 16
of 9 (78%) subscale items according to Dardas [56]. Thus, 325 patients with missing data met
these criteria for data imputation, resulting in a total sample of 2,682 patients with DSS scores.
Patients with depression were significantly younger, more likely to be female, more fre-
quently single (small effects, all p < .01) and reported an average of 2 (vs. 1) complaints to their GP (small effect, p < .001), when compared to patients without depression. Regarding the com- plaints reported to the GP, 190 (42.2%) patients with depression reported physical complaints
only, 42 (9.8%) reported mental complaints only and 124 (28.8%) consulted the GP due to men-
tal and physical complaints. Patients with depression significantly differed in all 3 categories
from patients without depression (small to medium effects, all p < .001, see Table 1). Further, both subsamples differed in perceived depression stigma scores and depression
stigma sum scores, with higher scores in patients with depression (small effect, p < .001 and p = .047). No differences were found for occupational status and personal depression stigma scores (p > .05). Three additional exploratory ANCOVAs with DSS sum scores and subscale scores as outcome variables did not result in changes in the significance of results when includ-
ing age, gender and marital status as covariates.
Results of an exploratory linear regression analysis for the subgroup of patients with depres-
sion are presented in Table 2.
Male gender (p = .005) and less frequent pharmacological treatment (p = .021) predicted higher scores of perceived depression stigma in patients with depression. The other predictors
were unrelated to perceived depression stigma (all p > .05). The overall model fit was R2 = 0.06 (adjusted R2 = 0.03).
Discussion
Almost half of the primary care patients with depression reported mostly physical complaints
to their GP. Compared to patients without depression, patients with depression reported
Table 2. Linear regression for predictors of perceived depression stigma.
DSS perceived stigma score (n = 391a) Variable Unstan-dardized β SE Standar-dized β 95% Confidence Interval (CI) t p Age -.07 .04 -.10 -.141, .010 -1.70 .091
Gender -3.53 1.24 -.14 -5.993, -1.062 -2.81 .005
Depression severity b
-.13 .87 -.01 -1.844, 1.582 -.15 .880
Number of reported complaints to consult the GP 1.27 .71 .14 -.127, 2.667 1.79 .075
Number of patients only reporting mental complaints 1.97 2.09 .05 -2.130, 6.072 .95 .345
Number of patients reporting physical and mental complaints .62 1.92 .02 -3.148, 4.386 .32 .75
Number of patients with different reasons c
2.24 1.95 .06 -1.585, 6.073 1.15 .25
Number of patients reporting no complaints 3.23 3.14 .06 -2.936, 9.393 1.03 .304
Only pharmacological treatment -4.97 2.15 -.14 -9.189, -.747 -2.31 .021
Only psychotherapeutic treatment -3.65 2.02 -.11 -7.617, .314 -1.81 .071
Combination treatment -3.41 1.86 -.12 -7.086, .247 -1.83 .068
Any treatment other than pharmacological or psychotherapeutic -1.64 1.66 -.06 -4.903, 1.625 -.99 .324
Referral to and/or help-seeking from specialised care -.06 1.30 -.01 -2.613, -2.503 -.04 .966
R2 (R2 adjusted) .06 (.03) F 1.94 p = .025
a reduced sample size due to missing data.
b depression severity dichotomized into “mild” vs. “moderate or severe”.
c patients in emergency cases, coming for referral, prescription, or follow-up appointment only.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248069.t002
PLOS ONE Reasons for consultation and perceived depression stigma in primary care patients
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248069 March 5, 2021 9 / 16
significantly more complaints, as well as a more frequent combination of physical and mental
complaints. Patients with depression did not differ from patients without depression regarding
personal depression stigma but showed higher perceived depression stigma and therefore
higher stigma scores in total.
Patients with depression presented significantly less exclusively physical complaints to their
GP than patients without depression. Nevertheless, 40% of patients with depression did not
report any mental health symptoms to their GP. Only 1 out of 10 patients with depression indi-
cated that they consulted their GP due to (only) mental complaints (according to hypotheses
1). In comparison, one third of patients with depression reported a combination of mental and
physical complaints. The large proportion of patients with depression who reported only phys-
ical complaints is aligned with findings of previous studies, including a study of German pri-
mary care patients with depression, wherein 57% of patients reported only somatic symptoms
[13], as well as an international study in which a range of 45–95% of primary care patients
with depression exclusively reported somatic symptoms to their GP [14]. Further, the combi-
nation of different complaints, i.e. mental and physical symptoms, appears to be an important
indicator for depression, as patients without depression reported this combination of symp-
toms significantly less frequently than patients with depression. In addition, depressive
patients reported twice as many complaints in total during their consultation with the GP, in
comparison to patients without depression. Our results thereby provide further evidence for
this phenomenon which has previously been reported by only a handful of studies with com-
parable ratios [14, 41].
The relevance of patients with depression reporting mainly physical symptoms, as well as
their nondisclosure of mental symptoms has been widely discussed in the literature. Contrib-
uting factors to this phenomenon may include: attributing depressive symptoms to somatic
causes [15, 57], believing somatic symptoms to be a core component of depression, a lack of
trust in primary care providers regarding the care of depression, fear of being placed on anti-
depressants, as well as stigma surrounding depression [14, 16, 58, 59].
In our sample, personal depression stigma was comparable between patients with and with-
out depression (according to hypothesis 2). Prior studies investigating path models of help-
seeking concluded that personal stigma may affect help seeking behavior at an early stage, e.g.
recognizing and appraising symptoms, a perceived need for help [7, 30, 60], and the desire to
deal with the problem alone [7, 26, 30]. This implies that the current study may have predomi-
nantly investigated patients with comparably low personal depression stigma, since these
patients may have identified or recognized their symptoms as being related to a mental illness
or else perceived a need for treatment which was followed by the intention and respective
action to seek help, which in our study was the consultation with a GP.
Perceived depression stigma was significantly higher in patients with depression as com-
pared to patients without depression (according to hypothesis 3), which is similar to the results
of previous studies measuring perceived stigma with the corresponding DSS subscale [25, 41,
42] and the Stigma Scale for Receiving Psychological Help (SSRPH) [41]. This suggests that
individuals with depression may experience stigmatization from their community due to their
diagnosis or, in case of first-time help seeking, are more sensitive to such events [22, 25].
It is also conceivable that the choice of primary care setting could have been influenced by
patients´ perceived stigma, as consulting a GP does not provide the same level of branding
someone as mentally ill as is associated with the consultation of other mental health specialists
[6, 17, 21, 61]. On the other hand, accessing a GP in Germany is much easier compared to spe-
cialized care, especially in rural areas where the density of mental health professionals is com-
parably low. Thus, an appointment in primary care can usually be arranged at short notice and
without waiting time. As we did not assess patients´ reasons to choose primary care providers,
PLOS ONE Reasons for consultation and perceived depression stigma in primary care patients
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248069 March 5, 2021 10 / 16
no conclusions on perceived stigma as a potentially influencing factor on the choice of care
provider can be drawn from this study.
Higher scores of perceived stigma were unrelated to the type of complaints reported to the
GP in our study, i.e. fearing negative consequences of a depression diagnosis by others did not
correlate with the reporting of predominantly physical symptoms or the non-disclosure of
mental symptoms in primary care settings. Simon [14] reported that in a sample of primary
care patients with depression, the majority of patients reporting only somatic complaints
(60%) did not deny depressive symptoms when asked. The authors argued that reporting phys-
ical symptoms to a GP might function as an “admission ticket” to primary care, as GPs are not
commonly seen as the appropriate person to talk to about depression symptoms [16, 58, 62,
63]. In this case, perceived stigma plays a minor role with regards to complaints presented to
the GP.
Examining the treatment for depression within our sample, patients with depression and
higher scores of perceived stigma were less frequently treated with psychopharmacological
medication. Our findings match those of previous studies, which reported lower initiation of
pharmacological treatment and lower antidepressant medication adherence for individuals
with depression who reported higher perceived stigma [21, 38, 40], as assessed with the Per-
ceived Devaluation Discrimination Scale [36]. Since the assessment of perceived stigma was
different and given the low percentage of variance explained by the regression model in our
study, conclusions should be drawn with caution if and to what extent the fear of belonging to
a stigmatized group when receiving pharmacological treatment for depression conflicted with
the need for treatment [38]. Nevertheless, this finding is particularly important for patients
with severe depression, as antidepressant medication is typically recommended for this group,
either independently or in combination with psychotherapy.
Findings in the literature have indicated either no consistent gender differences in per-
ceived stigma (e.g. [25, 39], higher perceived stigma in females [25, 42, 47, 56], or higher per-
ceived stigma in males [64]. However, former studies on gender differences have been
heterogenic regarding samples, cultural context and measures used to investigate stigma [64].
As a result, the conclusion of our study that male primary care patients with depression are
more likely to be influenced by public attitudes than female patients requires further research.
Nevertheless, perceived depression stigma may have an effect on medication adherence [40].
Therefore, GPs should pay special attention to male patients so as to address and manage the
anticipated negative effects of treatment.
Perceived stigma is only one type of mental health stigma and help-seeking is a complex
process that is influenced by a variety of different factors, including patient and illness charac-
teristics [25]. Perceived stigma does not appear to prevent primary care patients from consult-
ing a GP, even if we cannot yet draw conclusions on whether a patient associates his/her
complaints with a mental health disorder or with depression. The question of whether per-
ceived stigma influences the types of complaints reported, as well as how many complaints are
reported by patients in primary care settings requires further research. In later steps of the
help-seeking process, perceived stigma may hamper the treatment of depression, in particular
pharmacological treatment and treatment for male patients. This should therefore be
addressed in future studies.
Conclusion
This study provides evidence for the importance of physical complaints reported by patients
with depression in primary care settings, in light of the small number of patients disclosing
mental symptoms. The study further emphasizes the importance of the number of complaints
PLOS ONE Reasons for consultation and perceived depression stigma in primary care patients
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248069 March 5, 2021 11 / 16
reported by patients as a potential marker for a depression. GPs should take note of patients
reporting multiple complaints, particularly if this includes a combination of physical and men-
tal complaints, and consider screening these patients for an underlying depression. Further to
this, we suggest GPs should also address patients´ concerns about public attitudes towards
depression and provide support to overcome them [11], particularly as pharmacological treat-
ment may be influenced by the anticipation of negative consequences [38]. Broad awareness
campaigns should include a focus on primary care settings as appropriate sources for depres-
sion care and individuals should be encouraged to disclose mental symptoms within this set-
ting [16].
Future stigma research should focus on the different types of stigma, as well as the various
stages of the help-seeking process. These studies should also take covariates into account (e.g.
awareness of services, believing in treatment efficacy [31], and believing in a continuum of
symptoms from health to illness [65]), so as to tailor individual interventions according to the
respective stage of an individual’s help-seeking process.
Strengths and limitations
Our study provides further evidence for the importance of the number of complaints primary
care patients with depression report to their GPs. These findings are of great practical rele-
vance, as patients with and without depression differ significantly in how many complaints
they report. To date, there have been only two studies making mention of this phenomenon.
Further, to our knowledge there has been no prior research regarding the association between
the number and the type of complaints reported (physical vs. mental) and their association
with perceived depression stigma. However, this study may also have had a number of limita-
tions. Due to the cross-sectional design of the study, no causal inferences can be drawn. Fur-
ther, as participation in the study was voluntary, a selection bias may have occurred and as a
result, patients with lower stigma may have been overrepresented in our sample. Social desir-
ability bias when answering the DSS might also have been an issue, resulting in an underesti-
mation of depression stigma within our sample. Moreover, the factor structure of the German
version of the DSS has not been replicated and its psychometric properties require further
research. Depression diagnosis was based on self-report assessments with the DSQ, and a
potential bias may have occurred. We did not include GP diagnoses in our analyses, as this
could have significantly reduced our sample size. Further, from a clinical point of view, the
patients’ subjective condition was our main area of interest. Since we did not assess the specific
type of complaints for patients who self-referred to the GP for immediate care (i.e. emergency
case) or for follow-up appointment, a potential bias cannot be ruled out. Finally, when predict-
ing perceived stigma we were not able to control for all potential influencing factors (e.g. men-
tal health literacy) in a systematic way.
Supporting information
S1 Dataset. Study data to reproduce the results.
(XLSX)
Acknowledgments
We thank Melissa-Claire Daugelat of the Technische Universität Dresden for language editing.
We acknowledge support from Leipzig University for Open Access Publishing.
PLOS ONE Reasons for consultation and perceived depression stigma in primary care patients
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248069 March 5, 2021 12 / 16
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: Ines Heinz, Katja Beesdo-Baum, Susanne Knappe, Christine Rummel-
Kluge.
Data curation: Ines Heinz.
Formal analysis: Ines Heinz, Sabrina Baldofski.
Funding acquisition: Katja Beesdo-Baum.
Investigation: Ines Heinz, Katja Beesdo-Baum, Susanne Knappe, Christine Rummel-Kluge.
Methodology: Ines Heinz, Christine Rummel-Kluge.
Project administration: Katja Beesdo-Baum, Susanne Knappe.
Supervision: Elisabeth Kohls, Christine Rummel-Kluge.
Validation: Sabrina Baldofski, Elisabeth Kohls, Christine Rummel-Kluge.
Visualization: Ines Heinz.
Writing – original draft: Ines Heinz.
Writing – review & editing: Ines Heinz, Sabrina Baldofski, Katja Beesdo-Baum, Susanne
Knappe, Elisabeth Kohls, Christine Rummel-Kluge.
References 1. Vos T, Abajobir AA, Abate KH, Abbafati C, Abbas KM, Abd-Allah F, et al. Global, regional, and national
incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 328 diseases and injuries for 195 countries,
1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. The Lancet. 2017;
390:1211–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32154-2 PMID: 28919117
2. Cuijpers P, Sijbrandij M, Koole SL, Andersson G, Beekman AT, Reynolds CF. The efficacy of psycho-
therapy and pharmacotherapy in treating depressive and anxiety disorders: a meta-analysis of direct
comparisons. World Psychiatry. 2013; 12:137–48. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20038 PMID: 23737423
3. Boenisch S, Kocalevent R-D, Matschinger H, Mergl R, Wimmer-Brunauer C, Tauscher M, et al. Who
receives depression-specific treatment? A secondary data-based analysis of outpatient care received
by over 780,000 statutory health-insured individuals diagnosed with depression. Soc Psychiatry Psy-
chiatr Epidemiol. 2012; 47:475–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-011-0355-y PMID: 21350809
4. Trautmann S, Beesdo-Baum K. The Treatment of Depression in Primary Care. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2017;
114:721–8. https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.2017.0721 PMID: 29143731
5. Wang PS, Angermeyer MC, Borges G, Bruffaerts R, Tat Chiu W, Girolamo G de, et al. Delay and failure
in treatment seeking after first onset of mental disorders in the World Health Organization’s World Men-
tal Health Survey Initiative. World Psychiatry. 2007; 6:177–85. PMID: 18188443
6. Corrigan P. How stigma interferes with mental health care. Am Psychol. 2004; 59:614–25. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.7.614 PMID: 15491256
7. Schnyder N, Panczak R, Groth N, Schultze-Lutter F. Association between mental health-related stigma
and active help-seeking: systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Psychiatry. 2017; 210:261–8.
https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.116.189464 PMID: 28153928
8. Schneider F, Kratz S, Bermejo I, Menke R, Mulert C, Hegerl U, et al. Insufficient depression treatment in
outpatient settings. Ger Med Sci. 2004; 2:Doc01. PMID: 19675684
9. Becker N, Abholz H-H. [Prevalence and Detection of Depressive Disorders in German General Practice
—A Systematic Review]. Z Allg Med. 2005; 81:474–81. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2005-872584
10. Beesdo-Baum K, Knappe S, Einsle F, Knothe L, Wieder G, Venz J, et al. [How frequently are depressive
disorders recognized in primary care patients?: A cross-sectional epidemiological study in Germany].
Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2018; 61:52–64. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s00103-017-2662-2 PMID: 29189872
11. Vega WA, Rodriguez MA, Ang A. Addressing stigma of depression in Latino primary care patients. Gen
Hosp Psychiatry. 2010; 32:182–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2009.10.008 PMID:
20302993
PLOS ONE Reasons for consultation and perceived depression stigma in primary care patients
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248069 March 5, 2021 13 / 16
12. Cadoret RJ, Widmer RB, Troughton EP. Somatic complaints. J Affect Disord. 1980; 2:61–70. https://
doi.org/10.1016/0165-0327(80)90022-1 PMID: 6448881
13. Kratz S, Härter M, Bermejo I, Berger M, Schneider F, Gaebel W. [Reason for encounter and diagnosis
of depression in patients in general practice]. Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitatssich. 2003; 97 Suppl 4:50–6.
PMID: 14710668
14. Simon GE, VonKorff M, Piccinelli M, Fullerton C, Ormel J. An international study of the relation between
somatic symptoms and depression. N Engl J Med. 1999; 341:1329–35. https://doi.org/10.1056/
NEJM199910283411801 PMID: 10536124
15. Gates K, Petterson S, Wingrove P, Miller B, Klink K. You can’t treat what you don’t diagnose: An analy-
sis of the recognition of somatic presentations of depression and anxiety in primary care. Fam Syst
Health. 2016; 34:317–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/fsh0000229 PMID: 27598458
16. Bell RA, Franks P, Duberstein PR, Epstein RM, Feldman MD, Fernandez y Garcia E, et al. Suffering in
silence: reasons for not disclosing depression in primary care. Ann Fam Med. 2011; 9:439–46. https://
doi.org/10.1370/afm.1277 PMID: 21911763
17. Clement S, Schauman O, Graham T, Maggioni F, Evans-Lacko S, Bezborodovs N, et al. What is the
impact of mental health-related stigma on help-seeking? A systematic review of quantitative and quali-
tative studies. Psychol Med. 2015; 45:11–27. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291714000129 PMID:
24569086
18. Goffman E. STIGMA: NOTES ON THE MANAGEMENT OF SPOILED IDENTITY. By Erving Goffman.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1963. 147 pp. Social Forces. 1964; 43:127–8. https://doi.
org/10.1093/sf/43.1.127
19. Link BG, Yang LH, Phelan JC, Collins PY. Measuring mental illness stigma. Schizophr Bull. 2004;
30:511–41. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.schbul.a007098 PMID: 15631243
20. Rüsch N, Angermeyer MC, Corrigan PW. Mental illness stigma: concepts, consequences, and initia-
tives to reduce stigma. Eur Psychiatry. 2005; 20:529–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpsy.2005.04.004
PMID: 16171984
21. Campbell DG, Bonner LM, Bolkan CR, Lanto AB, Zivin K, Waltz TJ, et al. Stigma Predicts Treatment
Preferences and Care Engagement Among Veterans Affairs Primary Care Patients with Depression.
Ann Behav Med. 2016; 50:533–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-016-9780-1 PMID: 26935310
22. Schomerus G, Matschinger H, Angermeyer MC. The stigma of psychiatric treatment and help-seeking
intentions for depression. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2009; 259:298–306. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s00406-009-0870-y PMID: 19224105
23. Latalova K, Kamaradova D, Prasko J. Perspectives on perceived stigma and self-stigma in adult male
patients with depression. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2014; 10:1399–405. https://doi.org/10.2147/NDT.
S54081 PMID: 25114531
24. Pinel EC, Bosson JK. Turning Our Attention to Stigma: An Objective Self-Awareness Analysis of Stigma
and Its Consequences. Basic and Applied Social Psychology. 2013; 35:55–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01973533.2012.746593
25. Griffiths KM, Christensen H, Jorm AF. Predictors of depression stigma. BMC Psychiatry. 2008; 8:25.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-244X-8-25 PMID: 18423003
26. Griffiths KM, Crisp DA, Jorm AF, Christensen H. Does stigma predict a belief in dealing with depression
alone? Journal of Affective Disorders. 2011; 132:413–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2011.03.012
PMID: 21440305
27. Griffiths KM, Christensen H, Jorm AF, Evans K, Groves C. Effect of web-based depression literacy and
cognitive-behavioural therapy interventions on stigmatising attitudes to depression: randomised con-
trolled trial. Br J Psychiatry. 2004; 185:342–9. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.185.4.342 PMID: 15458995
28. Griffiths KM, Nakane Y, Christensen H, Yoshioka K, Jorm AF, Nakane H. Stigma in response to mental
disorders: a comparison of Australia and Japan. BMC Psychiatry. 2006; 6:21. https://doi.org/10.1186/
1471-244X-6-21 PMID: 16716231
29. Conner KO, Copeland VC, Grote NK, Koeske G, Rosen D, Reynolds CF, et al. Mental health treatment
seeking among older adults with depression: the impact of stigma and race. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry.
2010; 18:531–43. https://doi.org/10.1097/JGP.0b013e3181cc0366 PMID: 20220602
30. Schomerus G, Stolzenburg S, Freitag S, Speerforck S, Janowitz D, Evans-Lacko S, et al. Stigma as a
barrier to recognizing personal mental illness and seeking help: a prospective study among untreated
persons with mental illness. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2019; 269:469–79. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s00406-018-0896-0 PMID: 29679153
31. Tomczyk S, Schmidt S, Muehlan H, Stolzenburg S, Schomerus G. A Prospective Study on Structural
and Attitudinal Barriers to Professional Help-Seeking for Currently Untreated Mental Health Problems in
PLOS ONE Reasons for consultation and perceived depression stigma in primary care patients
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248069 March 5, 2021 14 / 16
the Community. J Behav Health Serv Res. 2020; 47:54–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11414-019-09662-
8 PMID: 31165415
32. Vogel DL, Wade NG, Haake S. Measuring the self-stigma associated with seeking psychological help.
J. Couns. Psychol. 2006; 53:325–37. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.53.3.325
33. Arnaez JM, Krendl AC, McCormick BP, Chen Z, Chomistek AK. The association of depression stigma
with barriers to seeking mental health care: a cross-sectional analysis. J Ment Health. 2020; 29:182–90.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09638237.2019.1644494 PMID: 31373519
34. Corrigan PW, Watson AC, Barr L. The Self–Stigma of Mental Illness: Implications for Self–Esteem and
Self–Efficacy. J Soc Clin Psychol. 2006; 25:875–84. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2006.25.8.875
35. Link BG, Cullen FT, Frank J, Wozniak JF. The Social Rejection of Former Mental Patients: Understand-
ing Why Labels Matter. Am J Sociol. 1987; 92:1461–500. https://doi.org/10.1086/228672
36. Link BG. Understanding Labeling Effects in the Area of Mental Disorders: An Assessment of the Effects
of Expectations of Rejection. Am Sociol Rev. 1987; 52:96. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095395
37. Ritsher JB, Otilingam PG, Grajales M. Internalized stigma of mental illness: psychometric properties of
a new measure. Psychiatry Res. 2003; 121:31–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2003.08.008
PMID: 14572622
38. Sirey JA, Bruce ML, Alexopoulos GS, Perlick DA, Friedman SJ, Meyers BS. Stigma as a barrier to
recovery: Perceived stigma and patient-rated severity of illness as predictors of antidepressant drug
adherence. Psychiatr Serv. 2001; 52:1615–20. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.52.12.1615 PMID:
11726752
39. Gearing RE, MacKenzie MJ, Ibrahim RW, Brewer KB, Batayneh JS, Schwalbe CSJ. Stigma and mental
health treatment of adolescents with depression in jordan. Community Ment Health J. 2015; 51:111–7.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-014-9756-1 PMID: 25027014
40. Sirey JA, Bruce ML, Alexopoulos GS, Perlick DA, Raue P, Friedman SJ, et al. Perceived stigma as a
predictor of treatment discontinuation in young and older outpatients with depression. Am J Psychiatry.
2001; 158:479–81. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.158.3.479 PMID: 11229992
41. Pyne JM, Kuc EJ, Schroeder PJ, Fortney JC, Edlund M, Sullivan G. Relationship between perceived
stigma and depression severity. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2004; 192:278–83. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.nmd.
0000120886.39886.a3 PMID: 15060401
42. Busby Grant J, Bruce CP, Batterham PJ. Predictors of personal, perceived and self-stigma towards
anxiety and depression. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2016; 25:247–54. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S2045796015000220 PMID: 25791089
43. Wittchen H-U, Perkonigg Axel. DIA-X-Screeningverfahren: Fragebogen DIA-X- ASQ, Screening für
Angststörungen; DIA-X-DSQ, Screening für Depressionen. Frankfurt: Swets & Zeitlinger; 1997.
44. Wittchen H-U. Depression 2000. Eine bundesweite Depressions-Screening-Studie in Allgemeinarzt-
praxen. MMW Fortschr Med. 2000:1–41.
45. Höfler M, Wittchen H-U. Why do primary care doctors diagnose depression when diagnostic criteria are
not met? Int. J. Method. Psychiat. Res. 2000; 9:110–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.85
46. DGPPN, BÄK, KBV, AWMF, AkdÄ, BPtK, et al. S3-Guideline/National Disease Management Guideline.
Unipolar Depression. Unipolar Depression. Berlin, Düsseldorf; 2015.
47. Calear AL, Griffiths KM, Christensen H. Personal and perceived depression stigma in Australian adoles-
cents: magnitude and predictors. J Affect Disord. 2011; 129:104–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2010.
08.019 PMID: 20863571
48. Boerema AM, van Zoonen K, Cuijpers P, Holtmaat CJM, Mokkink LB, Griffiths KM, et al. Psychometric
Properties of the Dutch Depression Stigma Scale (DSS) and Associations with Personal and Perceived
Stigma in a Depressed and Community Sample. PLoS ONE. 2016; 11:e0160740. https://doi.org/10.
1371/journal.pone.0160740 PMID: 27500969
49. Dietrich S, Mergl R, Rummel-Kluge C. Personal and perceived stigmatization of depression: a compari-
son of data from the general population, participants of a depression congress and job placement offi-
cers in Germany. Psychiatry Res. 2014; 220:598–603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2014.06.044
PMID: 25086761
50. World Health Organization. Process of translation and adaptation of instruments. Management of Sub-
stance Abuse. 2014. https://www.who.int/substance_abuse/research_tools/translation/en/. Accessed
13 Nov 2020.
51. Amarasuriya SD, Jorm AF, Reavley NJ, Mackinnon AJ. Stigmatising attitudes of undergraduates
towards their peers with depression: a cross-sectional study in Sri Lanka. BMC Psychiatry. 2015;
15:129. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-015-0523-9 PMID: 26087847
PLOS ONE Reasons for consultation and perceived depression stigma in primary care patients
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248069 March 5, 2021 15 / 16
52. Jorm AF, Wright A. Influences on young people’s stigmatising attitudes towards peers with mental disor-
ders: national survey of young Australians and their parents. Br J Psychiatry. 2008; 192:144–9. https://
doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.107.039404 PMID: 18245033
53. Reavley NJ, Mackinnon AJ, Morgan AJ, Jorm AF. Stigmatising attitudes towards people with mental
disorders: a comparison of Australian health professionals with the general community. Aust N Z J Psy-
chiatry. 2014; 48:433–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004867413500351 PMID: 23943633
54. Yap MBH, Mackinnon A, Reavley N, Jorm AF. The measurement properties of stigmatizing attitudes
towards mental disorders: results from two community surveys. Int. J. Method. Psychiat. Res. 2014;
23:49–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.1433 PMID: 24550065
55. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2 nd
ed. Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum
Associates; 1988.
56. Dardas LA, Silva SG, Smoski MJ, Noonan D, Simmons LA. Personal and Perceived Depression Stigma
among Arab Adolescents: Associations with Depression Severity and Personal Characteristics. Arch
Psychiatr Nurs. 2017; 31:499–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnu.2017.06.005 PMID: 28927515
57. Wittchen H-U, Kessler RC, Beesdo K, Krause P, Höfler M, Hoyer J. Generalized anxiety and depression
in primary care: prevalence, recognition, and management. J Clin Psychiatry. 2002; 63 Suppl 8:24–34.
58. Keller AO, Valdez CR, Schwei RJ, Jacobs EA. Disclosure of Depression in Primary Care: A Qualitative
Study of Women’s Perceptions. Womens Health Issues. 2016; 26:529–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
whi.2016.07.002 PMID: 27531601
59. Kluge M. Dittmann R., Lehmann M., Lindén M., Wehmeier P. M., Lilly Deutschland. Muscular Com-
plaints and Headache are Common Painful Physical Symptoms in Patients With Depression. German
Journal of Psychiatry.2006; 9(1):101–106.
60. Horsfield P, Stolzenburg S, Hahm S, Tomczyk S, Muehlan H, Schmidt S, et al. Self-labeling as having a
mental or physical illness: the effects of stigma and implications for help-seeking. Soc Psychiatry Psy-
chiatr Epidemiol. 2020; 55:907–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-019-01787-7 PMID: 31641830
61. Barney LJ, Griffiths KM, Jorm AF, Christensen H. Stigma about depression and its impact on help-seek-
ing intentions. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2006; 40:51–4. https://doi.org/10.1080/j.1440-1614.2006.01741.x
PMID: 16403038
62. Wrigley S, Jackson H, Judd F, Komiti A. Role of stigma and attitudes toward help-seeking from a gen-
eral practitioner for mental health problems in a rural town. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2005; 39:514–21.
https://doi.org/10.1080/j.1440-1614.2005.01612.x PMID: 15943655
63. Nair P, Bhanu C, Frost R, Buszewicz M, Walters KR. A Systematic Review of Older Adults’ Attitudes
Towards Depression and Its Treatment. Gerontologist. 2020; 60: e93–e104. https://doi.org/10.1093/
geront/gnz048 PMID: 31115449
64. Peluso EdTP Blay SL. Public stigma in relation to individuals with depression. Journal of Affective Disor-
ders. 2009; 115:201–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2008.08.013 PMID: 18842306
65. Angermeyer MC, Millier A, Rémuzat C, Refaï T, Schomerus G, Toumi M. Continuum beliefs and atti- tudes towards people with mental illness: Results from a national survey in France. Int J Soc Psychiatry.
2015; 61:297–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020764014543312 PMID: 25061023
PLOS ONE Reasons for consultation and perceived depression stigma in primary care patients
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248069 March 5, 2021 16 / 16
Copyright of PLoS ONE is the property of Public Library of Science and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.