www.nature.

com/scientificreports

OPEN The association between different

domains of quality of life and
symptoms in primary care patients
Received: 12 April 2018
Accepted: 22 June 2018 with emotional disorders
Published: xx xx xxxx
César González-Blanch1,2, Fernando Hernández-de-Hita1, Roger Muñoz-Navarro 3
,
Paloma Ruíz-Rodríguez4, Leonardo Adrián Medrano5 & Antonio Cano-Vindel 6
Despite the importance of quality of life (QoL) in primary care patients with emotional disorders, the
specific influence of the symptoms of these disorders and the sociodemographic characteristics of
patients on the various QoL domains has received scant attention. The aim of the present study of
primary care patients with emotional disorders was to analyse the associations between four different
QoL domains and the most prevalent clinical symptoms (i.e., depression, anxiety and somatization),
while controlling for sociodemographic variables. A total of 1241 participants from 28 primary care
centres in Spain were assessed with the following instruments: the Patient Health Questionnaire
(PHQ)-9 to evaluate depression; the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD)-7 for anxiety; PHQ-15
for somatization; and the World Health Organization Quality of Life Instrument-Short Form (WHOQOL-
Bref) to assess four broad QoL domains: physical health, psychological health, social relationships,
and environment. The associations between the symptoms and QoL domains were examined using
hierarchical regression analyses. Adjusted QoL mean values as a function of the number of overlapping
diagnoses were calculated. The contribution of sociodemographic variables to most QoL domains was
modest, explaining anywhere from 2% to 11% of the variance. However, adding the clinical variables
increased the variance explained by 12% to 40% depending on the specific QoL domain. Depression was
the strongest predictor for all domains. The number of overlapping diagnoses adversely affected all QoL
domains, with each additional diagnosis reducing the main QoL subscales by 5 to 10 points. In primary
care patients with a diagnostic impression of an emotional disorders as identified by their treating GP,
clinical symptoms explained more of the variance in QoL than sociodemographic factors such as age,
sex, level of education, marital status, work status, and income. Given the strong relationship between
depressive symptoms and QoL, treatment of depression may constitute a key therapeutic target to
improve QoL in people with emotional disorders in primary care.

The WHO defines quality of life (QoL) as an individual’s perception of their position in life embedded in a cul-
tural, social, and environmental context1. The concept of QoL is broad and is composed of numerous domains,
including the physical, psychological, social, family and environmental domains. Evaluation of these domains can
reveal the overall impact of illness on a patient’s life. Importantly, QoL has been shown to contribute more to an
individual’s perception of their wellbeing, health, and life satisfaction than objective measures of life conditions2.
In the last three decades, there has been an exponential rise in the number of studies performed to investigate
QoL in nearly all areas of medicine3. This growing interest has been especially notable in the fields of psychiatry
and psychology to assess the role of QoL in mental disorders. Studies have been conducted to assess the impact of
QoL in schizophrenia4,5, depression6 and anxiety disorders7, for general health8 and to determine the role of QoL

1
Mental Health Centre, University Hospital “Marqués de Valdecilla”- IDIVAL, Santander, Spain. 2Faculty of Health
Sciences, Universidad Europea del Atlántico, Santander, Spain. 3Department of Basic Psychology, Faculty of
Psychology, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain. 4Castilla La Nueva Primary Care Centre, Health Service of Madrid,
Madrid, Spain. 5Faculty of Psychology, University Siglo 21, Córdoba, Argentina. 6Department of Basic Psychology,
Faculty of Psychology, University Complutense of Madrid, Madrid, Spain. Correspondence and requests for materials
should be addressed to C.G.-B. (email: [email protected])

SCIENtIFIC RePorts | (2018) 8:11180 | DOI:10.1038/s41598-018-28995-6 1

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

for mental health services recommendations9. In parallel, mental health services have shifted away from focus-
ing on symptom reduction towards a more holistic approach encompassing other factors such as wellbeing and
functioning. This shift has occurred largely due to the publication of studies on the impact of mental disorders
in QoL. For example, QoL has shown to be a better predictor of sustained remission than symptom resolution in
depression, leading some authors to suggest that QoL should be the ultimate goal of treatment in these patients10.
Studies have shown that QoL is associated with the psychopathology severity11, and QoL is known to worsen
as a function of the number of comorbid mental disorders12,13. Common mental disorders in primary care such
as mood, anxiety, and somatoform disorders are associated with a greater decline in QoL than medical disorders
such as diabetes or heart disease14–16.
Previous studies have described the relationship between various QoL domains and a range of sociodemo-
graphic factors, including age, gender, occupation, income, marital status, and educational level17–22. However,
most of those studies were conducted in elderly populations or in patients with severe medical conditions such as
cancer, rheumatological diseases, or kidney conditions. Moreover, those studies have reported conflicting results,
probably due to the heterogeneity of the populations assessed. Although QoL correlates closely with severe men-
tal illness, particularly schizophrenia23–26, in people with common mental disorders, the impact of symptoms or
sociodemographic characteristics on QoL is not well-understood.
In order to promote the health and wellbeing of patients with common mental disorders, it is crucial to under-
stand how the various sociodemographic factors and specific symptoms effect the various QoL domains. For
example, it would be highly beneficial to known whether specific clinical symptoms have a unique contribu-
tion— beyond the influence of sociodemographic variables—to specific QoL domains, as such information could
have far-reaching clinical implications with regard to assessment and treatment of common mental disorders
in primary care. Indeed, this would provide a compelling reason to ensure that primary care services should be
modified so as to greatly augment the provision of the effective treatments, according to clinical guidelines, as
soon as possible.
Emotional disorders —which in this study include depressive, anxiety, and somatoform disorders— are highly
prevalent in primary care patients. Although the prevalence of emotional disorders can vary substantially between
studies even when the same diagnostic instrument is used, one of the largest epidemiological studies of mental
disorders in primary care performed in a European country found that the three most prevalent emotional dis-
orders in Spain were mood (35.8%), anxiety (25.6%), and somatoform (28.8%) disorders27. In general population
studies, prevalence rates for these disorders are lower, but still substantial28. Given that approximately one-third
of primary care visits are due to explicit psychological problems such as full-blown depressive syndrome, anxiety,
or somatoform disorder29, and that up to 90% of people diagnosed with common mental disorders are treated by
a general practitioner (GP)30, it is clear that this is the ideal population to carry out such research. Moreover, PC
consultations in most European countries last only a mean of 10 minutes, and even less in some countries (e.g.,
Spain and Germany) where, due to high caseloads, consultation times can be as low as 7–8 minutes31.
In this context, the present study had two primary aims. The first aim was to determine the levels of QoL
associated with emotional disorders in primary care patients. The second aim was to analyse the associations
between several different QoL domains and the most prevalent clinical symptoms (i.e., depression, anxiety, and
somatization) after controlling for sociodemographic variables. We hypothesized that (1) QoL —even in primary
care patients exhibiting clinically-significant symptoms of emotional disorders but without fulfilling diagnostic
criteria— would be substantially impaired, and would worsen significantly as a function of the number of diagno-
ses they met, and (2) that QoL would show domain-specific associations with clinical symptoms.

Materials and Methods

Participants. We analysed data from 1241 individuals participating in the ongoing Psychology in Primary
Care (PsicAP) study conducted at 28 primary care centres located in eight regions in Spain (Madrid, Valencia,
Basque Country, Castilla La Mancha, Balearic Islands, Cantabria, Navarre, and Galicia). The PsicAP was designed
to test the efficacy of psychological treatments for emotional disorders in primary care through a randomized
controlled trial see32. We included all consecutive eligible 18- to 65-year-old patients who, in the opinion of the
treating GP, were considered to have some type of emotional distress (i.e., anxiety, depression or somatization).
All individuals who agreed to participate in the PsicAP study were randomized between January 2014 and May
2017. The GPs were advised to exclude patients who they believed should be referred to specialized care (i.e.,
those with severe mental disorders such as psychosis, eating or personality disorders, substance abuse, or depend-
ence disorders). Patients with insufficient Spanish language skills or an intellectual disability were also excluded.
The study procedure was as follows. First, the treating GP reached an an initial diagnostic impression based on
th e usual procedures (mainly clinical interview). Next, the participating GPs invited patients to participate in
a clinical trial at the centre, and provided them with an Information Sheet containing details about the study,
together with an informed consent form for them to sign if they wished to participate. All participants that agreed
to participate and signed the informed consent form were then scheduled to meet with a clinical psychologist
within the next three weeks. Then, participants completed all self-report measures using computerized versions
of these instruments. In this study, only pretreatment data were used before patients were randomized. The ethics
committees at each centre, the National Ethics Committee, and the Spanish Agency of Medicines and Medical
Devices (AEMPS) all approved the study protocol (code: ISRCTN58437086). All participants provided written
informed consent. All procedures were performed in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations.

Measures. Depression. Depression was assessed with the nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)
depression module (PHQ-9)33,34. The PHQ-9 is a specific screening test for depression. Each item corresponds to
the nine DSM-IV criteria for the diagnosis of major depressive disorder (MDD), which considers symptoms expe-
rienced during the two weeks prior to the test administration. Each item is scored on a Likert scale from 0 to 3

SCIENtIFIC RePorts | (2018) 8:11180 | DOI:10.1038/s41598-018-28995-6 2

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

(0 = not at all; 1 = several days; 2 = more than half of the days; 3 = almost every day), thus the total scores can
range from 0 to 27 points. For a diagnosis of MDD, the patient must score 2 or 3 points on at least one of the two
first symptoms and 2 or 3 points on at least 5 of the 9 items. The diagnostic algorithm of the Spanish version of the
PHQ-9 has acceptable sensitivity (0.88) and specificity (0.80) in primary care centres in Spain35. In this study, the
PHQ-9 had a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.87, indicating good internal consistency.

Anxiety. Anxiety was assessed with the seven-item PHQ Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD-7)36,37. The
GAD-7 consists of 7 items that assess the presence of anxiety symptoms in the last two weeks through a four-point
(scored from 0 to 3) Likert scale according to the frequency of symptoms in that time period (0 = not at all:
1 = several days; 2 = more than half of the days; 3 = almost every day), with a maximum score of 21 points. The
most widely used cut-off score for a diagnosis of GAD is 10, with a sensitivity of 0.87 and a specificity of 0.78 in
a Spanish primary care population38. In this study, the GAD-7 had a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.87, indicating good
internal consistency.

Somatization. Somatic symptom severity was assessed with the 15-item PHQ somatic symptom severity scale
(PHQ-15)39,40. The PHQ-15 is a screening test for somatization disorder and includes 14 of the 15 most prevalent
DSM-IV somatic symptoms of somatization disorder. In the Spanish version, patients are asked to rate the sever-
ity of 13 somatic symptoms over the last four weeks, scored from 0 to 2 as follows: 0 (not bothered), 1 (bothered a
little), or 2 (bothered a lot). Two additional somatic symptoms from the PHQ-9 (fatigue and sleep complaints) are
scored according to frequency as follows: 0 points (“not at all”), 1 (“several days”), or 2 (“more than half the days”
or “nearly every day”). The total PHQ-15 score ranges from 0 to 30. A diagnosis of somatoform disorder requires
a score of 2 (without a biological explanation) on at least three of the first 13 symptoms based on a cut-off point
of 10. Based on these criteria, the PHQ-15 has a sensitivity of 0.78 and specificity of 0.7141. The PHQ-15 had a
Cronbach’s alpha of 0.80 in the present study, indicating good internal consistency.

Quality of Life (QoL). The World Health Organization Quality of Life Instrument-Short Form (WHOQOL-Bref)
was used to assess QoL1. The WHOQOL-Bref is an abbreviated version of the WHOQOL-100 (WHO, 1998). This
brief version of the scale consists of 26 questions, with response options on a five-point scale. The first two ques-
tions are general, and the remaining 24 represent each of the four main domains (physical, psychological, social
relations and environment). Each sub-scale is scored positively and then normalised for comparability with the
WHOQoL-100. We also used the first question of the WHOQOL-Bref, which assesses overall QoL on scale of 0
to 4. Higher scores correspond to a higher QoL. The validation study of the WHOQOL-Bref in Spain, including
data from primary care centres, yielded positive evidence for acceptability, internal consistency, and convergent
and discriminant validity42.

Data analyses. Descriptive statistics were calculated for the sample’s socio-demographic, clinical, and QoL
profiles. Categorical variables are presented as percentages and continuous variables as means (± standard devi-
ation [SD]) or medians (interquartile range [IQR]). Assumptions of normal distribution were explored with the
Kolmogorov–Smirnov test and visual inspections of the histograms. We used the Pearson or Spearman correla-
tion coefficients, as appropriate, to examine the relationships between variables.
A series of hierarchical multiple linear regression analyses were conducted to determine the impact of clinical
symptoms (i.e., anxiety, depression and somatizations) on QoL. In these models, sociodemographic data (age, sex,
education, marital status, employment status, and income) were entered in Step 1 and clinical symptoms were
entered jointly in Step 2. Dummy variables were created for the independent variables with a nominal or ordinal
level of measurement. To address the skewed data distributions, we carried out a bootstrapping analysis in our
regression models by calculating bias-corrected and accelerated (BCa) confidence intervals (CI) with 1,000 rep-
lications. Bootstrapping is a nonparametric procedure that provides reliable measures of statistical significance,
even when data do not follow a standard parametric distribution43. The values of the samples are used to estimate
the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the parameter. An effect is considered significant when the BCa CI does not
include a zero. Tolerance and variance inflation factor (VIF) were used to check for multicollinearity. Tolerance
values of less than 0.10 and VIF values greater than 10 typically indicate multicollinearity issues44.
MANCOVA was used to examine differences between QoL domains in four categories as a function of the
number of overlapping diagnoses (0, 1, 2, and 3 mental disorder diagnoses: MDD, GAD, and/or somatoform
disorder). We used the diagnostic algorithms and cut-off scores of the PHQ-9, GAD-7, and PHQ-15, respectively,
to establish the diagnosis of MDD, GAD and somatoform disorders. Sociodemographic variables were entered as
covariates, and adjusted means scores were reported. All statistical analyses were two-tailed, and, because multi-
ple comparisons were performed, the alpha level was set at 0.01. All analyses were carried out using SPSS 20 for
Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois).

Data Availability. The datasets analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding
author on reasonable request.

Results
Sample description. The mean age of the 1241 primary care patients was 43.2 years (SD, 12.1). Most
patients were female (77%) and married (61.2%). Most (48%) had a middle or high school educational level.
Just over half (51%) were employed and 42% earned less than 12,000 €/year (see Table 1). The mean values for
the PHQ-9, GAD-7 and PHQ-15 ranged from 10–14 points, indicating moderate symptom intensity based on
the cut-off points45. The diagnostic overlap of these three disorders, based on their respective scale algorithms, is

SCIENtIFIC RePorts | (2018) 8:11180 | DOI:10.1038/s41598-018-28995-6 3

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

N %
Sex
Female 956 77
Male 285 23
Age (mean ± SD) 43.2 12.1
Age group
18–25 118 9.5
26–35 241 19.4
36–50 482 38.8
51–65 400 32.2
Marital status
Single 255 20.5
Married 760 61.2
Divorced 192 15.5
Widowed 34 2.7
Education
Primary 351 28.3
Secondary 589 47.5
University 301 24.3
Employment status
Employed 634 51.1
Unemployed 440 35.5
Medical leave 102 8.2
Retired 65 5.2
Income
<12000€ 524 42.2
12000–24000€ 491 39.6
24000–36000€ 157 12.7
>36000€ 69 5.6
Clinical variablesa (mean ± SD)
Depression (scale 0 to 27) 13.6 6.5
Anxiety (scale 0 to 21) 11.7 5.2
Somatization (scale 0 to 30) 14.2 6.0

Table 1. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of the participants (n = 1241). aDepression, anxiety and
somatization intensity as measured by the PHQ-9, GAD-7 and PHQ-15, respectively.

shown in Fig. 1. The mean and median values for each domain on the WHOQOL-Bref scale are shown in Table 2.
Half of the patients scored ≤50 on the main domains of the WHOQOL-Bref.

Association between sociodemographic variables and QoL. The contribution of sociodemographic

variables to most QoL domains was modest, explaining anywhere from 2% to 11% of the variance, depending
on the specific variable. Gender was a significant variable only in the psychological domain model. Age contrib-
uted significantly to both the psychological and social domains. Education was a significant variable only for the
environmental domain. Employment was significant on both the psychological and physical domains. Annual
income contributed to the environmental domain, and was the only sociodemographic variable included in the
overall QoL score.

Association between clinical symptoms and QoL. On the univariate analysis, depression (measured
by PHQ-9), anxiety (GAD-7), and somatizations (PHQ-15) were all highly correlated with QoL domains. The
magnitude of the effect size (r values) for the relationship between depression intensity and QoL domains ranged
from 0.38 to 0.67, depending on the specific domain. The effect sizes for the association between anxiety intensity
and QoL domains ranged from 0.24 to 0.51. The correlation between somatization intensity and QoL dimensions
ranged from 0.20 to 0.56 (see Table S1).
To determine the extent to which clinical symptoms were independently related to the various QoL domains,
we conducted a series of separate hierarchical multiple linear regression analyses for each outcome variable.
Sociodemographic variables (i.e., age, sex, education, employment status, and income) were entered in the first
step, and the clinical variables (i.e., PHQ-9 depression, GAD-7 anxiety, and PHQ-15 somatizations) were entered
in the second step. As indicated above, multicollinearity was assessed by examining the tolerance and VIF statis-
tics for each variable within a regression model. The Tolerance values ranged from 0.38 to 0.91 and the VIF values
ranged from 1.10 to 2.66, thus suggesting that multicollinearity had no significant impact on any of the variables
in the analyses. Table 3 shows the results of the regression models on the overall QoL score and for each QoL

SCIENtIFIC RePorts | (2018) 8:11180 | DOI:10.1038/s41598-018-28995-6 4

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Somatoform disorder Depression disorder

(PHQ-15) (PHQ-9)

14.8% 5.2 % 1.0%

39.2%

16.3% 2.6%

5.2% Anxiety disorder

(GAD-7)

Figure 1. The overlap of major depression, generalized anxiety and somatoform disorders (based on algorithms
from the PHQ-9, GAD-7 and PHQ-15, respectively). Values indicate the percentage of the total sample (n = 1241).

Mean SD Median Range

QoL
Overall 2.9 0.9 3 2–3
Psychological domain 54.2 17.2 56 44–63
Physical health 44.8 17.4 44 31–56
Social relationships 50.0 20.7 50 31–69
Environment 56.1 14.8 56 44–69

Table 2. QoL (as measured with the WHOQOL-Bref). WHOQOL-Bref, World Health Organization Quality of
Life. Instrument-Short Form; SD, standard deviation.

domain. The sociodemographic variables had only a weak influence in the models, whereas the addition of clin-
ical variables significantly increased the variance explained in each model, particularly on the psychological and
physical domains of QoL (Δ R2 values of 0.35 and 0.40, respectively), in which all clinical symptoms contributed
independently. Depression intensity was the best predictor on all QoL domains, indicating, as expected, that more
severe depression was associated with poorer QoL.

Impact of the number of mental disorders on QoL. We also tested whether there were differences
in the QoL domains as a function of the number of mental disorders. Pillai’s trace statistic showed a significant
effect for the number of diagnoses on the QoL domains, V = 0.37, F(15, 3675) = 34.84, p < 0.001, multivariate
ηp² = 0.13, which can be interpreted as a medium to large effect. Figure 2 illustrates the negative, proportional
effect of the number of mental disorder diagnoses on QoL domains: on average, each additional diagnosis
reduced the score on each of the main QoL subscales by 5 to 10 points (see Table S2).

Discussion
The present study was conducted in a large sample (n = 1241) of primary care patients with a diagnostic impres-
sion of depression, anxiety, or somatization not requiring referral to specialized care. The intensity of these mental
disorders was significantly associated with QoL domains. More specifically, the symptoms of all three disorders
were independently associated with the psychological and physical domains of QoL while only depression inten-
sity was significantly associated with the social relations domain. Moreover, clinical symptoms explained a far
greater percentage of variance than any of the sociodemographic variables (age, sex, education, marital status,
work status, and income). Of all the sociodemographic variables and clinical symptoms assessed, depression was
the best predictor of QoL. Diagnostic overlap, which was common in this sample, contributed to a further wors-
ening on all QoL facets assessed in the study.
Our data show that even the patients in our sample who did not meet the diagnostic criteria for a mental dis-
order, had worse QoL scores than normal populations (as reported in the WHOQOL-Bref in preliminary popula-
tion norms46 and compared to data from a meta-analysis adjusted to the country’s Human Development Index47.
Moreover, in patients with at least one mental disorder, QoL was more than one standard deviation lower than
the general population, and QoL decreased by 5–10 points (WHOQoL-Bref scale) for each additional disorder.

SCIENtIFIC RePorts | (2018) 8:11180 | DOI:10.1038/s41598-018-28995-6 5

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Overall QoL Psychological Physical Social relations Environmental

Predictors β β β β β
Sex −0.02 −0.07** 0.05 −0.03 0.01
Age −0.05 −0.10** 0.03 −0.11** 0.06
Marital status (ref: single)
married 0.02 0.01 0.07 0.10 0.03
divorced 0.03 −0.01 0.02 0.04 −0.05
widowed 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.04 0.07
Education (ref: lowest)
middle 0.03 0.00 0.05 −0.05 0.06
high 0.02 −0.04 0.07 −0.06 0.11*
Employment status (ref: employed)
unemployed −0.07 −0.14** −0.08** −0.01 −0.02
on sick leave −0.06 −0.16** −0.03 0.04 −0.01
retired 0.01 −0.08* −0.01 0.03 0.00
Incomeb (ref: <12€):
12–24€ 0.03 0.01 −0.01 0.03 0.09**
24–36€ 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.11**
>36€ 0.09* 0.08* 0.05 0.03 0.15**
Clinical symptoms
Depression (PHQ-9) −0.40** −0.30** −0.64** −0.49** −0.23**
Anxiety (GAD-7) −0.04 −0.11** −0.11** 0.03 −0.14**
Somatization (PHQ-15) 0.04 −0.29** 0.10* 0.10 −0.03
Step 1 (R2) 0.046 0.114 0.083 0.023 0.107
Step 2 (Δ R2) 0.153 0.350 0.400 0.160 0.118
Model significance (Step 2) F16,1219 = 18.88** F16,1219 = 66.03** F16,1219 = 79.93** F16,1219 = 17.07** F16,1219 = 22.13**

Table 3. Hierarchical multiple linear regression analysis examining the contribution of sociodemographic
and clinical variables to each QoL domain (as measured with the WHOQOL-Bref)a. *p < 0.01; **p < 0.001.
WHOQOL-Bref, World Health Organization Quality of Life Instrument-Short Form; aPredictors data
corresponding to Step 2. bIn thousands of Euros.

Figure 2. Covariate Adjusted Means of QoL as a function of the number of mental disorder diagnosesb.
*p < 0.01; **p < 0.001. WHOQOL-Bref, World Health Organization Quality of Life Instrument-Short Form;
QoL, Quality of Life. aMeans after controlling for covariates (age, sex, education, marital status, employment
status, and income). bSignificance in the column ‘1 diagnosis’ refer to the difference with ‘no diagnosis’, in the ‘2
diagnoses’ column, to the difference between 2 diagnoses and 1 diagnosis, and in the ‘3 diagnoses’ column to the
difference between 3 diagnoses and 2 diagnoses. Diagnoses based on algorithms from the PHQ-9, GAD-7 and
PHQ-15 for major depression, generalized anxiety and somatoform disorders, respectively. bSE- standard errors
based on 1000 bootstrap samples. cIn parenthesis overall score range of each subscale.

SCIENtIFIC RePorts | (2018) 8:11180 | DOI:10.1038/s41598-018-28995-6 6

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Overall, these results are consistent with findings from previous studies that have investigated the association
between common mental disorders and QoL in primary care14,15,48 and general population samples49,50. In this
sense, our study extends these findings to a sample of primary care patients with a suspected diagnosis of an emo-
tional disorder not sufficiently severe to require specialized care. This is a particularly relevant population given
that such patients are highly prevalent in primary care settings, in which treatment is often delivered by GPs who
have a high caseload31; as a consequence of this caseload, treatment is often inadequate, as several studies have
shown51,52.
Findings from studies comparing the relative impact of each symptom on functioning and QoL are mixed.
While most studies have found that depression has a greater impairment49,50,53–57, other studies have reported that
the pattern of impairment depends on the specific symptom48,58, and other studies have found that the effects of
anxiety disorders and depression are similar59,60. On the univariate analyses, depression, anxiety, and somatiza-
tion correlated with all QoL domains. By contrast, the regression models showed significant associations between
anxiety and QoL on only three domains (psychological, physical and environmental). Somatizations contrib-
uted only to the psychological and physical domains of QoL. The large effect of depression on all QoL domains
might arguably be due to what some authors have called ‘tautological measures’61, suggesting a substantial overlap
between the content of scales used to measures both depression and QoL. By contrast, Trompenaars et al.62 found
that the common variance between depression and QoL did not exceed 25%. Likewise, none of the clinical symp-
toms explained more than 40% of the variance on any of the regression models in our study. The robustness of the
association between depression and QoL is supported by the significant impact of depression on all QoL facets,
including those related to social relations and environmental domains. However, it must be noted that for social
relations and environmental aspects of QoL, clinical symptoms contributed only 16% and 12%, respectively, to
the model variance, which is considerably less than the contribution of clinical symptoms on the psychological
and physical domains (35% and 40%, respectively). This finding suggests that alleviation of clinical symptoms
may not be the only solution to improving the many aspects of well-being.
On the regression models performed in our study, the sociodemographic variables—age, sex, educational
level, marital status, work status, and income—had distinctive pattern of associations with QoL. Given the meth-
odological differences between the studies conducted to date to evaluate the influence of these variables on QoL,
it is difficult to compare our results to previous reports. However, other studies carried out in the primary care
setting that have analysed demographic variables have also found differences in the association between such
variables and QoL domains. For example, Brenes (2007) used the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36-Item
Health Survey (SF-36), finding that age, race, education, marital status and gender were differently associated with
each one of the 8 domains assessed by the SF-36. Similarly, García-Campayo et al. (2008), using an abbreviated
version of the SF-36, found that age was significantly associated with the mental component of QoL, but not with
the physical domain. Importantly, these sociodemographic variables contributed substantially less to the variance
of QoL domains than clinical variables; the only exception was for the environmental domain, in which sociode-
mographic and clinical variables accounted for a similar percentage of variance (11 vs 12%).
The findings presented here may have important clinical and research implications in primary care, particu-
larly given the tendency of GPs to focus on symptom relief while largely overlooking disability and QoL. This is
important because patients with emotional disorders—even those in whom specialized care may not be indi-
cated— may have marked impairment on multiple QoL domains that are only partially explained by symptoms.
If restoration of normal functioning and wellbeing are considered the ultimate therapeutic goal, the results of
the current study further support the use of more comprehensive outcome measures in both clinical practice
and in research protocols. At present, it is unclear whether the psychological and pharmacological treatments
in routine practice—which are primary aimed at symptom alleviation—can improve other important outcomes
such as QoL. Moreover, given the high rates of comorbidity for anxiety, depression, and somatization in this
population, transdiagnostic approaches may be a particularly effective method of treating emotional disorders.
Indeed, a recent meta-analysis of transdiagnostic psychological treatments for anxiety and depressive disorders
found that such an approach yielded notable improvements (medium-sized effects) in QoL outcomes63. Likewise,
a more recent meta-analysis performed to evaluate the effect of treatments for depression on QoL found that
cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) achieved moderate improvements in QoL that remained stable over time. It
is worth emphasizing that the improvement in depression symptoms was positively associated with changes in
QoL only for patients who received CBT but not for those who received pharmacological treatment64. A plausi-
ble explanation for the notable but modest improvement in QoL compared to the decrease in symptoms might
be that these interventions only help with some aspects of patients’ wellbeing (i.e., psychological and physical
domains), but might be less than satisfactory for others (i.e., social relations and environmental domains).
This study has several limitations. First, it was a cross-sectional study and thus we cannot make any inferences
about causality or directionality; several authors have found a bidirectional relationship, with anxiety and depres-
sion symptom severity predicting functional impairment while functional impairment predicts anxiety and
depression symptom severity65. Second, we cannot rule out selection bias, as the study included only a subgroup
of patients (that is, those willing to participate in a clinical trial). As a result, the participants may not be repre-
sentative of all primary care patients with emotional disorders but rather they may represent only a subgroup of
patients who are particularly concerned about their mental health. Thus, in a sample without any selection bias,
QoL may be lower. Furthermore, although this is a large sample obtained from multiple centers from several
different regions in Spain, the use of convenience sampling might limit the generalizability of the results to all
primary care patients with emotional disorders. Third, symptoms were assessed with self-report measures; while
such measures are considered both valid and reliable—and widely-used for mental health screening in primary
care settings—these types of instruments may have reporting biases and, therefore, should not be interpreted as
clinical diagnoses but rather as indicative of potentially clinically-significant symptoms. Finally, another limita-
tion of our study was the lack of data on physical comorbidities or other treatments.

SCIENtIFIC RePorts | (2018) 8:11180 | DOI:10.1038/s41598-018-28995-6 7

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Conclusion. The findings of the present study involving primary care patients with emotional disorders
detected by the treating GP indicate that symptom intensity and comorbidity are associated with a marked
decrease in various QoL domains. Depression had a particularly strong association with QoL, and this associa-
tion remained significant on all QoL domains, even after adjusting for potential sociodemographic confounders,
which, in turn, showed a distinctive and attenuated pattern of associations with QoL. Given the modest variance
explained by clinical symptoms on the social and environmental domains, in seems clear that while treating
clinical symptoms is necessary, this might be insufficient to achieve full recovery as measured by improved QoL
outcomes in patients with common mental disorders.

References
1. The WHOQOL Group. Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment. The WHOQOL
Group. Psychol. Med. 28, 551-558 (1998).
2. Lehman, A. F. The well-being of chronic mental patients. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 40, 369–373 (1983).
3. Katschnig, H. Quality of life in mental disorders: challenges for research and clinical practice. World Psychiatry 5, 139–145 (2006).
4. Awad, A. G. & Voruganti, L. N. Measuring quality of life in patients with schizophrenia: an update. Pharmacoeconomics 30, 183–195,
https://doi.org/10.2165/11594470-000000000-00000 (2012).
5. Gaite, L. et al. Quality of life in patients with schizophrenia in five European countries: the EPSILON study. Acta Psychiatr. Scand.
105, 283–292 (2002).
6. Kennedy, S. H., Eisfeld, B. S. & Cooke, R. G. Quality of life: an important dimension in assessing the treatment of depression? J.
Psychiatry Neurosci. 26(Suppl), S23–28 (2001).
7. Barrera, T. L. & Norton, P. J. Quality of life impairment in generalized anxiety disorder, social phobia, and panic disorder. J. Anxiety
Disord. 23, 1086–1090, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2009.07.011 (2009).
8. Pascoe, G. C. Patient satisfaction in primary health care: a literature review and analysis. Eval. Program Plann. 6, 185–210 (1983).
9. Hogan, M. New freedom commission on mental health, achieving the promise: transforming mental health care in America.
Psychiatr. Serv 54, 1467–1474 (2003).
10. IsHak, W. W. et al. Quality of life: the ultimate outcome measure of interventions in major depressive disorder. Harv. Rev. Psychiatry
19, 229–239, https://doi.org/10.3109/10673229.2011.614099 (2011).
11. Priebe, S., Huxley, P., Knight, S. & Evans, S. Application and results of the Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life (MANSA).
Int. J. Soc. Psychiatry 45, 7–12, https://doi.org/10.1177/002076409904500102 (1999).
12. Alonso, J. et al. Disability and quality of life impact of mental disorders in Europe: results from the European Study of the Epidemiology
of Mental Disorders (ESEMeD) project. Acta Psychiatr. Scand. Suppl. 38–46 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0047.2004.00329.x (2004).
13. Gamma, A. & Angst, J. Concurrent psychiatric comorbidity and multimorbidity in a community study: gender differences and
quality of life. Eur. Arch. Psychiatry Clin. Neurosci. 251(Suppl 2), II43–46 (2001).
14. Brenes, G. A. Anxiety, depression, and quality of life in primary care patients. Prim. Care Companion J. Clin. Psychiatry 9, 437–443
(2007).
15. Spitzer, R. L. et al. Health-related quality of life in primary care patients with mental disorders. Results from the PRIME-MD 1000
Study. JAMA 274, 1511–1517 (1995).
16. Wells, K. B. & Sherbourne, C. D. Functioning and utility for current health of patients with depression or chronic medical conditions
in managed, primary care practices. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 56, 897–904 (1999).
17. Doraiswamy, P. M., Khan, Z. M., Donahue, R. M. & Richard, N. E. The spectrum of quality-of-life impairments in recurrent geriatric
depression. J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 57, M134–137 (2002).
18. Avis, N. E., Assmann, S. F., Kravitz, H. M., Ganz, P. A. & Ory, M. Quality of life in diverse groups of midlife women: assessing the
influence of menopause, health status and psychosocial and demographic factors. Qual. Life Res. 13, 933–946, https://doi.
org/10.1023/B:QURE.0000025582.91310.9f (2004).
19. Martikainen, P., Stansfeld, S., Hemingway, H. & Marmot, M. Determinants of socioeconomic differences in change in physical and
mental functioning. Soc. Sci. Med. 49, 499–507 (1999).
20. Wensing, M., Vingerhoets, E. & Grol, R. Functional status, health problems, age and comorbidity in primary care patients. Qual. Life
Res. 10, 141–148 (2001).
21. Prause, W. et al. Effects of socio-demographic variables on health-related quality of life determined by the quality of life
index–German version. Hum Psychopharmacol 20, 359–365, https://doi.org/10.1002/hup.699 (2005).
22. Ma, X. & McGhee, S. M. A cross-sectional study on socioeconomic status and health-related quality of life among elderly Chinese.
BMJ Open 3, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002418 (2013).
23. Fitzgerald, P. B. et al. A longitudinal study of patient- and observer-rated quality of life in schizophrenia. Psychiatry Res. 119, 55–62
(2003).
24. Ritsner, M., Gibel, A. & Ratner, Y. Determinants of changes in perceived quality of life in the course of schizophrenia. Qual. Life Res.
15, 515–526, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-005-2808-9 (2006).
25. Malla, A. et al. Outcome on quality of life in a Canadian national sample of patients with schizophrenia and related psychotic
disorders. Acta Psychiatr. Scand. Suppl., 22–28 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0447.2006.00758.x (2006).
26. van de Willige, G., Wiersma, D., Nienhuis, F. J. & Jenner, J. A. Changes in quality of life in chronic psychiatric patients: a comparison
between EuroQol (EQ-5D) and WHOQoL. Qual. Life Res. 14, 441–451 (2005).
27. Roca, M. et al. Prevalence and comorbidity of common mental disorders in primary care. J. Affect. Disord. 119, 52–58, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jad.2009.03.014 (2009).
28. Alonso, J. et al. Prevalence of mental disorders in Europe: results from the European Study of the Epidemiology of Mental Disorders
(ESEMeD) project. Acta Psychiatr. Scand. Suppl. 21–27, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0047.2004.00327.x (2004).
29. Wittchen, H. U., Muhlig, S. & Beesdo, K. Mental disorders in primary care. Dialogues Clin. Neurosci. 5, 115–128 (2003).
30. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Common mental health problems: identification and pathways to care. (nice.org.
uk/guidance/cg123, 2011).
31. Deveugele, M., Derese, A., van den Brink-Muinen, A., Bensing, J. & De Maeseneer, J. Consultation length in general practice: cross
sectional study in six European countries. BMJ 325, 472 (2002).
32. Cano-Vindel, A. et al. Transdiagnostic Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Versus Treatment as Usual in Adult Patients With Emotional
Disorders in the Primary Care Setting (PsicAP Study): Protocol for a Randomized ControlledTrial. JMIR Research Protocols 5, e246,
https://doi.org/10.2196/resprot.6351 (2016).
33. Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L. & Williams, J. B. W. The PHQ-9. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 16, 606–613, https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.
016009606.x (2001).
34. Diez-Quevedo, C., Rangil, T., Sanchez-Planell, L., Kroenke, K. & Spitzer, R. L. Validation and Utility of the Patient Health
Questionnaire in Diagnosing Mental Disorders in 1003 General Hospital Spanish Inpatients. Psychosom. Med. 63, 679–686, https://
doi.org/10.1097/00006842-200107000-00021 (2001).
35. Munoz-Navarro, R. et al. Utility of the PHQ-9 to identify major depressive disorder in adult patients in Spanish primary care centres.
BMC Psychiatry 17, 291, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-017-1450-8 (2017).

SCIENtIFIC RePorts | (2018) 8:11180 | DOI:10.1038/s41598-018-28995-6 8

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

36. Garcia-Campayo, J. et al. Cultural adaptation into Spanish of the generalized anxiety disorder-7 (GAD-7) scale as a screening tool.
Health Qual Life Outcomes 8, 8, https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-8-8 (2010).
37. Spitzer, R. L., Kroenke, K., Williams, J. B. & Lowe, B. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7. Arch.
Intern. Med. 166, 1092–1097, https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092 (2006).
38. Munoz-Navarro, R. et al. Screening for generalized anxiety disorder in Spanish primary care centers with the GAD-7. Psychiatry Res.
256, 312–317, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2017.06.023 (2017).
39. Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L. & Williams, J. B. The PHQ-15: validity of a new measure for evaluating the severity of somatic symptoms.
Psychosom. Med. 64, 258–266 (2002).
40. Ros Montalban, S., Comas Vives, A. & Garcia-Garcia, M. Validation of the Spanish version of the PHQ-15 questionnaire for the
evaluation of physical symptoms in patients with depression and/or anxiety disorders: DEPRE-SOMA study. Actas Esp. Psiquiatr.
38, 345–357 (2010).
41. van Ravesteijn, H. et al. Detecting somatoform disorders in primary care with the PHQ-15. Ann. Fam. Med. 7, 232–238, https://doi.
org/10.1370/afm.985 (2009).
42. Lucas-Carrasco, R. The WHO quality of life (WHOQOL) questionnaire: Spanish development and validation studies. Qual. Life Res.
21, 161–165, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9926-3 (2012).
43. Efron, B. Better bootstrap confidence intervals. Journal of the American statistical Association 82, 171–185 (1987).
44. Menard, S. Applied Logistic Regression Analysis. (SAGE, 2001).
45. Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., Williams, J. B. W. & Löwe, B. The Patient Health Questionnaire Somatic, Anxiety, and Depressive
Symptom Scales: a systematic review. Gen. Hosp. Psychiatry 32, 345–359, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2010.03.006
(2010).
46. Hawthorne, G., Herrman, H. & Murphy, B. Interpreting the WHOQOL-BREF: preliminary Population norms and effect sizes. Social
Indicators Research, 37–59 (2006).
47. Koohi, F., Nedjat, S., Yaseri, M. & Cheraghi, Z. Quality of Life among General Populations of Different Countries in the Past 10 Years,
with a Focus on Human Development Index: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Iran J. Public Health 46, 12–22 (2017).
48. Lowe, B. et al. Depression, anxiety and somatization in primary care: syndrome overlap and functional impairment. Gen. Hosp.
Psychiatry 30, 191–199, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2008.01.001 (2008).
49. Saarni, S. I. et al. Impact of psychiatric disorders on health-related quality of life: general population survey. Br. J. Psychiatry 190,
326–332, https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.106.025106 (2007).
50. Penner-Goeke, K. et al. Reductions in quality of life associated with common mental disorders: results from a nationally
representative sample. J. Clin. Psychiatry 76, 1506–1512, https://doi.org/10.4088/JCP.14m09271 (2015).
51. Weisberg, R. B., Beard, C., Moitra, E., Dyck, I. & Keller, M. B. Adequacy of treatment received by primary care patients with anxiety
disorders. Depress. Anxiety 31, 443–450, https://doi.org/10.1002/da.22209 (2014).
52. Kessler, R. C. et al. The epidemiology of major depressive disorder: results from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication
(NCS-R). JAMA 289, 3095–3105, https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.289.23.3095 (2003).
53. Grandes, G. et al. The burden of mental disorders in primary care. Eur. Psychiatry 26, 428–435, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
eurpsy.2010.11.002 (2011).
54. Hanel, G. et al. Depression, anxiety, and somatoform disorders: vague or distinct categories in primary care? Results from a large
cross-sectional study. J. Psychosom. Res. 67, 189–197, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2009.04.013 (2009).
55. Olfson, M. et al. Mental disorders and disability among patients in a primary care group practice. Am. J. Psychiatry 154, 1734–1740,
https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.154.12.1734 (1997).
56. Subramaniam, M. et al. Impact of psychiatric disorders and chronic physical conditions on health-related quality of life: Singapore
Mental Health Study. J. Affect. Disord. 147, 325–330, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2012.11.033 (2013).
57. Fernandez, A. et al. Burden of chronic physical conditions and mental disorders in primary care. Br. J. Psychiatry 196, 302–309,
https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.109.074211 (2010).
58. de Waal, M. W., Arnold, I. A., Eekhof, J. A. & van Hemert, A. M. Somatoform disorders in general practice: prevalence, functional
impairment and comorbidity with anxiety and depressive disorders. Br. J. Psychiatry 184, 470–476 (2004).
59. Rubin, H. C. et al. Quality of well being in panic disorder: the assessment of psychiatric and general disability. J. Affect. Disord. 57,
217–221 (2000).
60. Grant, B. F. et al. Prevalence, correlates, co-morbidity, and comparative disability of DSM-IV generalized anxiety disorder in the
USA: results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Psychol. Med. 35, 1747–1759, https://doi.
org/10.1017/S0033291705006069 (2005).
61. Angermeyer, M. C., Holzinger, A., Matschinger, H. & Stengler-Wenzke, K. Depression and quality of life: results of a follow-up study.
Int. J. Soc. Psychiatry 48, 189–199, https://doi.org/10.1177/002076402128783235 (2002).
62. Trompenaars, F. J., Masthoff, E. D., Van Heck, G. L., Hodiamont, P. P. & De Vries, J. Relationship between mood related disorders
and quality of life in a population of Dutch adult psychiatric outpatients. Depress. Anxiety 23, 353–363, https://doi.org/10.1002/
da.20180 (2006).
63. Newby, J. M., McKinnon, A., Kuyken, W., Gilbody, S. & Dalgleish, T. Systematic review and meta-analysis of transdiagnostic
psychological treatments for anxiety and depressive disorders in adulthood. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 40, 91–110, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cpr.2015.06.002 (2015).
64. Hofmann, S. G., Curtiss, J., Carpenter, J. K. & Kind, S. Effect of treatments for depression on quality of life: a meta-analysis. Cogn.
Behav. Ther. 46, 265–286, https://doi.org/10.1080/16506073.2017.1304445 (2017).
65. Brown, L. A. et al. An examination of the bidirectional relationship between functioning and symptom levels in patients with anxiety
disorders in the CALM study. Psychol. Med. 45, 647–661, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291714002062 (2015).

Acknowledgements
The study was supported by grants from the Secretaría de Estado de Investigación, Desarrollo e Innovación
(PSI2012-36589), the Fundación Mutua Madrileña (AP105162012), and the Psicofundación (Spanish Foundation
for the Promotion, Scientific and Professional Development of Psychology; PSIC-001) all awarded to Dr. Antonio
Cano-Vindel. Further support was provided by a grant from the Valdecilla Biomedical Research Institute -
IDIVAL (INNVAL16/08) awarded to Dr. González-Blanch. The funders had no role in the design and conduct of
the study; the collection, management, analysis, or interpretation of the data; the preparation, review, or approval
of the manuscript; or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. We thank all the PsicAP Research
Group members who kindly participated in this large project.

SCIENtIFIC RePorts | (2018) 8:11180 | DOI:10.1038/s41598-018-28995-6 9

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Author Contributions
Author C.G.B. undertook the statistical analyses and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. Author L.A.M. and
F.H.H. undertook the statistical analyses. Author R.M.N. recruited participants and supervised data collection,
helped to draft and critically revised the manuscript. Author P.R.R., J.A.M. and F.H.H. recruited participants and
supervised data collection, and critically revised the manuscript. Author R.M.N. and F.H.H. helped to draft the
manuscript and critically revised the manuscript. Author A.C.V. designed the study and wrote the protocol and
critically revised the manuscript. All authors contributed to and have approved the final manuscript.

Additional Information
Supplementary information accompanies this paper at https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-28995-6.
Competing Interests: The authors declare no competing interests.
Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or
format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Cre-
ative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this
article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not per-
mitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the
copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

© The Author(s) 2018

SCIENtIFIC RePorts | (2018) 8:11180 | DOI:10.1038/s41598-018-28995-6 10