Depression is a common mental disorder in Denmark [
1], and according to the World Health Organization, the largest contributor to disability worldwide [
2]. For patients with depression, the first point of contact with the health care system is usually in primary care, and most patients with depression are treated in this setting without being referred. However, patients with mental disorders often present with somatic symptoms [
3] and social problems, and their depressive symptoms can fluctuate and be mixed with, for example, anxiety symptoms, which can make the diagnostic process difficult [
4]. Research indicates that general practitioners (GPs) identify about 47% of depressed patients [
5], and a meta-analysis has found, based on data from a subsample of 19 studies, that for every 100 unselected cases assessed for depression in primary care, there were more false positives than either identified or missed cases [
5]. Early research failed to show that notification of depression status and education of GPs in identifying depression had an effect on patient outcomes [
6,
7]. Other studies have found early identification of depression as a predictive factor of better treatment outcomes [
8]. On this background, enhancing the detection of depression in primary care continues to be of importance. Guidelines in the US recommend routine screening for depression [
9] in contrast to guidelines in the UK and Canada [
10]. In Denmark, a depression screening tool is recommended for use in high-risk groups [
11]. However, this is not supported by the literature [
12‐
14]. A randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluating the effectiveness of screening for major depressive disorder in high-risk groups in primary care found no difference in recognition rates in the screening group compared to the control group [
12]. In a prospective cohort study investigating screening in high-risk groups, only 1% started treatment for major depressive disorder as a result of screening [
13].
Systematic identification of patients with depression is an active ingredient in collaborative care [
15], which is an effective way of managing depression in primary care [
16]. Mandatory use of a diagnostic tool when suspecting depression could, therefore, be an appropriate way of improving accurate diagnostics of depression in general practice. A Danish study investigating high-risk screening for depression compared with case-finding (use of a validation instrument on clinical suspicion of depression) found that screening in high-risk groups had limited effect in addition to case-finding, where the GP used Major Depression Inventory (MDI) [
14]. However, this observational study had some limitations because the GPs were free to perform either high-risk screening or case-finding, which was not compared with usual clinical assessment. Based on the above literature, case-finding, where the GP
always uses a validation test on clinical suspicion of depression, may be as good as high-risk screening, but it is unclear if case-finding is better than usual clinical assessment, where a validation tool is used when the GP finds it appropriate. Therefore, a well-planned RCT is needed to examine if case-finding is more effective in finding depression than usual clinical assessment.