Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T08:27:38.608Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Determinants of the ability of general practitioners to detect psychiatric illness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 July 2009

J. N. Marks ,
D. P. Goldberg  and
V. F. Hillier
J. N. Marks
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University of Manchester
D. P. Goldberg*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University of Manchester
V. F. Hillier
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University of Manchester
*
1Address for correspondence: Professor D. P. Goldberg, Department of Psychiatry, University Hospital of South Manchester, West Didsbury, Manchester M20 8LR.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Synopsis

This study of psychiatric illness among 4098 patients attending 91 general practitioners compares 2 methods of case identification: ‘conspicuous morbidity’ by the doctor's own assessments, and ‘probable prevalence’ by the patients' responses to the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ). In general, the latter gives somewhat higher estimates than the former, but there are wide variations in morbidity between practices. The ability of each general practitioner to detect psychiatric illness was measured by computing Spearman's correlation coefficient between his assessments and the GHQ scores of his patients. The mean correlation coefficient was +0·36, but the range was very wide (0·09–0·60).

The first part of the study deals with various demographic characteristics of the patients themselves which are associated with an increased likelihood of the doctor detecting a psychiatric illness; such factors include unemployment, female sex, and marriages which have ended by separation, divorce or death.

The second part of the study examines characteristics of the doctors themselves in an attempt to account for the wide variation between them in their ability to detect psychiatric illness. A research psychiatrist made detailed observations on 2098 interviews carried out by 55 general practitioners. Each doctor's verbal and non-verbal styles were recorded minutely, and in addition various global ratings were made. The doctors completed personality inventories and supplied details of training and professional background. It was possible to account for 67 % of the variance of correlation coefficient mainly in terms of 2 dimensions: ‘interest and concern’ and ‘conservatism’. The way in which the doctor interviews his patients is shown to be important, but there are interactions between interview style and the doctor's personality.

Type
Research Article
Information
Psychological Medicine , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , May 1979 , pp. 337 - 353
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

College of General Practitioners' Research Committee (1958). The continuing observation and recording of morbidity. Journal of the College of General Practitioners 1, 107.Google Scholar
Goldberg, D. (1972). The Detection of Psychiatric Illness by Questionnaire. Maudsley Monograph no. 21. Oxford University Press: London.Google Scholar
Goldberg, D. (1979). Manual of the General Health Questionnaire. NFER: London.Google Scholar
Goldberg, D. & Blackwell, B. (1970). Psychiatric illness in general practice. British Medical Journal ii, 439–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, D. & Blackwell, B. (1971). The diagnostic interview in general practice. Update, 239–244.Google Scholar
Goldberg, D. & Kessel, N. (1975). Research in general practice. In Methods of Psychiatric Research (ed. Sainsbury, P. and Kreitman, N.), pp. 242–263. Oxford University Press: London.Google Scholar
Goldberg, D., Rickels, K., Downing, R. & Hesbacher, P. (1976). A comparison of two psychiatric screening tests. British Journal of Psychiatry 129, 61–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hesbacher, P. T., Rickels, K. & Goldberg, D. (1975). Social factors and neurotic symptoms in family practice. American Journal of Public Health 65 (2), 148–155.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnstone, A. & Goldberg, D. (1976). psychiatric screening in general practice. Lancet i, 605–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kessel, N. (1960). Psychiatric morbidity in a London general practice. British Journal of Preventive and Social Medicine 14, 16–22.Google Scholar
MacAndrew, C. & Rosen, A. C. (1964). An empirical contribution to the evaluation of practitioner bias. Psychopharmacologia 5, 349–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muñoz, P. E., Vazquez, J. L., Pastrana, E., Rodriguez, F. & Oneca, C. (1978). Study of the validity of Goldberg's 60-item GHQ in its Spanish version. Social Psychiatry 13, 99–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newson-Smith, J. & Hirsch, S. (1979). A study of neurotic symptoms in overdose patients using the General Health Questionnaire and the Present State Examination. (In preparation.)Google Scholar
Nie, N. H., Hull, C. H., Jenkins, J. G., Steinbrenner, K. & Bent, D. H. (1975). Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (2nd edn). McGraw-Hill: New York.Google Scholar
Shepherd, M., Cooper, B., Brown, A. C. & Kalton, G. (1966). Psychiatric Illness in General Practice. Oxford University Press: London.Google Scholar
Tennant, C. (1977). The General Health Questionnaire: a valid index of psychological impairment in Australian populations. Medical Journal of Australia 2, 392–394.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Truax, C. B., & Carkhuff, R. R. (1967). Toward Effective Counselling and Psychotherapy: Training and Practice. Aldine: Chicago.Google Scholar
Wilson, G. D. (1975). Manual for the Wilson-Patterson Attitude Inventory (WPAI). NFER: London.Google Scholar