Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 410

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Determinants of the ability of general practitioners to detect psychiatric illness

Marks, J. N., Goldberg, D. P., Hillier, V. F.·1979·Psychological Medicine

Abstract

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.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0033291700030853

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 410

Metadata

Authors
Marks, J. N., Goldberg, D. P., & Hillier, V. F.
Venue
Psychological Medicine
Published
1979-05
Volume
9
Issue
2
Pages
337-353
ISSN
  • 0033-2917 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8978
OpenAlex
W2111388396
Cited by
410
References
0
FWCI
17.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Determinants of the ability of general practitioners to detect psychiatric illness. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s0033291700030853
The paper
Marks, J. N., Goldberg, D. P., & Hillier, V. F. (1979). Determinants of the ability of general practitioners to detect psychiatric illness. Psychological Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033291700030853

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.