CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 364Mental Health Treatment and AccessAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychological Testing and Assessment

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Detecting common mental disorders in primary care in India: a comparison of five screening questionnaires

Open access
Patel, V., Araya, R., Chowdhary, N., King, M., Kirkwood, B., Nayak, S., Simon, G., Weiss, H. A.·2008·Psychological Medicine
DOI 10.1017/s0033291707002334PMC PMC4959557
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background: Screening of patients for common mental disorders (CMDs) is needed in primary-care management programmes. This study aimed to compare the screening properties of five widely used questionnaires. Method: Adult attenders in five primary-care settings in India were recruited through systematic sampling. Four questionnaires were administered, in pairs, in random order to participants: the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ, 12 items); the Primary Health Questionnaire (PHQ, nine items); the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10, 10 items), and from which we could extract the score of the shorter 6-item K6; and the Self-Reporting Questionnaire (SRQ, 20 items). All participants were interviewed with a structured lay diagnostic interview, the Revised Clinical Interview Schedule (CIS-R). Results: Complete data were available for 598 participants (participation rate 99.3%). All five questionnaires showed moderate to high discriminating ability; the GHQ and SRQ showed the best results. All five showed moderate to high degrees of correlation with one another, the poorest being between the two shortest questionnaires, K6 and PHQ. All five had relatively good internal consistency. However, the positive predictive value (PPV) of the questionnaires compared with the diagnostic interview ranged from 51% to 77% at the optimal cut-off scores. Conclusions: There is little difference in the ability of these questionnaires to identify cases accurately, but none showed high PPVs without a considerable compromise on sensitivity. Hence, the choice of an optimum cut-off score that yields the best balance between sensitivity and PPV may need to be tailored to individual settings, with a higher cut-off being recommended in resource-limited primary-care settings.

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/s0033291707002334

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Goldberg, 1992, Common Mental Disorders: A Biosocial Model
  2. Gerrity, 1999, Journal of Family Practice, 48, 949
  3. Gautam, 1987, Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 29, 63
  4. Shamasundar, 1986, Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 28, 217
  5. Patel, 1999, NIMHANS Journal, 17, 307
  6. none, 2004, Depression: Management of Depression in Primary and Secondary Care

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 364

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Patel, V., Araya, R., Chowdhary, N., King, M., Kirkwood, B., Nayak, S., Simon, G., & Weiss, H. A.
Affiliations
  • London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
  • University of Bristol (GB)
  • Sangath (IN)
  • The Royal Free Hospital (GB)
  • Group Health Cooperative (US)
Corresponding author
Patel, V.
ORCID
Venue
Psychological Medicine
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2007-11-30
Volume
38
Issue
2
Pages
221-228
ISSN
  • 0033-2917 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8978
DOI
10.1017/s0033291707002334
PMC
PMC4959557
OpenAlex
W2114480195
Cited by
364
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 10
FWCI
12.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified)
Locations
  • Psychological Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Wellcome Trust (076783)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
Keywords
common mental disorders, mental health screening, screening questionnaire, primary care, General Health Questionnaire, Kessler Psychological Distress Scale, Self-Reporting Questionnaire, positive predictive value, sensitivity, cut-off values, resource-limited settings, India
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Mental Disorders, Female, Humans, India, Interview, Psychological, Male, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Primary Health Care, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reproducibility of Results, Prevalence

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