Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 430

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The National Psychiatric Morbidity Surveys of Great Britain – initial findings from the Household Survey

JENKINS, R., LEWIS, G., BEBBINGTON, P., BRUGHA, T., FARRELL, M., GILL, B., MELTZER, H.·1997·Psychological Medicine
DOI 10.1017/s0033291797005308
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This paper describes the Household Survey from the National Survey of Psychiatric Morbidity. This covered a sample drawn at random from the population of Britain, with the exception of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. METHODS: The Postcode Address file was used as the sampling frame. Nearly 13000 adults aged 16-65 were selected for interview, of whom 10108 (79.4%) were successfully interviewed. Eight per cent could not be contacted and 13% refused interview. Psychiatric assessment was carried out by lay interviewers using the CIS-R. Subjects were also screened for psychosis, and screen-positive individuals were examined by psychiatrists using SCAN. RESULTS: Sixteen per cent of subjects scored above the standard cut-off of 12 on the CIS-R. The overall 1-week prevalence of neurotic disorder was 12.3% in males and 19.5% in females. Unmarried and post-marital groups had high rates of disorder, as did single parents and people living on their own. Respondents in Social Class I had notably lower rates of neurotic disorder than the remainder of the sample. Unemployment was strongly associated with disorder. Subjects living in urban areas had a higher overall prevalence, but there was no significant variation by region. Black respondents had higher rates of disorders that were entirely explained by their age, family type and social class. Individual neurotic disorders were all significantly commoner in women, with the exception of panic disorder. The 1-year prevalence of functional psychoses was 4 per 1000, with no sex difference. Alcohol and drug dependence was considerably more prevalent in men. CONCLUSIONS: For the first time, the survey provides data on the prevalence and correlates of psychiatric disorder on a nationwide sample that can be used to inform equitable and effective national psychiatric services.

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/s0033291797005308

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

Metadata

Authors
JENKINS, R., LEWIS, G., BEBBINGTON, P., BRUGHA, T., FARRELL, M., GILL, B., & MELTZER, H.
Venue
Psychological Medicine
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
1997-07
Volume
27
Issue
4
Pages
775-789
ISSN
  • 0033-2917 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8978
DOI
10.1017/s0033291797005308
OpenAlex
W2080283818
Cited by
430
References
0
FWCI
26.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified)

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

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.