Cited by 154Mental Health Treatment and AccessHealth and Medical StudiesSurvey Methodology and Nonresponse

The National Psychiatric Morbidity Surveys of Great Britain – strategy and methods

JENKINS, R., BEBBINGTON, P., BRUGHA, T., FARRELL, M., GILL, B., LEWIS, G., MELTZER, H., PETTICREW, M.·1997·Psychological Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This paper describes the rationale and methodology of the first national psychiatric morbidity surveys to be carried out in Great Britain. The objectives of the surveys were to estimate the prevalence of psychiatric morbidity among adults aged 16-64 living in Great Britain; to identify the nature and extent of social disabilities associated with psychiatric morbidity; to describe the use of health and social services by people with psychiatric morbidity and to investigate the association between mental illness and potential environmental risk factors in a household sample. METHODS: Four separate surveys were carried out in order to meet the objectives; a private household sample (N = 10108), a sample of institutions caring for the mentally ill (N = 1191), a sample of homeless people (N = 1166), and a supplementary sample of patients with psychosis living in private households (N = 350). A two-stage assessment procedure was used, in which all subjects were given the Revised Clinical Interview Schedule (CIS-R) administered by lay interviewers to assess neurotic symptoms and disorders and a psychosis screen, including the Psychosis Screening Questionnaire. Those who were positive on the psychosis screen were then interviewed by psychiatrists using the SCAN (incorporating the tenth edition of the Present State Examination). CONCLUSIONS: Large scale national surveys such as this augment the inadequate data on psychiatric morbidity that are routinely available and are, therefore, an important source of information upon which to base policy and generate aetiological hypotheses. These surveys provide a possible model for similar surveys in other countries.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s003329179700531x

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
JENKINS, R., BEBBINGTON, P., BRUGHA, T., FARRELL, M., GILL, B., LEWIS, G., MELTZER, H., & PETTICREW, M.
Affiliations
University of Leicester (GB)
Venue
Psychological Medicine
Published
1997-07
Volume
27
Issue
4
Pages
765-774
ISSN
  • 0033-2917 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8978
OpenAlex
W2140402504
Cited by
153
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 10
FWCI
21.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Leicester Research Archive (University of Leicester) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health and Medical Studies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
Keywords
psychiatric morbidity, prevalence of mental disorders, social dysfunction, mental health service utilization, environmental risk factors, psychosis, homelessness, psychiatric hospitals, Present State Examination, Great Britain
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Mental Disorders, Female, United Kingdom, Health Services, Health Surveys, Ill-Housed Persons, Humans, Institutionalization, Male, Middle Aged, Neurotic Disorders, Psychotic Disorders, Sampling Studies, Comorbidity, Prevalence, Databases, Factual, Cost of Illness, Substance-Related Disorders

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