CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 192Mental Health Treatment and AccessSurvey Methodology and NonresponseMental Health Research Topics

A difference that matters: comparisons of structured and semi-structured psychiatric diagnostic interviews in the general population

Open access
BRUGHA, T. S., BEBBINGTON, P. E., JENKINS, R.·1999·Psychological Medicine
DOI 10.1017/s0033291799008880
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Psychiatric case-identification in general populations allows us to study both individuals with functional psychiatric disorders and the populations from which they come. The individual level of analysis permits disorders to be related to factors of potential aetiological significance and the study of attributes of the disorders that need to be assessed in non-referred populations (an initially scientific endeavour). At the population level valid case identification can be used to evaluate needs for treatment and the utilization of service resources (a public health project). Thus, prevalence is of interest both to scientists and to those responsible for commissioning and planning services (Brugha et al. 1997; Regier et al. 1998). The quality of case identification techniques and of estimates of prevalence is thus of general concern (Bartlett & Coles, 1998). Structured diagnostic interviews were introduced into general population surveys in the 1970s as a method ‘to enable interviewers to obtain psychiatric diagnoses comparable to those a psychiatrist would obtain’ (Robins et al. 1981). The need to develop reliable standardized measures was partly driven by an earlier generation of prevalence surveys showing rates ranging widely from 10·9% (Pasamanick et al. 1956) to 55% (Leighton et al. 1963) in urban and rural North American communities respectively. If the success of large scale psychiatric epidemiological enquiries using structured diagnostic interviews and standardized classifications is measured in terms of citation rates it would seem difficult to question. But the development of standardized interviews of functional psychiatric disorders has not solved this problem of variability: the current generation of large scale surveys, using structured diagnostic interviews and serving strictly defined classification rules, have generated, for example, 12-month prevalence rates of major depression in the US of 4·2% (Robins & Regier, 1991) and 10·1% (Kessler et al. 1994). This calls into question the validity of the assessments, such that we must reopen the question of what they should be measuring and how they should do it.

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/s0033291799008880

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 55 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Brugha, T. S., Teather, D., Wills, K. M., Kaul, A. & Dignon, A. (1996). Present State Examination by microcomputer : objectives and experience of preliminary steps. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research 6, 143-151.
  2. Brugha, T. S., Jenkins, R., Bebbington, P., Meltzer, H. & Taub, N. A. (1997). The scope for increasing the usefulness of population based epidemiological information on need. Conference abstracts : WPA Section of Epidemiology and Community Psychiatry. 19 October 1997, Sydney, Australia.
  3. Pincus, A. L. & McQueen, L. E. (1997). US primary care training and the role of the DSM-IV Primary Care Version (DSM-IV-PC). In Preventing Mental Illness : Mental Health Promotion in Primary Care (ed. R. Jenkins and T. B. U $ stu$ n), pp. 229-252. John Wiley : Chichester.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
BRUGHA, T. S., BEBBINGTON, P. E., & JENKINS, R.
Affiliations
University of Leicester (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Psychological Medicine
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
1999-09
Volume
29
Issue
5
Pages
1013-1020
ISSN
  • 0033-2917 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8978
DOI
10.1017/s0033291799008880
OpenAlex
W2157460252
Cited by
191
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 38 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 6
FWCI
11.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified)
Locations
  • Psychological Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Leicester Research Archive (University of Leicester) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
Keywords
structured diagnostic interview, semi-structured interviews, general population survey, diagnostic validity, major depressive disorder, psychiatric epidemiology
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Epidemiologic Methods, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychiatry

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