Cited by 104Psychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsMedicine, History, and PhilosophyPsychological Testing and Assessment

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 26 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A simple instrument for assessing stress in clinical practice

Open access
Sonino, N, Fava, G A·1998·Postgraduate Medical Journal

Abstract

Summary: Methods to assess the role of stress factors in patients with medical conditions are often rather complex, require specific training, and are difficult to use in clinical practice. We attempted to develop a short index tailored to a busy clinical setting, which would be easy to use while providing adequate individual information. This index (Psychosocial Index) was largely derived from well-established instruments, such as Kellner's Screening List for Psychosocial Problems. In addition, on the basis of the patient's self-report of items, the clinician is asked to rate four dimensions of the patient's life: stress, wellbeing, psychological distress, and illness behaviour. The questionnaires of 34 female patients with functional medical disorders were first rated by an internist and afterwards, blindly, by a psychiatrist. Agreement between the two raters was excellent, as measured by the intraclass correlation coefficient. It is hoped that this Psychosocial Index may provide a new tool for psychosomatic research and practice.

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 · 10.1136/pgmj.74.873.408

Cites

23 of 23 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

Show all 26 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Sonino, N., & Fava, G. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Padua (IT)
  • University at Buffalo, State University of New York (US)
Venue
Postgraduate Medical Journal
Published
1998-07-01
Volume
74
Issue
873
Pages
408-410
ISSN
  • 0032-5473 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-0756
OpenAlex
W2124306688
Cited by
104
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 6
FWCI
0.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Postgraduate Medical Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Padua Research Archive (University of Padova) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Medicine, History, and Philosophy
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
Keywords
psychological distress, well-being, illness behavior, rater agreement, psychosomatic medicine, self-report questionnaire
MeSH terms
Adult, Data Collection, Evaluation Studies as Topic, Female, Humans, Psychosomatic Medicine, Surveys and Questionnaires, Stress, Psychological

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