The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Occurrence, recognition, and outcome of psychological disorders in primary care
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The authors' goal was to cross-validate the earlier finding of the Groningen Primary Care Study that recognition of psychological disorders was associated with better patient outcomes. METHOD: The 12-item General Health Questionnaire was used to screen 1,271 consecutive primary care patients. A stratified sample of 340 of these patients participated in the second-stage baseline series of interviews, which included the Composite International Diagnostic Interview, the occupational role section of the Social Disability Schedule, the 28-item General Health Questionnaire, and the SCL-90. Three months later 209 of the patients completed the 28-item General Health Questionnaire and the SCL-90, and 12 months later 213 of the patients completed the second-stage baseline series of interviews. The study was carried out in six primary care practices (11 general practitioners) in the northern part of The Netherlands. RESULTS: Recognition of psychological disorders was associated with higher initial severity of psychopathology and occupational disability and with a psychological reason for the medical encounter. Recognition rates were higher for anxiety than for depression. Patients whose psychological disorders were recognized did not have better outcomes than those whose psychological disorders were not recognized. CONCLUSIONS: Recognition of psychological disorders was not associated with better outcome. Recognition is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for delivery of treatment according to clinical guidelines. Increasing recognition is likely to improve outcomes only if general practitioners have the skills and resources to deliver adequate interventions.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Recognition and management of depression in general practice: consensus statement
Paykel, E. S., & Priest, R. G. (1992) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.305.6863.1198 · Cited by 540
Ormel, J. (1993) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1993.01820220009001 · Cited by 216
Can We Predict the Persistence of Depression?
Scott, J., Eccleston, D., & Boys, R. (1992) · British Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1192/bjp.161.5.633 · Cited by 131
Cited by
Case-finding instruments for depression: Two questions are as good as many
Whooley, M. A., Avins, A. L., Miranda, J., & Browner, W. S. (1997) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.1997.00076.x · Cited by 1,826
Prevalence and incidence studies of anxiety disorders: A systematic review of the literature
Somers, J. M., Goldner, E. M., Waraich, P., & Hsu, L. (2006) · The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1177/070674370605100206 · Cited by 1,114
Anderson, I., Ferrier, I., Baldwin, R., Cowen, P., Howard, L., Lewis, G., Matthews, K., McAllister-Williams, R., Peveler, R., Scott, J., et al. (2008) · Journal of Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1177/0269881107088441 · Cited by 908
Cleare, A., Pariante, C., Young, A., Anderson, I., Christmas, D., Cowen, P., Dickens, C., Ferrier, I., Geddes, J., Gilbody, S., et al. (2015) · Journal of Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1177/0269881115581093 · Cited by 759
Baldwin, D. S., Anderson, I. M., Nutt, D. J., Bandelow, B., Bond, A., Davidson, J. R. T., den Boer, J. A., Fineberg, N. A., Knapp, M., Scott, J., et al. (2005) · Journal of Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1177/0269881105059253 · Cited by 617
Metadata
- Venue
- American Journal of Psychiatry
- Published
- 1996-05-01
- Volume
- 153
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 636-644
- ISSN
- 0002-953X (ISSN-L)
- 1535-7228
- OpenAlex
- W1755255671
- Cited by
- 245
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 36.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Occurrence, recognition, and outcome of psychological disorders in primary care. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1176/ajp.153.5.636
- The paper
- Occurrence, recognition, and outcome of psychological disorders in primary care. (1996). American Journal of Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.153.5.636
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.