Cited by 57Mental Health Treatment and AccessHealth and Medical StudiesSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

Importance of Thinking Locally for Mental Health: Data from Cross-Sectional Surveys Representing South East London and England

Open access
Hatch, Stephani L., Woodhead, Charlotte, Frissa, Souci, Fear, Nicola T., Verdecchia, Maria, Stewart, Robert, Reichenberg, Abraham, Morgan, Craig +9 more·2012·PLoS ONE

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Reliance on national figures may be underestimating the extent of mental ill health in urban communities. This study demonstrates the necessity for local information on common mental disorder (CMD) and substance use by comparing data from the South East London Community Health (SELCoH) study with those from a national study, the 2007 English Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Study (APMS). METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Data were used from two cross-sectional surveys, 1698 men and women residing in south London and 7403 men and women in England. The main outcome, CMD, was indicated by a score of 12 or above on the Revised Clinical Interview Schedule. Secondary outcomes included hazardous alcohol use and illicit drug use. SELCoH sample prevalence estimates of CMD were nearly twice that of the APMS England sample estimates. There was a four-fold greater proportion of depressive episode in the SELCoH sample than the APMS sample. The prevalence of hazardous alcohol use was higher in the national sample. Illicit drug use in the past year was higher in the SELCoH sample, with cannabis and cocaine the illicit drugs reported most frequently in both samples. In comparisons of the SELCoH sample with the APMS England sample and the APMS sample from the Greater London area in combined datasets, these differences remained after adjusting for socio-demographic and socioeconomic indicators for all outcomes. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Local information for estimating the prevalence of CMD and substance use is essential for surveillance and service planning. There were similarities in the demographic and socioeconomic factors related to CMD and substance use across samples.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0048012

Cites

35 of 35 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?

  • The ODIN and SELCoH studies, based in selected samples from Liverpool and south east London, reported higher prevalence estimates for depression varying between 5% and 15%.

    “These studies, based in selected samples from Liverpool in the case of the ODIN study (Ayuso-Mateos et al., 2001), and south east London in the case of the SELCoH study (Hatch et al., 2012), have reported higher prevalence estimates for depression, varying between 5% and 15% depending on the specific study.”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hatch, S. L., Woodhead, C., Frissa, S., Fear, N. T., Verdecchia, M., Stewart, R., Reichenberg, A., Morgan, C., Bebbington, P., McManus, S., Brugha, T., Kankulu, B., Clark, J. L., Gazard, B., Medcalf, R., Hotopf, M., & the SELCoH study team
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
  • Leicester General Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Hatch, Stephani L.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2012-12-12
Volume
7
Issue
12
Pages
e48012
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2023331976
Cited by
57
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 4
FWCI
7.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • City Research Online (City University London) (acceptedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Leicester Research Archive (University of Leicester) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust
  • Maudsley Charity
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • Guy's and St Thomas' Charity
  • King's College London
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health and Medical Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Keywords
common mental disorders, mental health prevalence, substance use, hazardous drinking, illicit drug use, depressive episodes, urban mental health, South East London, cannabis use, cocaine use, mental health surveillance, service planning
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Mental Disorders, Cross-Sectional Studies, England, Female, Health Surveys, Humans, London, Male, Mental Health, Middle Aged, Socioeconomic Factors, Prevalence, 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