ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2008
Complexity of GPs' explanations about mental health problems: development, reliability, and validity of a measure.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Beliefs and attitudes of French family practitioners toward depression: the impact of training in mental health.International journal of psychiatry in medicine · 2011Article
- Facilitating understanding of mental health problems in GP consultations: a qualitative study using taped-assisted recall.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2010Article
- Interpretive medicine: Supporting generalism in a changing primary care world.Occasional paper (Royal College of General Practitioners) · 2010Article
- Commentary: Good primary mental health care is simple.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHow GPs understand mental health problems determines their treatment choices; however, measures describing GPs' thinking about such problems are not currently available.
aimTo develop a measure of the complexity of GP explanations of common mental health problems and to pilot its reliability and validity. DESIGN OF STUDY: A qualitative development of the measure, followed by inter-rater reliability and validation pilot studies.
settingGeneral practices in North London.
methodVignettes of simulated consultations with patients with mental health problems were videotaped, and an anchored measure of complexity of psychosocial explanation in response to these vignettes was developed. Six GPs, four psychologists, and two lay people viewed the vignettes. Their responses were rated for complexity, both using the anchored measure and independently by two experts in primary care mental health. In a second reliability and revalidation study, responses of 50 GPs to two vignettes were rated for complexity. The GPs also completed a questionnaire to determine their interest and training in mental health, and they completed the Depression Attitudes Questionnaire.
resultsInter-rater reliability of the measure of complexity of explanation in both pilot studies was satisfactory (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.78 and 0.72). The measure correlated with expert opinion as to what constitutes a complex explanation, and the responses of psychologists, GPs, and lay people differed in measured complexity. GPs with higher complexity scores had greater interest, more training in mental health, and more positive attitudes to depression.
conclusionResults suggest that the complexity of GPs' psychosocial explanations about common mental health problems can be reliably and validly assessed by this new standardised measure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.