Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25598769›Full record

ArticleCurrent psychiatry reviews2014

Collecting Information for Rating Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF): Sources of Information and Methods for Information Collection.

Monrad Aas I H

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current psychiatry reviews, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Social cognition and bipolar disorder: pending questions and unexplored topics.Revista brasileira de psiquiatria (Sao Paulo, Brazil : 1999) · 2022
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. A retrospective record review and assessment of cost of quetiapine use in a community psychiatric setting in the Sedibeng district of Gauteng.The South African journal of psychiatry : SAJP : the journal of the Society of Psychiatrists of South Africa · 2017
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Monrad Aas I HResearch Unit, Division of Mental Health and Addiction, Vestfold Hospital Trust, PO Box 2267, 3103 Tönsberg, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionGlobal Assessment of Functioning (GAF) is an assessment instrument that is known worldwide. It is widely used for rating the severity of illness. Results from evaluations in psychiatry should characterize the patients. Rating of GAF is based on collected information. The aim of the study is to identify the factors involved in collecting information that is relevant for rating GAF, and gaps in knowledge where it is likely that further development would play a role for improved scoring.

methodsA literature search was conducted with a combination of thorough hand search and search in the bibliographic databases PubMed, PsycINFO, Google Scholar, and Campbell Collaboration Library of Systematic Reviews.

resultsCollection of information for rating GAF depends on two fundamental factors: the sources of information and the methods for information collection. Sources of information are patients, informants, health personnel, medical records, letters of referral and police records about violence and substance abuse. Methods for information collection include the many different types of interview - unstructured, semi-structured, structured, interviews for Axis I and II disorders, semistructured interviews for rating GAF, and interviews of informants - as well as instruments for rating symptoms and functioning, and observation. The different sources of information, and methods for collection, frequently result in inconsistencies in the information collected. The variation in collected information, and lack of a generally accepted algorithm for combining collected information, is likely to be important for rated GAF values, but there is a fundamental lack of knowledge about the degree of importance.

conclusionsResearch to improve GAF has not reached a high level. Rated GAF values are likely to be influenced by both the sources of information used and the methods employed for information collection, but the lack of research-based information about these influences is fundamental. Further development of GAF is feasible and proposals for this are presented.

Indexed as

Collecting informationGAFGlobal Assessment of Functioningmethodologypsychiatryratingseverity of illness.

Identifiers

PMID25598769
PMCPMC4287015

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.