Trial reportEpidemiology and psychiatric sciences2020
A randomised test of the effect of medical
Trial report in Epidemiology and psychiatric sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Long-term growth in child mental health expenditures, 2004-2023.Health affairs scholar · 2026Article
- Pushing or clicking the grocery cart? Health and economic concerns during the COVID-19 pandemic.The Journal of consumer affairs · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
aimsTo test the impact of using different idioms in epidemiological interviews on the prevalence and correlates of poor mental health and mental health service use.
methodsWe conducted a randomised methodological experiment in a nationally representative sample of the US adult population, comparing a lay idiom, which asked about 'problems with your emotions or nerves' with a more medical idiom, which asked about 'problems with your mental health'. Differences across study arms in the associations of endorsement of problems with the Kessler-6 (a validated assessment of psychological distress), demographic characteristics, self-rated health and mental health service use were examined.
resultsRespondents were about half as likely to endorse a problem when asked with the more medical idiom (18.1%) than when asked with the lay idiom (35.1%). The medical idiom had a significantly larger area under the ROC curve when compared against a validated measure of psychological distress than the lay idiom (0.91 v. 0.87, p = 0.012). The proportion of the population who endorsed a problem but did not receive treatment in the past year was less than half as large for the medical idiom (7.90%) than for the lay idiom (20.94%). Endorsement of problems differed in its associations with age, sex, race/ethnicity and self-rated health depending on the question idiom. For instance, the odds of endorsing problems were threefold higher in the youngest than the oldest age group when the medical idiom was used (OR = 3.07; 95% CI 1.47-6.41) but did not differ across age groups when the lay idiom was used (OR = 0.76; 95% CI 0.43-1.36).
conclusionChoice of idiom in epidemiological questionnaires can affect the apparent correlates of poor mental health and service use. Cultural change within populations over time may require changes in instrument wording to maintain consistency in epidemiological measurement of psychiatric conditions.
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.