Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36210430›Full record

Observational studyBMC primary care2022

GPs' identification of patients with mental distress: a coupled questionnaire and cohort study from norwegian urban general practice.

Mina P Dahli, Ole R Haavet, Torleif Ruud, Mette Brekke

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC primary care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03624829 (Shared Care and Usual Health Care for Mental and Comorbid Health Problems. A Cluster Randomized Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 38% of its field
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.

NCT03624829 completednot on this map

Shared Care and Usual Health Care for Mental and Comorbid Health Problems. A Cluster Randomized Trial

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity Hospital, AkershusRan2015 to 2018Enrolled19,000ConditionsMental DisordersArmsShared care
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mina P DahliDepartment of General Practice, Institute of Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Kirkeveien 166 Fredrik Holst Hus, 0450, Oslo, Norway. mina.dahli@medisin.uio.no.
Ole R HaavetDepartment of General Practice, Institute of Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Kirkeveien 166 Fredrik Holst Hus, 0450, Oslo, Norway.
Torleif RuudDivision of Mental Health Services, Akershus University Hospital, Lørenskog, Norway.
Mette BrekkeDepartment of General Practice, Institute of Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Kirkeveien 166 Fredrik Holst Hus, 0450, Oslo, Norway.
University of Oslo · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMental health problems are one of the leading causes of disease burden worldwide, and are mainly diagnosed and treated in general practice. It is unclear however, how general practitioners (GPs) identify mental health problems in their patients. The aim of this study was to explore how patients' self-reported levels of mental distress correspond with psychological diagnoses made by their GPs, and associations with sex, age, number of consultations, and somatic symptom diagnoses.

methodsA questionnaire study coupled with retrospective and prospective cohort data from 553 patients aged 16-65 years in six GP offices in Oslo, Norway during 21 months in 2014-2016.

resultsWe found that 73.3% of patients with self-reported high levels of mental distress versus only 13.3% of the patients with low levels of mental distress had received a psychological diagnosis (p < 0.01). We found an increase in number of consultations for the group with high levels of mental distress regardless of having received a psychological diagnosis (p < 0.01). There was also an increase in number of somatic symptoms (p = 0.04) and higher number of females (0.04) in this group. 35% of patients had received one or more psychological diagnosis by their GP. Mean CORE-10 score, being female and a high number of consultations was associated with having received a psychological diagnosis. In the adjusted analyses high CORE-10 score and a high number of consultations still predicted a psychological diagnosis.

conclusionsWe found a clear association between self-reported mental distress and having received a psychological diagnosis amongst the participants, and the probability for being identified increased with increasing levels of mental distress, and increasing number of visits to their doctor. This suggests that GPs can identify patients with high levels of mental distress in general practice in an adequate way, even though this can sometimes be a complex issue.

trial registrationTrial registration The main study was retrospectively registered in ClinicalTrials.gov on August 10 2019 with identification number NCT03624829.

Indexed as

General PractitionersMental DisordersPhysician-Patient RelationsAdolescentAdultAgedFemaleGeneral PracticeHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesSurveys and QuestionnairesUrban Health ServicesYoung AdultDiagnosesGeneral practiceMental healthPsychological distress

Identifiers

PMID36210430
PMCPMC9549632
OpenAlexW4303876166

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.