BACKGROUND: The patient self-rating questionnaire is commonly used as a research tool to identify patients with 'unrecognized' depression. There is no evidence to support its use as a clinical tool in general practice. AIM: To determine whether use of the 30-item general health questionnaire (GHQ) is a practical means of increasing identification of 'new' episodes of emotional distress among patients consulting their general practitioner (GP). METHOD: A randomized controlled trial was carried out in a Scottish new town practice with eight partners. In the waiting room, 1912 patients aged over 14 years and consulting over a 10-month period attempted to complete the GHQ. The 'clinical judgement' group posted the questionnaire into a box then attended the doctor as normal. The 'screened' group presented the questionnaire to the doctor. After the consultation, the doctor completed an assessment questionnaire. The main outcome measures were GHQ scores and doctors' assessments of mental health. RESULTS: In total, 1589 patients were eligible to participate. However, 207 patients in the screened group were excluded because the doctor did not look at the questionnaire. The clinical judgement group (59.7% patients) and the screened group (40.3%) were compared. Although the doctors' diagnoses of distress were low in the clinical judgement group (8.1%), they were significantly greater in the screened group (13.9%) where the diagnosis of depression was doubled. The percentage of patients scoring greater than or equal to 9 (GHQ+) was 21.5% and 21.0% respectively. The level of agreement between the doctors' diagnoses of distress and the questionnaires scoring GHQ+ rose from 19% in the clinical judgement group to 35% in the screened group. CONCLUSIONS: The general health questionnaire used in a practice setting increases the identification of patients with emotional distress. However, the use made of the questionnaires in the screened group raises questions of doctor and patient acceptability.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The patient self-rating questionnaire is commonly used as a research tool to identify patients with 'unrecognized' depression. There is no evidence to support its use as a clinical tool in general practice. AIM: To determine whether use of the 30-item general health questionnaire (GHQ) is a practical means of increasing identification of 'new' episodes of emotional distress among patients consulting their general practitioner (GP). METHOD: A randomized controlled trial was carried out in a Scottish new town practice with eight partners. In the waiting room, 1912 patients aged over 14 years and consulting over a 10-month period attempted to complete the GHQ. The 'clinical judgement' group posted the questionnaire into a box then attended the doctor as normal. The 'screened' group presented the questionnaire to the doctor. After the consultation, the doctor completed an assessment questionnaire. The main outcome measures were GHQ scores and doctors' assessments of mental health. RESULTS: In total, 1589 patients were eligible to participate. However, 207 patients in the screened group were excluded because the doctor did not look at the questionnaire. The clinical judgement group (59.7% patients) and the screened group (40.3%) were compared. Although the doctors' diagnoses of distress were low in the clinical judgement group (8.1%), they were significantly greater in the screened group (13.9%) where the diagnosis of depression was doubled. The percentage of patients scoring greater than or equal to 9 (GHQ+) was 21.5% and 21.0% respectively. The level of agreement between the doctors' diagnoses of distress and the questionnaires scoring GHQ+ rose from 19% in the clinical judgement group to 35% in the screened group. CONCLUSIONS: The general health questionnaire used in a practice setting increases the identification of patients with emotional distress. However, the use made of the questionnaires in the screened group raises questions of doctor and patient acceptability.
Authors: J Ormel; W Van Den Brink; M W Koeter; R Giel; K Van Der Meer; G Van De Willige; F W Wilmink Journal: Psychol Med Date: 1990-11 Impact factor: 7.723
Authors: J M Valderas; A Kotzeva; M Espallargues; G Guyatt; C E Ferrans; M Y Halyard; D A Revicki; T Symonds; A Parada; J Alonso Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2008-01-04 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: P Kinnersley; A Edwards; K Hood; N Cadbury; R Ryan; H Prout; D Owen; F Macbeth; P Butow; C Butler Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2007-07-18