Mental health and quality of residential environment.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing interest in the proposition that residential environment can affect mental health. AIMS: To study the degree to which common mental disorder clusters according to postcode units and households. To investigate whether contextual measures of residential environment quality and geographical accessibility are associated with symptoms of common mental disorder. METHOD: A total of 1058 individuals aged 16-75 years (response rate 66%) participated in a cross-sectional survey. The 12-item General Health Questionnaire measured symptoms of common mental disorder. RESULTS: Only 2% (95% CI 0-6) of the unexplained variation in symptoms existed at postcode unit level, whereas 37% (95% CI 27-49) existed at household-level, but the postcode unit variation was reduced to zero after adjustments. There was little evidence to suggest that residential quality or accessibility were associated with symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: There was substantial unexplained variation at the household level but we could find no evidence of postcode unit variation and no association with residential environmental quality or geographical accessibility. It is likely that the psychosocial environment is more important than the physical environment in relation to common mental disorder.

Factors associated with being a false positive on the General Health Questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: The General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) has been used extensively in community and primary care research as an alternative to longer, time-consuming and more expensive assessments of the common mental disorders of depression and anxiety. The sensitivity and specificity of the GHQ compared with longer more detailed assessments is between 70 and 80%. Though satisfactory, this raises the concern about the possibility of bias in relation to longer assessments. We studied socio-demographic factors that were associated with being a false positive on the GHQ in order to investigate any ascertainment bias in relation to more detailed assessments. METHOD: A total of 7,357 consecutive patients aged 16 and over, in five general practices in Cardiff, Bristol and Pontypridd, were invited to complete the 12-item GHQ. Of these, 1,154 patients scored 3 or more, our case definition on the GHQ, and completed a computerised version of the Revised Clinical Interview Schedule (CIS-R) together with a short socio-demographic questionnaire. RESULTS: Of the 1,154 subjects who were cases on the GHQ, 344 (30 %) (95% CI 27%-32%) were false positive and were not cases on the CIS-R. After adjustment for the other variables, including GHQ score, false positive subjects were more likely to be employed [odds ratio (OR) 2.7, 95% CI 1.4-5.3], owner-occupiers (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.0-2.4) and to have a close friend or relative to talk to about personal problems (OR 2.2, 95 % CI 1.4-3.5). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that in this study there was an ascertainment bias on the GHQ in relation to the CIS-R. Studies that use the GHQ to study the relationship between socio-economic status and common mental disorder could lead to biased estimates of association compared to studies that use the CIS-R. It is likely that the GHQ will lead to a higher estimate of prevalence than the CIS-R in subjects who are better off financially and who have better social support.

Computerised patient-specific guidelines for management of common mental disorders in primary care: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: A large proportion of people with depression and anxiety go unrecognised by their general practitioner (GP). Case-finding does not appear to be effective on its own. AIM: To compare the effectiveness of case-finding followed by computer-generated patient-specific guidelines with usual care for the management of common mental disorders in primary care. DESIGN OF STUDY: Individual patient randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Five general practices in Bristol and Cardiff. METHOD: 762 individuals aged >/= 16 years scoring >/= 12 on the Clinical Interview Schedule Revised were randomised. The experimental intervention required participants to complete a computerised psychosocial assessment that generated a report for the GP including patient-specific treatment recommendations. The control patients were treated as usual with access to locally agreed guidelines. RESULTS: Participants' 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) score dropped irrespective of treatment allocation. The experimental group had a significantly lower GHQ score at 6 weeks, but not at 6 months. Recovery at 6 months was 3% greater among those receiving the experimental intervention (95% confidence interval [CI] = -4 to 10). Treatment was not significantly associated with quality of life or patient satisfaction. CONCLUSION: Only small benefits are likely from using case-finding followed by patient-specific guidelines to improve clinical management of common mental disorders in primary care. However, depression and anxiety are important public health problems so the utility of such systems should be further investigated.