The National Psychiatric Morbidity Surveys of Great Britain - initial findings from the household survey (Reprinted from Psychological Medicine, vol 27, pgs 775-789, 1997)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes the Household Survey from the National Survey of Psychiatric Morbidity. This covered a sample drawn at random from the population of Britain, with the exception of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. The Postcode Address File was used as the sampling frame. Nearly 13,000 adults aged 16-65 were selected for interview, of which 10,108 (79.4%) were successfully interviewed. Eight percent could not be contacted and 13% refused interview. Psychiatric assessment was carried out by lay interviewers using the CIS-R. Subjects were also screened for psychosis, and screen-positive individuals were examined by psychiatrists using SCAN. Sixteen per cent of subjects scored above the standard cut-off of 12 on the CIS-R. The overall one-week prevalence of neurotic disorder was 12.3% in males and 19.5% in females. Unmarried and post-marital groups had high rates of disorder, as did single parents and people living on their own. Respondents in Social Class I had notably lower rates of neurotic disorder than the remainder of the sample. Unemployment was strongly associated with disorder. Subjects living in urban areas had a higher overall prevalence, but there was no significant variation by region. Black respondents had higher rates of disorders that were entirely explained by their age, family type, and social class. Individual neurotic disorders were all significantly commoner in women, with the exception of panic disorder. The one-year prevalence of functional psychoses was four per 1000, with no sex difference. Alcohol and drug dependence was considerably more prevalent in men. For the first time, the survey provides data on the prevalence and correlates of psychiatric disorder on a nationwide sample that can be used to inform equitable and effective national psychiatric services.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".