Assessing mental health in primary care research using standardized scales: can it be carried out over the telephone?
Assessing mental health in primary care research using standardized scales: can it be carried out over the telephone?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1017/s0033291703008055
复制
发表时间：
2004-01-01
影响因子：
6.9
通讯作者：
Sharp, D
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Evans, M;Kessler, D;Sharp, D
背景电话面试具有经济和后勤优势，但在英国尚未广泛使用。大多数比较面对面和电话精神病评估的研究都是在美国进行的，通常仅限于患有已知精神疾病的人群，并且涉及两个独立样本组之间的比较，而不是对同一组进行重复访谈。本研究的目的是比较面对面和电话管理的12项一般健康问卷和修订后的临床访谈时间表在英国的全科医学sample. Method。在两个一般的做法98连续出席者进行了评估，在48小时内两次。面对面和电话访谈的顺序是交替的。没有证据表明给药方式导致CIS-R评分偏倚。在GHQ中，60岁以上的人在电话中得分更高。GHQ和CIS-R的面对面和电话评分之间存在良好的一致性，病例定义也存在良好的一致性。与会者有强烈的偏好面对面的采访。结论。使用GHQ和CIS-R的心理健康电话评估是一种合理的方法，用于初级保健研究在英国的限制，从老年人的电话应答可能是不同的面对面的评估GHQ。然而，电话访谈似乎不太可以接受，可能应该在研究人员和受试者之间建立或正在进行的个人接触的背景下使用。
Background. Telephone interviewing has economic and logistical advantages but has not been widely used in the UK. Most studies comparing face-to-face and telephone psychiatric assessment have been carried out in the US, often restricted to a population with known psychiatric disorder and involving comparisons between two separate sample groups rather than repeat interviews with the same group. The aim of the present study was to compare face-to-face and telephone administration of the 12-item General Health Questionnaire and the Revised Clinical Interview Schedule in a UK general practice sample.Method. Ninety-eight consecutive attenders at two general practices were assessed twice within 48 h. The order of face-to-face and telephone interviews was alternated.Results. There was no evidence that the mode of administration led to a bias in scores on the CIS-R. For the GHQ, those aged over 60 tended to score higher on the telephone. There was good agreement between face-to-face and telephone scores for both GHQ and CIS-R and good agreement for case definition. Participants had a strong preference for face-to-face interviews.Conclusions. Telephone assessment of mental health using the GHQ and CIS-R is a reasonable method to be used in primary care research in the UK with the limitation that telephone responses from older people might be different from face-to-face assessments for the GHQ. However, telephone interviewing appeared less acceptable and should probably be used in the context of established or ongoing personal contact between researcher and subject.