King's College London

Research portal

Transcultural psychiatry: Some social and epidemiological research issues

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Standard

Transcultural psychiatry: Some social and epidemiological research issues. / Bhui, K; Bhugra, D.

In: International Journal of Social Psychiatry, Vol. 47, No. 3, 2001, p. 1 - 9.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Harvard

Bhui, K & Bhugra, D 2001, 'Transcultural psychiatry: Some social and epidemiological research issues', International Journal of Social Psychiatry, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 1 - 9. https://doi.org/10.1177/002076400104700301

APA

Bhui, K., & Bhugra, D. (2001). Transcultural psychiatry: Some social and epidemiological research issues. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 47(3), 1 - 9. https://doi.org/10.1177/002076400104700301

Vancouver

Bhui K, Bhugra D. Transcultural psychiatry: Some social and epidemiological research issues. International Journal of Social Psychiatry. 2001;47(3):1 - 9. https://doi.org/10.1177/002076400104700301

Author

Bhui, K ; Bhugra, D. / Transcultural psychiatry: Some social and epidemiological research issues. In: International Journal of Social Psychiatry. 2001 ; Vol. 47, No. 3. pp. 1 - 9.

Bibtex Download

@article{80fe1a6e883f428b9ae5d06681a45932,
title = "Transcultural psychiatry: Some social and epidemiological research issues",
abstract = "Background: Mental Health Research across cultural groups is often criticised for using imprecise measures of cultural group and for using outcome measures as if they have universal validity. Aims: 1. To Investigate the effect of using different cultural group variables on the findings of a survey of prevalence of Common Mental Disorders. 2. To demonstrate that assumptions of validity for outcomes measures can affect the interpretation of data from prevalence surveys. Methods: We recruited Punjabi and English subjects to a phase prevalence survey that included the Amritsar Depression Inventory and the General Health Questionnaire as screening instruments. The Clinical Interview Schedule was the outcome measure. This paper reports on a secondary analysis of the data. We used ethnic group, place of birth, religion, first language and language spoken at interview as possible cultural group variables and compared the prevalence estimates. We then considered the limitations of conventional methods to assess prevalence, by looking at mean scores on each of the three instruments in both cultural groups. Results: Cultural group variables did not influence the prevalence estimates for Common Mental Disorder. Although conventional scoring methods showed no difference in prevalence across cultures, the mean scores on each instrument, when compared across cultural groups, differed for the Amritsar Depression Inventory. This instrument showed a higher mean score for the Punjabis suggesting a higher prevalence. The findings are discussed in the context of value laden 'assumptions' about validity. Conclusions: The findings of prevalence surveys depend on assumptions of validity. The 'culture' of psychiatry is a closed system in which validation studies support its basic assumptions.",
author = "K Bhui and D Bhugra",
year = "2001",
doi = "10.1177/002076400104700301",
language = "English",
volume = "47",
pages = "1 -- 9",
journal = "The International journal of social psychiatry",
issn = "0020-7640",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd",
number = "3",

}

RIS (suitable for import to EndNote) Download

TY - JOUR

T1 - Transcultural psychiatry: Some social and epidemiological research issues

AU - Bhui, K

AU - Bhugra, D

PY - 2001

Y1 - 2001

N2 - Background: Mental Health Research across cultural groups is often criticised for using imprecise measures of cultural group and for using outcome measures as if they have universal validity. Aims: 1. To Investigate the effect of using different cultural group variables on the findings of a survey of prevalence of Common Mental Disorders. 2. To demonstrate that assumptions of validity for outcomes measures can affect the interpretation of data from prevalence surveys. Methods: We recruited Punjabi and English subjects to a phase prevalence survey that included the Amritsar Depression Inventory and the General Health Questionnaire as screening instruments. The Clinical Interview Schedule was the outcome measure. This paper reports on a secondary analysis of the data. We used ethnic group, place of birth, religion, first language and language spoken at interview as possible cultural group variables and compared the prevalence estimates. We then considered the limitations of conventional methods to assess prevalence, by looking at mean scores on each of the three instruments in both cultural groups. Results: Cultural group variables did not influence the prevalence estimates for Common Mental Disorder. Although conventional scoring methods showed no difference in prevalence across cultures, the mean scores on each instrument, when compared across cultural groups, differed for the Amritsar Depression Inventory. This instrument showed a higher mean score for the Punjabis suggesting a higher prevalence. The findings are discussed in the context of value laden 'assumptions' about validity. Conclusions: The findings of prevalence surveys depend on assumptions of validity. The 'culture' of psychiatry is a closed system in which validation studies support its basic assumptions.

AB - Background: Mental Health Research across cultural groups is often criticised for using imprecise measures of cultural group and for using outcome measures as if they have universal validity. Aims: 1. To Investigate the effect of using different cultural group variables on the findings of a survey of prevalence of Common Mental Disorders. 2. To demonstrate that assumptions of validity for outcomes measures can affect the interpretation of data from prevalence surveys. Methods: We recruited Punjabi and English subjects to a phase prevalence survey that included the Amritsar Depression Inventory and the General Health Questionnaire as screening instruments. The Clinical Interview Schedule was the outcome measure. This paper reports on a secondary analysis of the data. We used ethnic group, place of birth, religion, first language and language spoken at interview as possible cultural group variables and compared the prevalence estimates. We then considered the limitations of conventional methods to assess prevalence, by looking at mean scores on each of the three instruments in both cultural groups. Results: Cultural group variables did not influence the prevalence estimates for Common Mental Disorder. Although conventional scoring methods showed no difference in prevalence across cultures, the mean scores on each instrument, when compared across cultural groups, differed for the Amritsar Depression Inventory. This instrument showed a higher mean score for the Punjabis suggesting a higher prevalence. The findings are discussed in the context of value laden 'assumptions' about validity. Conclusions: The findings of prevalence surveys depend on assumptions of validity. The 'culture' of psychiatry is a closed system in which validation studies support its basic assumptions.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0034815306&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/002076400104700301

DO - 10.1177/002076400104700301

M3 - Article

VL - 47

SP - 1

EP - 9

JO - The International journal of social psychiatry

JF - The International journal of social psychiatry

SN - 0020-7640

IS - 3

ER -

View graph of relations

© 2018 King's College London | Strand | London WC2R 2LS | England | United Kingdom | Tel +44 (0)20 7836 5454