George W. Brown

Depression and anxiety in the community: replicating the diagnosis of a case

The diagnoses were reviewed of 866 women interviewed in 5 community surveys carried out by the Bedford College team. The diagnoses matched commonly held conceptions of who is a case in terms of both severity and type of syndrome. Two methods of replicating the diagnoses are prevented, one based on discriminant function analysis and the other based on a simple checklist.

Disease, distress and depression: A comment

Bebbington et al. (1981) in their paper in the present number of this Journal suggest that psychiatric disorders in the community are likely to be cases of distress and base this assertion on the fact that very few out-patients have a significant life event preceding onset. A review of 7 recent studies of depressive patients, using a broadly comparable life-event instrument, gives a quite different picture: an average of 56% had an important life event before onset, compared with 18% in the general population. It is concluded that the authors arrive at their conclusion because they have failed in a number of critical respects to replicate previous analyses. The distinction between disease and distress is discussed in the light of these results.

Some Thoughts on Grounded Theory

The role of methodological considerations in sociological research is discussed. It is concluded that the argument of Glaser and Strauss in The Discovery of Grounded Theory for a relaxation of the safeguards of verificational studies has only limited applicability; and that methodological considerations should not be avoided in much sociological research. The role of methodological considerations in the development, as well as testing, of theory is discussed.

Social Support, Life Events and Depression

There has been an intimidating growth of interest in the relationship of social support and health. Cobb and Jones (1984) cite 34 recent reviews and puzzle about this explosion of interest for, as they note, there is hardly enough empirical material to justify it. Instead of adding to then we will deal with the implications of one program of research which for the last 15 years has concerned itself with the onset and course of affective disorders — largely of depression in women. Attention has been concentrated on one sex and one condition; a common core of measures concerning stressors has been employed and these have been utilized by many other research centers. It is this intense and protracted concentration of effort that we trust justifies such a parochial review.

The sin of subjectivism: A reply to Shapiro

Abstract Shapiro criticises our book on two grounds. He first outlines a series of mistakes. None of them we believe, in fact, have been made and this is usually quite clear from our book. His second criticism rejects our ‘subjectivist’ approach to measurement. We argue that he misrepresents our methods and fails to grasp their ability both to collect accurate data and deal adequately with possible sources of bias. Indeed in these, in its attention to the dating of both independent and dependent variables, and in the flexibility of its approach to the respondent, we feel our approach is better equipped than other existing instruments to tackle the problem of the aetiological role of psycho-social factors in illness.