Two plus two equals three? Do we need to rethink lifetime prevalence? Psychol Med

Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, Department of Psychiatry, College of Physicians and Surgeons, and New York State Psychiatric Institute, USA.
Psychological Medicine (Impact Factor: 5.94). 10/2009; 40(6):895-7. DOI: 10.1017/S0033291709991504
Source: PubMed
8 Reads
  • Source
    • "We also found that rates differed by sex for most disorders, with females generally reporting higher rates of mood, anxiety and phobic disorder, and males reporting higher rates of substance-and alcohol-related disorders. Cross-sectional surveys assessing lifetime prevalence have been shown to underestimate true lifetime risk (Andrews et al. 2005, Susser & Shrout, 2010). In the US National Comorbidity Survey Replication, the lifetime prevalence of any mental disorder among 49–59 years old was 46.5%, with markedly lower rates of nearly all individual disorders than those reported here, with the exception of panic disorder (Kessler et al. 2005). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There are only a small number of prospective studies that have systematically evaluated standardised diagnostic criteria for mental disorder for more than a decade. The aim of this study is to present the approximated overall and sex-specific cumulative incidence of mental disorder in the Zurich cohort study, a prospective cohort study of 18-19 years olds from the canton of Zurich, Switzerland, who were followed through age 50. A stratified sample of 591 participants were interviewed with the Structured Psychopathological Interview and Rating of the Social Consequences of Psychological Disturbances for Epidemiology, a semi-structured interview that uses a bottom-up approach to assess the past-year presence of 15 psychiatric syndromes. Seven interview waves took place between 1979 and 2008. Approximated cumulative incidence was estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods. Rates of mental disorder were considerably higher than those generally reported in cross-sectional surveys. We found rates ranging from 32.5% for major depressive disorder to 1.2% for Bipolar I disorder. The cumulative probability of experiencing any of the mental disorders assessed by age 50 was 73.9%, the highest reported to date. We also found that rates differed by sex for most disorders, with females generally reporting higher rates of mood, anxiety and phobic disorder, and males reporting higher rates of substance- and alcohol-related disorders. These findings confirm those of other long-term prospective studies that indicate the nearly universal nature of disturbances of emotion and behaviour across the life span. Greater community awareness of the normative nature of these experiences is warranted. An important area of future research is study long-term course and stability to determine who among those with such disturbances suffer from chronic disabling mental disorders. Such longitudinal studies may aid in directing services and intervention efforts where they are most needed.
    Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences 03/2015; DOI:10.1017/S204579601500027X · 3.91 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "current or past-month prevalence), 6-and/or 12-month prevalence. Lifetime estimates were excluded , as these are more prone to recall bias (Simon & VonKorff, 1995 ; Kruijshaar et al. 2005 ; Moffitt et al. 2010 ; Susser & Shrout, 2010). Estimates of MDD were the focus ; however, if studies reported estimates of depression not otherwise specified (NOS) these were included for comparison. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Summarizing the epidemiology of major depressive disorder (MDD) at a global level is complicated by significant heterogeneity in the data. The aim of this study is to present a global summary of the prevalence and incidence of MDD, accounting for sources of bias, and dealing with heterogeneity. Findings are informing MDD burden quantification in the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2010 Study. Method: A systematic review of prevalence and incidence of MDD was undertaken. Electronic databases Medline, PsycINFO and EMBASE were searched. Community-representative studies adhering to suitable diagnostic nomenclature were included. A meta-regression was conducted to explore sources of heterogeneity in prevalence and guide the stratification of data in a meta-analysis. Results: The literature search identified 116 prevalence and four incidence studies. Prevalence period, sex, year of study, depression subtype, survey instrument, age and region were significant determinants of prevalence, explaining 57.7% of the variability between studies. The global point prevalence of MDD, adjusting for methodological differences, was 4.7% (4.4-5.0%). The pooled annual incidence was 3.0% (2.4-3.8%), clearly at odds with the pooled prevalence estimates and the previously reported average duration of 30 weeks for an episode of MDD. Conclusions: Our findings provide a comprehensive and up-to-date profile of the prevalence of MDD globally. Region and study methodology influenced the prevalence of MDD. This needs to be considered in the GBD 2010 study and in investigations into the ecological determinants of MDD. Good-quality estimates from low-/middle-income countries were sparse. More accurate data on incidence are also required.
    Psychological Medicine 07/2012; 43(3):1-11. DOI:10.1017/S0033291712001511 · 5.94 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The multiple factors likely to influence estimates of the prevalence of bipolar spectrum disorders (BSD) make it difficult to determine its actual prevalence. A systematic review was undertaken to explore the availability and quality of epidemiological data for BSD. This will inform the Global Burden of Disease 2010 study. Electronic databases searched were Medline, PsycInfo and EMBASE using search terms generated in consultation with a research librarian. Reference lists were searched and experts contacted to obtain articles not identified through the database search. Prevalence data pertaining to point, 6 month or 12 month prevalence of BSD were sought. The mean pooled prevalence was 0.741% (point) and 0.843% (6/12 months). The study region, response rate and diagnostic tool had a significant impact on prevalence estimates but there were no significant differences in prevalence across prevalence types, gender, sample coverage, economic status and bipolar subtype. Little or no prevalence data was apparent for many regions of the world. Also, the entire bipolar spectrum was rarely assessed. Although stringent quality assurance methodology was used, controlling for all sources of variability around the pooled prevalence was not possible. This systematic review has made significant contributions to the epidemiological profile of BSD. Prevalence estimates will be used to generate estimates of burden for BSD in the global burden of disease 2010 study.
    Journal of Affective Disorders 12/2010; 134(1-3):1-13. DOI:10.1016/j.jad.2010.11.007 · 3.38 Impact Factor
Show more