Prevalence, Severity, and Comorbidity of 12-Month DSM-IV Disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication

Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA.
Archives of General Psychiatry (Impact Factor: 13.75). 07/2005; 62(6):617-27. DOI: 10.1001/archpsyc.62.6.617
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Little is known about the general population prevalence or severity of DSM-IV mental disorders.
To estimate 12-month prevalence, severity, and comorbidity of DSM-IV anxiety, mood, impulse control, and substance disorders in the recently completed US National Comorbidity Survey Replication.
Nationally representative face-to-face household survey conducted between February 2001 and April 2003 using a fully structured diagnostic interview, the World Health Organization World Mental Health Survey Initiative version of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview.
Nine thousand two hundred eighty-two English-speaking respondents 18 years and older.
Twelve-month DSM-IV disorders.
Twelve-month prevalence estimates were anxiety, 18.1%; mood, 9.5%; impulse control, 8.9%; substance, 3.8%; and any disorder, 26.2%. Of 12-month cases, 22.3% were classified as serious; 37.3%, moderate; and 40.4%, mild. Fifty-five percent carried only a single diagnosis; 22%, 2 diagnoses; and 23%, 3 or more diagnoses. Latent class analysis detected 7 multivariate disorder classes, including 3 highly comorbid classes representing 7% of the population.
Although mental disorders are widespread, serious cases are concentrated among a relatively small proportion of cases with high comorbidity.

    • "Examination of psychological symptoms as a function of demographic characteristics produced a pattern of findings that was generally consistent with the previous literature (e.g., Jorm, 2000; Kessler et al., 2005). MTurk workers who were younger and/or female were more likely to endorse psychological symptoms and cognitive vulnerability for affective disorders. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT:’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk) website provides a data collection platform with quick and inexpensive access to diverse samples. Numerous reports have lauded MTurk as capturing high-quality data with an epidemiological sample that is more representative of the U.S. population than traditional in-person convenience samples (e.g., undergraduate subject pools). This benefit, in combination with the ease and low-cost of data collection, has led to a remarkable increase in studies using MTurk to investigate phenomena across a wide range of psychological disciplines. Multiple reports have now examined the demographic characteristics of MTurk samples. One key gap remains, however, in that relatively little is known about individual differences in clinical symptoms among MTurk participants. This paper discusses the importance of assessing clinical phenomena in MTurk samples and support its assertions through an empirical investigation of a large sample (N = 1,098) of MTurk participants. Results revealed that MTurk participants endorse clinical symptoms to a substantially greater degree than traditional non-clinical samples. This distinction was most striking for depression and social anxiety symptoms, which were endorsed at levels comparable to individuals with clinically diagnosed mood and anxiety symptoms. Participants’ symptoms of physiological anxiety, hoarding, and eating pathology fell within the subclinical range. Overall, the number of individuals exceeding validated clinical cut-offs was between 3 and 19 times the estimated 12-month prevalence rates. Based on the current findings, it is argued that MTurk participants differ from the general population in meaningful ways and researchers should be wary of referring to this sample as truly representative.
    Psychological Assessment 07/2015; · 2.99 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Agoraphobia – with or without panic disorder – has a lifetime prevalence rate of 5–6% (Kessler et al., 2005). It is associated with an increased risk of suicide, severe social impairment, and significant comorbidity with other mental and medical disorders (Milrod and Busch, 1995). "
  • Source
    • "Anxiety disorders are the most prevalent psychiatric disorders, with a 12-month prevalence rate of 18.1% in the general population [1]. Anxiety disorders are associated with substantial functional impairment and high rates of comorbid psychiatric and medical disorders. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to investigate and compare health care utilization and expenditures between persons with diabetes comorbid with and without anxiety disorder in Taiwan. Health care utilization and expenditures among persons with diabetes with and without comorbid anxiety disorder in the period 2000-2004 were examined using the Taiwan's National Health Insurance claims data. Health care utilization included outpatient visits and use of hospital inpatient services, while expenditures included outpatient, inpatient and total medical expenditures. General estimation equation (GEE) models were used to analyze the factors associated with outpatient visits and expenditures, and multiple logistic regression analysis was applied to identify factors associated with hospitalization. In the study period, the average number of annual outpatient visits was 43.11-50.37 and 29.82-31.42 for persons with diabetes comorbid with anxiety disorder and for those without anxiety disorder, respectively. The average annual total expenditure was NT$74,875-92,781 and NT$63,764-81,667, respectively. Controlling for covariates, the GEE models revealed that age and time were associated with outpatient visits. Income and time factor were associated with total expenditure. Health care utilization and expenditures for persons with diabetes with comorbid anxiety disorder are significantly higher than those without anxiety disorder. The factors associated with health care utilization and expenditures are age, income and time. Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Inc.
    General hospital psychiatry 04/2015; 37(4). DOI:10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2015.04.008 · 2.90 Impact Factor
Show more


Available from