Background
The literature on the prevalence of mental disorders affecting children and adolescents has expanded significantly over the last three decades around the world. Despite the field having matured significantly, there has been no meta-analysis to calculate a worldwide-pooled prevalence and to empirically assess the sources of heterogeneity of estimates.

Methods
We conducted a systematic review of the literature searching in PubMed, PsycINFO, and EMBASE for prevalence studies of mental disorders investigating probabilistic community samples of children and adolescents with standardized assessments methods that derive diagnoses according to the DSM or ICD. Meta-analytical techniques were used to estimate the prevalence rates of any mental disorder and individual diagnostic groups. A meta-regression analysis was performed to estimate the effect of population and sample characteristics, study methods, assessment procedures, and case definition in determining the heterogeneity of estimates.

Results
We included 41 studies conducted in 27 countries from every world region. The worldwide-pooled prevalence of mental disorders was 13.4% (CI 95% 11.3–15.9). The worldwide prevalence of any anxiety disorder was 6.5% (CI 95% 4.7–9.1), any depressive disorder was 2.6% (CI 95% 1.7–3.9), attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder was 3.4% (CI 95% 2.6–4.5), and any disruptive disorder was 5.7% (CI 95% 4.0–8.1). Significant heterogeneity was detected for all pooled estimates. The multivariate metaregression analyses indicated that sample representativeness, sample frame, and diagnostic interview were significant moderators of prevalence estimates. Estimates did not vary as a function of geographic location of studies and year of data collection. The multivariate model explained 88.89% of prevalence heterogeneity, but residual heterogeneity was still significant. Additional meta-analysis detected significant pooled difference in prevalence rates according to requirement of funcional impairment for the diagnosis of mental disorders.

Conclusions
Our findings suggest that mental disorders affect a significant number of children and adolescents worldwide. The pooled prevalence estimates and the identification of sources of heterogeneity have important implications to service, training, and research planning around the world.

Annual Research Review: A meta-analysis of the worldwide prevalence of mental disorders in children and adolescents

In this meta-analytic and narrative review, we examine several overarching issues related to the study of coping, emotion regulation, and internalizing and externalizing symptoms of psychopathology in childhood and adolescence, including the conceptualization and measurement of these constructs. We report a quantitative meta-analysis of 212 studies (N = 80,850 participants) that measured the associations between coping and emotion regulation with symptoms of internalizing and externalizing psychopathology. Within the meta-analysis we address the association of broad domains of coping and emotion regulation (e.g., total coping, emotion regulation), intermediate factors of coping and emotion regulation (e.g., primary control coping, secondary control coping), and specific coping and emotion regulation strategies (e.g., emotional expression, cognitive reappraisal) with internalizing and externalizing symptoms. For cross-sectional studies, which made up the majority of studies included, we examine 3 potential moderators: age, measure quality, and single versus multiple informants. Finally, we separately consider findings from longitudinal studies as these provide stronger tests of the effects. After accounting for publication bias, findings indicate that the broad domain of emotion regulation and adaptive coping and the factors of primary control coping and secondary control coping are related to lower levels of symptoms of psychopathology. Further, the domain of maladaptive coping, the factor of disengagement coping, and the strategies of emotional suppression, avoidance, and denial are related to higher levels of symptoms of psychopathology. Finally, we offer a critique of the current state of the field and outline an agenda for future research. (PsycINFO Database Record

Coping, emotion regulation, and psychopathology in childhood and adolescence: A meta-analysis and narrative review

Objective More than 75,000 articles have been published on internalizing and externalizing problems. To advance clinical and research applications of internalizing/externalizing concepts and data, our objectives were as follows: to provide an overview of recent research on internalizing/externalizing problems assessed at ages 1½ to 18 years; to identify issues raised by methods for assessing such problems; and to develop recommendations for more precise, consistent, informative, and productive assessment of such problems. Method A total of 4,870 peer-reviewed articles published from January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2014 were systematically reviewed and identified by the search terms "internalizing" or "externalizing," followed by detailed coding of 693 articles that reported use of measures meeting criteria for methodologically sound assessment of internalizing/externalizing problems. Results Many articles reported data based on measures that did not meet criteria for methodologically sound assessment of internalizing/externalizing problems. The 693 articles that used measures meeting criteria for methodological soundness and that qualified for detailed coding reported findings for 649,457 children living in 65 societies on all inhabited continents. Data were obtained from parents, teachers, children, clinicians, caregivers, and others. Samples included general population, clinical, school, at-risk, multicultural, welfare, and various ethnic/racial and socioeconomic groups. Many analytic methods were used to test associations of diverse variables with internalizing/externalizing problems. Conclusion The diverse procedures used to assess internalizing/externalizing problems pose challenges for clinical and research applications. To meet the challenges, recommendations are provided for using assessment instruments supported by published standardization, reliability, validity, and normative data to advance clinical services and research.

Internalizing/Externalizing Problems: Review and Recommendations for Clinical and Research Applications

Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment (ASEBA) instruments obtain and compare reports and ratings from multiple informants to assess the behavioral, emotional, and social problems and adaptive functioning of people from age 1½ to 90+ years. With translations in 90 languages, ASEBA instruments have multicultural norms with which to evaluate scores in relation to norms for many societies. Over 8,000 publications report use of the ASEBA in 80 societies and cultures. ASEBA scales include adaptive functioning, competence, empirically derived syndromes, DSM-oriented scales, internalizing, externalizing, and total problems. ASEBA instruments facilitate family-based assessment by providing parallel scale scores for parent and child problems. Practitioners can show each parent the profiles scored from their self-ratings and their partner's ratings of them, as well as profiles scored from their own ratings, teacher ratings, and self-ratings of their child.


Keywords:

psychopathology;
assessment;
multiculturalism

Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment (ASEBA)

The Prevalence of Mental Disorders Among Children and Adolescents in the Child Welfare System: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Objective: To build on Achenbach, Rescorla, and Ivanova (2012) by (a) reporting new international findings for parent, teacher, and self-ratings on the Child Behavior Checklist, Youth Self-Report, and Teacher's Report Form; (b) testing the fit of syndrome models to new data from 17 societies, including previously underrepresented regions; (c) testing effects of society gender, and age in 44 societies by integrating new and previous data; (d) testing cross-society correlations between mean item ratings; (e) describing the construction of multisociety norms; (f) illustrating clinical applications. Method: Confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) of parent, teacher, and self-ratings, performed separately for each society; tests of societal, gender, and age effects on dimensional syndrome scales, DSM-oriented scales, Internalizing, Externalizing, and Total Problems scales; tests of agreement between low, medium, and high ratings of problem items across societies. Results: CFAs supported the tested syndrome models in all societies according to the primary fit index (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA]), but less consistently according to other indices; effect sizes were small-to-medium for societal differences in scale scores, but very small for gender, age, and interactions with society; items received similarly low, medium, or high ratings in different societies; problem scores from 44 societies fit three sets of multisociety norms. Conclusions: Statistically derived syndrome models fit parent, teacher, and self-ratings when tested individually in all 44 societies according to RMSEAs (but less consistently according to other indices). Small to medium differences in scale scores among societies supported the use of low-, medium-, and high-scoring norms in clinical assessment of individual children. J. Am. Acad. Child Aclolesc. Psychiatry; 2012; 51(12):1273-1283.

Luis Anderssen Vera

Papers

International Epidemiology of Child and Adolescent Psychopathology II: Integration and Applications of Dimensional Findings from 44 Societies.