Context Little is known about lifetime prevalence or age of onset of DSM-IV disorders. Objective To estimate lifetime prevalence and age-of-onset distributions of DSM-IV disorders in the recently completed National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Design and Setting Nationally representative face-to-face household survey conducted between February 2001 and April 2003 using the fully structured World Health Organization World Mental Health Survey version of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview. Participants Nine thousand two hundred eighty-two English-speaking respondents aged 18 years and older. Main Outcome Measures Lifetime DSM-IV anxiety, mood, impulse-control, and substance use disorders. Results Lifetime prevalence estimates are as follows: anxiety disorders, 28.8%; mood disorders, 20.8%; impulse-control disorders, 24.8%; substance use disorders, 14.6%; any disorder, 46.4%. Median age of onset is much earlier for anxiety (11 years) and impulse-control (11 years) disorders than for substance use (20 years) and mood (30 years) disorders. Half of all lifetime cases start by age 14 years and three fourths by age 24 years. Later onsets are mostly of comorbid conditions, with estimated lifetime risk of any disorder at age 75 years (50.8%) only slightly higher than observed lifetime prevalence (46.4%). Lifetime prevalence estimates are higher in recent cohorts than in earlier cohorts and have fairly stable intercohort differences across the life course that vary in substantively plausible ways among sociodemographic subgroups. Conclusions About half of Americans will meet the criteria for a DSM-IV disorder sometime in their life, with first onset usually in childhood or adolescence. Interventions aimed at prevention or early treatment need to focus on youth.

https://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/faculty/detels/PH150/Kessler_DSMIV_AGP2009.pdf

Lifetime Prevalence and Age-of-Onset Distributions of DSM-IV Disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication

Background Little is known about the general population prevalence or severity of DSM-IV mental disorders. Objective 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. Design and Setting 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. Participants Nine thousand two hundred eighty-two English-speaking respondents 18 years and older. Main Outcome Measures Twelve-month DSM-IV disorders. Results 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. Conclusion Although mental disorders are widespread, serious cases are concentrated among a relatively small proportion of cases with high comorbidity.

/pdf/prevalence-severity-and-comorbidity-of-12-month-dsm-iv-54fahxwd1s.pdf

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

世界経済・社会統計 = World development indicators

Despite the concern that has been expressed about potential method biases, and the pervasiveness of research settings with the potential to produce them, there is disagreement about whether they really are a problem for researchers in the behavioral sciences. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to explore the current state of knowledge about method biases. First, we explore the meaning of the terms “method” and “method bias” and then we examine whether method biases influence all measures equally. Next, we review the evidence of the effects that method biases have on individual measures and on the covariation between different constructs. Following this, we evaluate the procedural and statistical remedies that have been used to control method biases and provide recommendations for minimizing method bias.

Sources of Method Bias in Social Science Research and Recommendations on How to Control It

ContextUncertainties exist about prevalence and correlates of major depressive
disorder (MDD).ObjectiveTo present nationally representative data on prevalence and correlates
of MDD by Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,
Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) criteria, and on study
patterns and correlates of treatment and treatment adequacy from the recently
completed National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R).DesignFace-to-face household survey conducted from February 2001 to December
2002.SettingThe 48 contiguous United States.ParticipantsHousehold residents ages 18 years or older (N = 9090) who responded
to the NCS-R survey.Main Outcome MeasuresPrevalence and correlates of MDD using the World Health Organization's
(WHO) Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI), 12-month severity
with the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology Self-Report (QIDS-SR),
the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), and the WHO disability assessment scale
(WHO-DAS). Clinical reinterviews used the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV.ResultsThe prevalence of CIDI MDD for lifetime was 16.2% (95% confidence interval
[CI], 15.1-17.3) (32.6-35.1 million US adults) and for 12-month was 6.6% (95%
CI, 5.9-7.3) (13.1-14.2 million US adults). Virtually all CIDI 12-month cases
were independently classified as clinically significant using the QIDS-SR,
with 10.4% mild, 38.6% moderate, 38.0% severe, and 12.9% very severe. Mean
episode duration was 16 weeks (95% CI, 15.1-17.3). Role impairment as measured
by SDS was substantial as indicated by 59.3% of 12-month cases with severe
or very severe role impairment. Most lifetime (72.1%) and 12-month (78.5%)
cases had comorbid CIDI/DSM-IV disorders, with MDD
only rarely primary. Although 51.6% (95% CI, 46.1-57.2) of 12-month cases
received health care treatment for MDD, treatment was adequate in only 41.9%
(95% CI, 35.9-47.9) of these cases, resulting in 21.7% (95% CI, 18.1-25.2)
of 12-month MDD being adequately treated. Sociodemographic correlates of treatment
were far less numerous than those of prevalence.ConclusionsMajor depressive disorder is a common disorder, widely distributed in
the population, and usually associated with substantial symptom severity and
role impairment. While the recent increase in treatment is encouraging, inadequate
treatment is a serious concern. Emphasis on screening and expansion of treatment
needs to be accompanied by a parallel emphasis on treatment quality improvement.

/pdf/the-epidemiology-of-major-depressive-disorder-results-from-2kfxdgis3p.pdf

The epidemiology of major depressive disorder: results from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R).

Antidepressant use and the risk of breast cancer: A non-association

Objective:Explore the business case for enhanced depression care and establish a return on investment rationale for increased organizational involvement by employer-purchasers.Method:Literature review, focused on the National Institute of Mental Health-sponsored Work Outcomes Research and Co

Making the business case for enhanced depression care: the National Institute of Mental Health-harvard Work Outcomes Research and Cost-effectiveness Study

Parental anxiety associated with referral of a child to a pediatric cardiologist for evaluation of a Still's murmur.

:Clinical application of pharmacogenetic testing has been proposed as a means of improving treatment outcomes in psychiatry. The identification of a putative genetic test for better clozapine response in schizophrenia offers an opportunity to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of such testing.

Pharmacogenetic testing in the clinical management of schizophrenia: a decision-analytic model.

State Medicaid programs use prior authorization (PA) to control drug spending by requiring that specific conditions be met before allowing reimbursement. The extent to which PA policies respond to new developments concerning medication safety is not known. In April 2005 the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an advisory describing increased mortality among elderly people with dementia taking atypical antipsychotics. More than a year later, no state had changed its PA policy in response. We discuss the roles of Medicaid and other insurers in responding to emerging drug safety issues and their challenges in weighing drug risks and benefits.

Philip S. Wang

Papers

Antidepressant use and the risk of breast cancer: A non-association

Making the business case for enhanced depression care: the National Institute of Mental Health-harvard Work Outcomes Research and Cost-effectiveness Study

Parental anxiety associated with referral of a child to a pediatric cardiologist for evaluation of a Still's murmur.

Pharmacogenetic testing in the clinical management of schizophrenia: a decision-analytic model.

Medicaid's prior authorization program and access to atypical antipsychotic medications.