This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Correction  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on ISI (25)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Statistics and Research Methods  • Public Health  • Alert me on articles by topic

Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2002;59:129-130.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

WE AGREE with Narrow et al¹ that the National Institute of Mental Health Epidemiologic Catchment Area Program (ECA)² and National Comorbidity Survey (NCS)³ have 3 problems: implausibly high disorder prevalence rates, discrepancies between rates, and limited usefulness for estimating treatment need. The authors propose adding a clinical significance criterion (CS) to each disorder's DSM^4-5 criteria to help solve these problems. Their CS essentially requires that symptoms lead to outpatient service contact or interfere with life or activities "a lot." Unsurprisingly, the more restrictive criteria yield lower prevalence rates. The authors claim that adding the CS reduces discrepancies between ECA and NCS rates and that diagnostic validity increases, as evidenced by higher rates of suicidal ideation or attempts and disability.

Does adding the CS provide more valid revised prevalence estimates of mental disorders, as claimed? In fact, the analysis addresses not disorder rates but a different entity: treatment need.⁶ The authors . . . [Full Text of this Article]

RELATED ARTICLE

Revised Prevalence Estimates of Mental Disorders in the United States: Using a Clinical Significance Criterion to Reconcile 2 Surveys' Estimates
William E. Narrow, Donald S. Rae, Lee N. Robins, and Darrel A. Regier
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2002;59(2):115-123.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Extending the Bereavement Exclusion for Major Depression to Other Losses: Evidence From the National Comorbidity Survey
Wakefield et al.
Arch Gen Psychiatry 2007;64:433-440.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Prevalence and Treatment of Mental Disorders, 1990 to 2003
Kessler et al.
NEJM 2005;352:2515-2523.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Challenges in Operationalizing the DSM-IV Clinical Significance Criterion
Beals et al.
Arch Gen Psychiatry 2004;61:1197-1207.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Association of Fear of Terror With Low-Grade Inflammation Among Apparently Healthy Employed Adults
Melamed et al.
Psychosom. Med. 2004;66:484-491.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The DSM-IV Rates of Child and Adolescent Disorders in Puerto Rico: Prevalence, Correlates, Service Use, and the Effects of Impairment
Canino et al.
Arch Gen Psychiatry 2004;61:85-93.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Major Depression and Associated Impairment: Same or Different Genetic and Environmental Risk Factors?
Foley et al.
Am. J. Psychiatry 2003;160:2128-2133.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Is The Prevalence Of Mental Disorders A Good Measure Of The Need For Services?
Mechanic
Health Aff (Millwood) 2003;22:8-20.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Prior Juvenile Diagnoses in Adults With Mental Disorder: Developmental Follow-Back of a Prospective-Longitudinal Cohort
Kim-Cohen et al.
Arch Gen Psychiatry 2003;60:709-717.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The Prevalence Of Treated And Untreated Mental Disorders In Five Countries
Bijl et al.
Health Aff (Millwood) 2003;22:122-133.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT