a World Mental Health Surveys report

Funding Information: The WHO World Mental Health Survey collaborators are Sergio Aguilar-Gaxiola, MD, PhD; Ali Al-Hamzawi, MD; Mohammed Salih Al-Kaisy, MD; Jordi Alonso, MD, PhD; Yasmin A. Altwaijri, PhD; Laura Helena Andrade, MD, PhD; Lukoye Atwoli, MD, PhD; Corina Benjet, PhD; Guilherme Borges, ScD; Evelyn J. Bromet, PhD; Ronny Bruffaerts, PhD; Brendan Bunting, PhD; Jose Miguel Caldas-de-Almeida, MD, PhD; Gra?a Cardoso, MD, PhD; Somnath Chatterji, MD; Alfredo H. Cia, MD; Louisa Degenhardt, PhD; Koen Demyttenaere, MD, PhD; Silvia Florescu, MD, PhD; Giovanni de Girolamo, MD; Oye Gureje, MD, DSc, FRCPsych; Josep Maria Haro, MD, PhD; Meredith G. Harris, PhD; Hristo Hinkov, MD, PhD; Chi-yi Hu, MD, PhD; Peter de Jonge, PhD; Aimee Nasser Karam, PhD; Elie G. Karam, MD; Norito Kawakami, MD, DMSc; Ronald C. Kessler, PhD; Andrzej Kiejna, MD, PhD; Viviane Kovess-Masfety, MD, PhD; Sing Lee, MBBS; Jean-Pierre Lepine, MD; John J. McGrath, MD, PhD; Maria Elena Medina-Mora, PhD; Zeina Mneimneh, PhD; Jacek Moskalewicz, PhD; Fernando Navarro-Mateu, MD, PhD; Marina Piazza, MPH, ScD; Jose Posada-Villa, MD; Kate M. Scott, PhD; Tim Slade, PhD; Juan Carlos Stagnaro, MD, PhD; Dan J. Stein, FRCPC, PhD; Margreet ten Have, PhD; Yolanda Torres, MPH, Dra.HC; Maria Carmen Viana, MD, PhD; Daniel V. Vigo, MD, DrPH; Harvey Whiteford, MBBS, PhD; David R. Williams, MPH, PhD; Bogdan Wojtyniak, ScD. Funding Information: The Argentina survey -- Estudio Argentino de Epidemiología en Salud Mental (EASM) -- was supported by a grant from the Argentinian Ministry of Health (Ministerio de Salud de la Nación) - (Grant Number 2002–17270/13–5). The 2007 Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing is funded by the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. The São Paulo Megacity Mental Health Survey is supported by the State of São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) Thematic Project Grant 03/00204–3. The Bulgarian Epidemiological Study of common mental disorders EPIBUL is supported by the Ministry of Health and the National Center for Public Health Protection. EPIBUL 2, conducted in 2016–17, is supported by the Ministry of Health and European Economic Area Grants. The Colombian National Study of Mental Health (NSMH) is supported by the Ministry of Social Protection. The Mental Health Study Medellín – Colombia was carried out and supported jointly by the Center for Excellence on Research in Mental Health (CES University) and the Secretary of Health of Medellín. The ESEMeD project is funded by the European Commission (Contracts QLG5–1999-01042; SANCO 2004123, and EAHC 20081308), (the Piedmont Region (Italy)), Fondo de Investigación Sanitaria, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Spain (FIS 00/0028), Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología, Spain (SAF 2000–158-CE), Generalitat de Catalunya (2017 SGR 452; 2014 SGR 748), Instituto de Salud Carlos III (CIBER CB06/02/0046, RETICS RD06/0011 REM-TAP), and other local agencies and by an unrestricted educational grant from GlaxoSmithKline. Implementation of the Iraq Mental Health Survey (IMHS) and data entry were carried out by the staff of the Iraqi MOH and MOP with direct support from the Iraqi IMHS team with funding from both the Japanese and European Funds through United Nations Development Group Iraq Trust Fund (UNDG ITF). The Israel National Health Survey is funded by the Ministry of Health with support from the Israel National Institute for Health Policy and Health Services Research and the National Insurance Institute of Israel. The World Mental Health Japan (WMHJ) Survey is supported by the Grant for Research on Psychiatric and Neurological Diseases and Mental Health (H13-SHOGAI-023, H14-TOKUBETSU-026, H16-KOKORO-013, H25-SEISHIN-IPPAN-006) from the Japan Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. The Lebanese Evaluation of the Burden of Ailments and Needs Of the Nation (L.E.B.A.N.O.N.) is supported by the Lebanese Ministry of Public Health, the WHO (Lebanon), National Institute of Health/Fogarty International Center (R03 TW006481–01), anonymous private donations to IDRAAC, Lebanon, and unrestricted grants from, Algorithm, AstraZeneca, Benta, Bella Pharma, Eli Lilly, Glaxo Smith Kline, Lundbeck, Novartis, OmniPharma, Pfizer, Phenicia, Servier, UPO. The Mexican National Comorbidity Survey (MNCS) is supported by The National Institute of Psychiatry Ramon de la Fuente (INPRFMDIES 4280) and by the National Council on Science and Technology (CONACyT-G30544- H), with supplemental support from the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO). Te Rau Hinengaro: The New Zealand Mental Health Survey (NZMHS) is supported by the New Zealand Ministry of Health, Alcohol Advisory Council, and the Health Research Council. The Northern Ireland Study of Mental Health was funded by the Health & Social Care Research & Development Division of the Public Health Agency. The Peruvian World Mental Health Study was funded by the National Institute of Health of the Ministry of Health of Peru. The Polish project Epidemiology of Mental Health and Access to Care –EZOP Project (PL 0256) was carried out by the Institute of Psychiatry and Neurology in Warsaw in consortium with Department of Psychiatry - Medical University in Wroclaw and National Institute of Public Health-National Institute of Hygiene in Warsaw and in partnership with Psykiatrist Institut Vinderen–Universitet, Oslo. The project was funded by the European Economic Area Financial Mechanism and the Norwegian Financial Mechanism. EZOP project was co-financed by the Polish Ministry of Health. The Portuguese Mental Health Study was carried out by the Department of Mental Health, Faculty of Medical Sciences, NOVA University of Lisbon, with collaboration of the Portuguese Catholic University, and was funded by Champalimaud Foundation, Gulbenkian Foundation, Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) and Ministry of Health. The Saudi National Mental Health Survey (SNMHS) is conducted by the King Salman Center for Disability Research. It is funded by Saudi Basic Industries Corporation (SABIC), King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology (KACST), Ministry of Health (Saudi Arabia), and King Saud University. Funding in-kind was provided by King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center, and the Ministry of Economy and Planning, General Authority for Statistics. The Psychiatric Enquiry to General Population in Southeast Spain – Murcia (PEGASUS-Murcia) Project has been financed by the Regional Health Authorities of Murcia (Servicio Murciano de Salud and Consejería de Sanidad y Política Social) and Fundación para la Formación e Investigación Sanitarias (FFIS) of Murcia. The US National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R) is supported by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH; U01-MH60220) with supplemental support from the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA), the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF; Grant 044708), and the John W. Alden Trust. Funding Information: The World Health Organization World Mental Health (WMH) Survey Initiative is supported by the United States National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH; R01 MH070884), the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Pfizer Foundation, the United States Public Health Service (R13-MH066849, R01-MH069864, and R01 DA016558), the Fogarty International Center (FIRCA R03-TW006481), the Pan American Health Organization, Eli Lilly and Company, Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical Inc., GlaxoSmithKline, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. We thank the staff of the WMH Data Collection and Data Analysis Coordination Centres for assistance with instrumentation, fieldwork, and consultation on data analysis. None of the funders had any role in the design, analysis, interpretation of results, or preparation of this paper. The views and opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and should not be construed to represent the views of the World Health Organization, other sponsoring organizations, agencies, or governments. Funding Information: In the past 3 years, RCK reports being a consultant for Datastat, Inc., RallyPoint Networks, Inc., Sage Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda. FNM reports non-financial support from Otsuka outside and not related to the submitted work. In the past 3 years LD has received untied educational grant funding from Indivior and Seqirus, not related to the submitted work. DJS has received research grants and/or honoraria from Lundbeck, Johnson & Johnson, Servier and Takeda. The remaining authors declare that they have no competing interests. Publisher Copyright: © 2021, The Author(s).Background: Treatment guidelines for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) are based on a relatively small number of randomized controlled trials and do not consider patient-centered perceptions of treatment helpfulness. We investigated the prevalence and predictors of patient-reported treatment helpfulness for DSM-5 GAD and its two main treatment pathways: encounter-level treatment helpfulness and persistence in help-seeking after prior unhelpful treatment. Methods: Data came from community epidemiologic surveys in 23 countries in the WHO World Mental Health surveys. DSM-5 GAD was assessed with the fully structured WHO Composite International Diagnostic Interview Version 3.0. Respondents with a history of GAD were asked whether they ever received treatment and, if so, whether they ever considered this treatment helpful. Number of professionals seen before obtaining helpful treatment was also assessed. Parallel survival models estimated probability and predictors of a given treatment being perceived as helpful and of persisting in help-seeking after prior unhelpful treatment. Results: The overall prevalence rate of GAD was 4.5%, with lower prevalence in low/middle-income countries (2.8%) than high-income countries (5.3%); 34.6% of respondents with lifetime GAD reported ever obtaining treatment for their GAD, with lower proportions in low/middle-income countries (19.2%) than high-income countries (38.4%); 3) 70% of those who received treatment perceived the treatment to be helpful, with prevalence comparable in low/middle-income countries and high-income countries. Survival analysis suggested that virtually all patients would have obtained helpful treatment if they had persisted in help-seeking with up to 10 professionals. However, we estimated that only 29.7% of patients would have persisted that long. Obtaining helpful treatment at the person-level was associated with treatment type, comorbid panic/agoraphobia, and childhood adversities, but most of these predictors were important because they predicted persistence rather than encounter-level treatment helpfulness. Conclusions: The majority of individuals with GAD do not receive treatment. Most of those who receive treatment regard it as helpful, but receiving helpful treatment typically requires persistence in help-seeking. Future research should focus on ensuring that helpfulness is included as part of the evaluation. Clinicians need to emphasize the importance of persistence to patients beginning treatment.publishersversionpublishe

Patterns and correlates of patient-reported helpfulness of treatment for common mental and substance use disorders in the WHO World Mental Health Surveys

Patient-reported helpfulness of treatment is an important indicator of quality in patient-centered care. We examined its pathways and predictors among respondents to household surveys who reported ever receiving treatment for major depression, generalized anxiety disorder, social phobia, specific phobia, post-traumatic stress disorder, bipolar disorder, or alcohol use disorder. Data came from 30 community epidemiological surveys - 17 in high-income countries (HICs) and 13 in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) - carried out as part of the World Health Organization (WHO)'s World Mental Health (WMH) Surveys. Respondents were asked whether treatment of each disorder was ever helpful and, if so, the number of professionals seen before receiving helpful treatment. Across all surveys and diagnostic categories, 26.1% of patients (N=10,035) reported being helped by the very first professional they saw. Persisting to a second professional after a first unhelpful treatment brought the cumulative probability of receiving helpful treatment to 51.2%. If patients persisted with up through eight professionals, the cumulative probability rose to 90.6%. However, only an estimated 22.8% of patients would have persisted in seeing these many professionals after repeatedly receiving treatments they considered not helpful. Although the proportion of individuals with disorders who sought treatment was higher and they were more persistent in HICs than LMICs, proportional helpfulness among treated cases was no different between HICs and LMICs. A wide range of predictors of perceived treatment helpfulness were found, some of them consistent across diagnostic categories and others unique to specific disorders. These results provide novel information about patient evaluations of treatment across diagnoses and countries varying in income level, and suggest that a critical issue in improving the quality of care for mental disorders should be fostering persistence in professional help-seeking if earlier treatments are not helpful

Development and Validation of a Model to Predict Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Major Depression After a Motor Vehicle Collision

Importance: A substantial proportion of the 40 million people in the US who present to emergency departments (EDs) each year after traumatic events develop posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or major depressive episode (MDE). Accurately identifying patients at high risk in the ED would facilitate the targeting of preventive interventions. Objectives: To develop and validate a prediction tool based on ED reports after a motor vehicle collision to predict PTSD or MDE 3 months later. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Advancing Understanding of Recovery After Trauma (AURORA) study is a longitudinal study that examined adverse posttraumatic neuropsychiatric sequalae among patients who presented to 28 US urban EDs in the immediate aftermath of a traumatic experience. Enrollment began on September 25, 2017. The 1003 patients considered in this diagnostic/prognostic report completed 3-month assessments by January 31, 2020. Each patient received a baseline ED assessment along with follow-up self-report surveys 2 weeks, 8 weeks, and 3 months later. An ensemble machine learning method was used to predict 3-month PTSD or MDE from baseline information. Data analysis was performed from November 1, 2020, to May 31, 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: The PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 was used to assess PTSD and the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Depression Short-Form 8b to assess MDE. Results: A total of 1003 patients (median [interquartile range] age, 34.5 [24-43] years; 715 [weighted 67.9%] female; 100 [weighted 10.7%] Hispanic, 537 [weighted 52.7%] non-Hispanic Black, 324 [weighted 32.2%] non-Hispanic White, and 42 [weighted 4.4%] of non-Hispanic other race or ethnicity were included in this study. A total of 274 patients (weighted 26.6%) met criteria for 3-month PTSD or MDE. An ensemble machine learning model restricted to 30 predictors estimated in a training sample (patients from the Northeast or Midwest) had good prediction accuracy (mean [SE] area under the curve [AUC], 0.815 [0.031]) and calibration (mean [SE] integrated calibration index, 0.040 [0.002]; mean [SE] expected calibration error, 0.039 [0.002]) in an independent test sample (patients from the South). Patients in the top 30% of predicted risk accounted for 65% of all 3-month PTSD or MDE, with a mean (SE) positive predictive value of 58.2% (6.4%) among these patients at high risk. The model had good consistency across regions of the country in terms of both AUC (mean [SE], 0.789 [0.025] using the Northeast as the test sample and 0.809 [0.023] using the Midwest as the test sample) and calibration (mean [SE] integrated calibration index, 0.048 [0.003] using the Northeast as the test sample and 0.024 [0.001] using the Midwest as the test sample; mean [SE] expected calibration error, 0.034 [0.003] using the Northeast as the test sample and 0.025 [0.001] using the Midwest as the test sample). The most important predictors in terms of Shapley Additive Explanations values were symptoms of anxiety sensitivity and depressive disposition, psychological distress in the 30 days before motor vehicle collision, and peritraumatic psychosomatic symptoms. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this study suggest that a short set of questions feasible to administer in an ED can predict 3-month PTSD or MDE with good AUC, calibration, and geographic consistency. Patients at high risk can be identified in the ED for targeting if cost-effective preventive interventions are developed

Emergency Department Buprenorphine Quality Improvement and Emergency Physician Knowledge, Attitudes, and Self-Efficacy

Objective: Buprenorphine is an evidence-based treatment for opioid use disorder that is underused in the emergency department (ED). In this study we evaluated changes in emergency physician knowledge, confidence, and self-efficacy regarding buprenorphine prescribing and working with patients who use drugs after implementation of an ED buprenorphine quality improvement (QI) initiative.Methods: An anonymous, online survey was administered to emergency physicians staffing four EDs in New England in 2019 and 2020 before and after an ED QI initiative. Survey questions included novel and previously validated questions to assess confidence, knowledge, self-efficacy, and attitudes about buprenorphine and working with patients who use drugs. Confidence, self-efficacy, and attitude responses were assessed on a Likert scale. Participants received a gift card for survey completion. We analyzed pre- and post- survey responses descriptively and compared them using t-tests. Using logistic regression we evaluated the factors associated with buprenorphine prescribing.Results: Of 95 emergency physicians, 56 (58.9% response rate) completed the pre-intervention survey and 60 (63.2%) completed the post-survey. There was an increase in the number of X-waivered adult emergency physicians and ED buprenorphine prescribing after program implementation. Physician confidence increased from a mean of 3.4 (SD 0.8) to 3.9 (SD 0.7; scale 1–5, p < 0.01). Knowledge about buprenorphine increased from a mean score of 1.4 (SD 0.7) to 1.7 (SD 0.5, p < 0.01). Physician attitudes and self-efficacy did not change. Post-initiative, increased confidence was associated with higher odds of buprenorphine prescribing (odds ratio 4.4; 95% confidence interval 1.07–18.4).Conclusion: After an ED QI initiative, buprenorphine prescribing in the ED increased, as did both physician confidence in working with patients who use drugs and their knowledge of buprenorphine. Increased confidence was associated with higher odds of buprenorphine prescribing and should be a focus of future, buprenorphine implementation strategies in the ED

Maternal eating disorders and eating disorder treatment among girls in the growing up today study

The aim of the study was to assess whether girls with mothers who have had an eating disorder (ED) have greater odds of developing ED symptoms and whether girls with ED symptoms have greater odds of receiving ED treatment if their mothers have an ED history

Treatment Differences in Primary and Specialty Settings in Veterans with Major Depression

IntroductionThe Veterans Health Administration (VHA) supports the nation's largest primary care-mental health integration (PC-MHI) collaborative care model to increase treatment of mild to moderate common mental disorders in primary care (PC) and refer more severe-complex cases to specialty mental health (SMH) settings. It is unclear how this treatment assignment works in practice.MethodsPatients (n = 2610) who sought incident episode VHA treatment for depression completed a baseline self-report questionnaire about depression severity-complexity. Administrative data were used to determine settings and types of treatment during the next 30 days.ResultsThirty-four percent (34.2%) of depressed patients received treatment in PC settings, 65.8% in SMH settings. PC patients had less severe and fewer comorbid depressive episodes. Patients with lowest severity and/or complexity were most likely to receive PC antidepressant medication treatment; those with highest severity and/or complexity were most likely to receive combined treatment in SMH settings. Assignment of patients across settings and types of treatment was stronger than found in previous civilian studies but less pronounced than expected (cross-validated AUC = 0.50-0.68).DiscussionBy expanding access to evidence-based treatments, VHA's PC-MHI increases consistency of treatment assignment. Reasons for assignment being less pronounced than expected and implications for treatment response will require continued study

Comorbid mental disorders, depression symptom severity, and role impairment among Veterans initiating depression treatment through the Veterans Health Administration

BackgroundPsychiatric comorbidities may complicate depression treatment by being associated with increased role impairments. However, depression symptom severity might account for these associations. Understanding the independent associations of depression severity and comorbidity with impairments could help in treatment planning. This is especially true for depressed Veterans, who have high psychiatric comorbidity rates.Methods2,610 Veterans beginning major depression treatment at the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) were administered a baseline self-report survey that screened for diverse psychiatric comorbidities and assessed depression severity and role impairments. Logistic and generalized linear regression models estimated univariable and multivariable associations of depression severity and comorbidities with impairments. Population attributable risk proportions (PARPs) estimated the relative importance of depression severity and comorbidities in accounting for role impairments.ResultsNearly all patients (97.8%) screened positive for at least one comorbidity and half (49.8%) for 4+ comorbidities. The most common positive screens were for generalized anxiety disorder (80.2%), posttraumatic stress disorder (77.9%), and panic/phobia (77.4%). Depression severity and comorbidities were significantly and additively associated with impairments in multivariable models. Associations were attenuated much less for depression severity than for comorbidities in multivariable versus univariable models. PARPs indicated that 15-60% of role impairments were attributable to depression severity and 5-32% to comorbidities.LimitationsThe screening scales could have over-estimated comorbidity prevalence. The cross-sectional observational design cannot determine either temporal or causal priorities.ConclusionsAlthough positive screens for psychiatric comorbidity are pervasive among depressed VHA patients, depression severity accounts for most of the associations of these comorbidities with role impairments

Are Veterans Getting Their Preferred Depression Treatment? A National Observational Study in the Veterans Health Administration.

BackgroundPhysician responsiveness to patient preferences for depression treatment may improve treatment adherence and clinical outcomes.ObjectiveTo examine associations of patient treatment preferences with types of depression treatment received and treatment adherence among Veterans initiating depression treatment.DesignPatient self-report surveys at treatment initiation linked to medical records.SettingVeterans Health Administration (VA) clinics nationally, 2018-2020.ParticipantsA total of 2582 patients (76.7% male, mean age 48.7 years, 62.3% Non-Hispanic White) MAIN MEASURES: Patient self-reported preferences for medication and psychotherapy on 0-10 self-anchoring visual analog scales (0="completely unwilling"; 10="completely willing"). Treatment receipt and adherence (refilling medications; attending 3+ psychotherapy sessions) over 3 months. Logistic regression models controlled for socio-demographics and geographic variables.Key resultsMore patients reported strong preferences (10/10) for psychotherapy than medication (51.2% versus 36.7%, McNemar χ21=175.3, p<0.001). A total of 32.1% of patients who preferred (7-10/10) medication and 21.8% who preferred psychotherapy did not receive these treatments. Patients who strongly preferred medication were substantially more likely to receive medication than those who had strong negative preferences (odds ratios [OR]=17.5; 95% confidence interval [CI]=12.5-24.5). Compared with patients who had strong negative psychotherapy preferences, those with strong psychotherapy preferences were about twice as likely to receive psychotherapy (OR=1.9; 95% CI=1.0-3.5). Patients who strongly preferred psychotherapy were more likely to adhere to psychotherapy than those with strong negative preferences (OR=3.3; 95% CI=1.4-7.4). Treatment preferences were not associated with medication or combined treatment adherence. Patients in primary care settings had lower odds of receiving (but not adhering to) psychotherapy than patients in specialty mental health settings. Depression severity was not associated with treatment receipt or adherence.ConclusionsMismatches between treatment preferences and treatment type received were common and associated with worse treatment adherence for psychotherapy. Future research could examine ways to decrease mismatch between patient preferences and treatments received and potential effects on patient outcomes

Perceived helpfulness of bipolar disorder treatment: Findings from the World Health Organization World Mental Health Surveys

OBJECTIVES: To examine patterns and predictors of perceived treatment helpfulness for mania/hypomania and associated depression in the WHO World Mental Health Surveys. METHODS: Face-to-face interviews with community samples across 15 countries found n=2,178 who received lifetime mania/hypomania treatment and n=624 with lifetime mania/hypomania who received lifetime major depression treatment. These respondents were asked whether treatment was ever helpful and, if so, the number of professionals seen before receiving helpful treatment. Patterns and predictors of treatment helpfulness were examined separately for mania/hypomania and depression. RESULTS: 63.1% (mania/hypomania) and 65.1% (depression) of patients reported ever receiving helpful treatment. However, only 24.5-22.5% were helped by the first professional seen, which means that the others needed to persist in help-seeking after initial unhelpful treatments in order to find helpful treatment. Projections find only 22.9% (mania/hypomania) and 43.3% (depression) would persist through a series of unhelpful treatments but that the proportion helped would increase substantially if persistence increased. Few patient-level significant predictors of helpful treatment emerged and none consistently either across the two components (i.e., provider-level helpfulness and persistence after earlier unhelpful treatment) or for both mania/hypomania and depression. Although prevalence of treatment was higher in high-income than low/middle-income countries, proportional helpfulness among treated cases was nearly identical in the two groups of countries. CONCLUSIONS: Probability of patients with mania/hypomania and associated depression obtaining helpful treatment might increase substantially if persistence in help-seeking increased after initially unhelpful treatments, although this could require seeing numerous additional treatment providers. In addition to investigating reasons for initial treatments not being helpful, messages reinforcing the importance of persistence should be emphasized to patients