CONTEXT: Recent general population surveys of psychotic disorders have found low lifetime prevalences. However, this may be owing to methodological problems. Few studies have reported the prevalences of all specific psychotic disorders. OBJECTIVE: To provide reliable estimates of the lifetime prevalences of specific psychotic disorders. DESIGN: General population survey. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A nationally representative sample of 8028 persons 30 years or older was screened for psychotic and bipolar I disorders using the Composite International Diagnostic Interview, self-reported diagnoses, medical examination, and national registers. Those selected by the screens were then re-interviewed with the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV. Best-estimate DSM-IV diagnoses were formed by combining the interview and case note data. Register diagnoses were used to estimate the effect of the nonresponders. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Diagnosis of any psychotic or bipolar I disorder according to the DSM-IV criteria. RESULTS: The lifetime prevalence of all psychotic disorders was 3.06% and rose to 3.48% when register diagnoses of the nonresponder group were included. Lifetime prevalences were as follows: 0.87% for schizophrenia, 0.32% for schizoaffective disorder, 0.07% for schizophreniform disorder, 0.18% for delusional disorder, 0.24% for bipolar I disorder, 0.35% for major depressive disorder with psychotic features, 0.42% for substance-induced psychotic disorders, and 0.21% for psychotic disorders due to a general medical condition. The National Hospital Discharge Register was the most reliable of the screens (kappa = 0.80). Case notes supplementing the interviews were essential for specific diagnoses of psychotic disorders. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple sources of information are essential for accurate estimation of lifetime prevalences of psychotic disorders. The use of comprehensive methods reveals that their lifetime prevalence exceeds 3%.
CONTEXT: Recent general population surveys of psychotic disorders have found low lifetime prevalences. However, this may be owing to methodological problems. Few studies have reported the prevalences of all specific psychotic disorders. OBJECTIVE: To provide reliable estimates of the lifetime prevalences of specific psychotic disorders. DESIGN: General population survey. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A nationally representative sample of 8028 persons 30 years or older was screened for psychotic and bipolar I disorders using the Composite International Diagnostic Interview, self-reported diagnoses, medical examination, and national registers. Those selected by the screens were then re-interviewed with the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV. Best-estimate DSM-IV diagnoses were formed by combining the interview and case note data. Register diagnoses were used to estimate the effect of the nonresponders. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Diagnosis of any psychotic or bipolar I disorder according to the DSM-IV criteria. RESULTS: The lifetime prevalence of all psychotic disorders was 3.06% and rose to 3.48% when register diagnoses of the nonresponder group were included. Lifetime prevalences were as follows: 0.87% for schizophrenia, 0.32% for schizoaffective disorder, 0.07% for schizophreniform disorder, 0.18% for delusional disorder, 0.24% for bipolar I disorder, 0.35% for major depressive disorder with psychotic features, 0.42% for substance-induced psychotic disorders, and 0.21% for psychotic disorders due to a general medical condition. The National Hospital Discharge Register was the most reliable of the screens (kappa = 0.80). Case notes supplementing the interviews were essential for specific diagnoses of psychotic disorders. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple sources of information are essential for accurate estimation of lifetime prevalences of psychotic disorders. The use of comprehensive methods reveals that their lifetime prevalence exceeds 3%.
Authors: Nikie Korver; Piotr J Quee; Heleen B M Boos; Claudia J P Simons; Lieuwe de Haan Journal: Int J Methods Psychiatr Res Date: 2012-03-15 Impact factor: 4.035
Authors: Raimo K R Salokangas; Mika Helminen; Anna-Maija Koivisto; Helena Rantanen; Hannu Oja; Sami Pirkola; Kristian Wahlbeck; Matti Joukamaa Journal: Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol Date: 2010-03-20 Impact factor: 4.328
Authors: Laura Pulkki-Råback; Kirsi Ahola; Marko Elovainio; Mika Kivimäki; Mirka Hintsanen; Erkki Isometsä; Jouko Lönnqvist; Marianna Virtanen Journal: Eur J Public Health Date: 2011-09-27 Impact factor: 3.367
Authors: Jaana Suvisaari; Jonna Perälä; Samuli I Saarni; Tommi Härkänen; Sami Pirkola; Matti Joukamaa; Seppo Koskinen; Jouko Lönnqvist; Antti Reunanen Journal: Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 5.270
Authors: Daisuke Fukudome; Lindsay N Hayes; Travis E Faust; Catherine A Foss; Mari A Kondo; Brian J Lee; Atsushi Saito; Shin-Ichi Kano; Jennifer M Coughlin; Atsushi Kamiya; Martin G Pomper; Akira Sawa; Minae Niwa Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2018-02-03 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Sinan Guloksuz; Lotta-Katrin Pries; Philippe Delespaul; Gunter Kenis; Jurjen J Luykx; Bochao D Lin; Alexander L Richards; Berna Akdede; Tolga Binbay; Vesile Altınyazar; Berna Yalınçetin; Güvem Gümüş-Akay; Burçin Cihan; Haldun Soygür; Halis Ulaş; EylemŞahin Cankurtaran; Semra Ulusoy Kaymak; Marina M Mihaljevic; Sanja Andric Petrovic; Tijana Mirjanic; Miguel Bernardo; Bibiana Cabrera; Julio Bobes; Pilar A Saiz; María Paz García-Portilla; Julio Sanjuan; Eduardo J Aguilar; José Luis Santos; Estela Jiménez-López; Manuel Arrojo; Angel Carracedo; Gonzalo López; Javier González-Peñas; Mara Parellada; Nadja P Maric; Cem Atbaşog Lu; Alp Ucok; Köksal Alptekin; Meram Can Saka; Celso Arango; Michael O'Donovan; Bart P F Rutten; Jim van Os Journal: World Psychiatry Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 49.548