56
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Indian Psychiatric epidemiological studies: Learning from the past

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The objective of this paper is to provide a systematic review on the epidemiology of psychiatric disorders in India based on the data published from 1960 to 2009. Extensive search of PubMed, NeuroMed, Indian Journal of Psychiatry website and MEDLARS using search terms “psychiatry” “prevalence”, “community”, and “epidemiology” was done along with the manual search of journals and cross-references. Retrieved articles were systematically selected using specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. Epidemiological studies report prevalence rates for psychiatric disorders varying from 9.5 to 370/1000 population in India. These varying prevalence rates of mental disorders are not only specific to Indian studies but are also seen in international studies. Despite variations in the design of studies, available data from the Indian studies suggests that about 20% of the adult population in the community is affected with one or the other psychiatric disorder. Mental healthcare priorities need to be shifted from psychotic disorders to common mental disorders and from mental hospitals to primary health centers. Increase in invisible mental problems such as suicidal attempts, aggression and violence, widespread use of substances, increasing marital discord and divorce rates emphasize on the need to prioritize and make a paradigm shift in the strategies to promote and provide appropriate mental health services in the community. Future epidemiological research need to focus on the general population from longitudinal prospective involving multi-centers with assessment of disability, co-morbidity, functioning, family burden and quality of life.

          Related collections

          Most cited references71

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Lifetime and 12-month prevalence of DSM-III-R psychiatric disorders in the United States. Results from the National Comorbidity Survey.

          This study presents estimates of lifetime and 12-month prevalence of 14 DSM-III-R psychiatric disorders from the National Comorbidity Survey, the first survey to administer a structured psychiatric interview to a national probability sample in the United States. The DSM-III-R psychiatric disorders among persons aged 15 to 54 years in the noninstitutionalized civilian population of the United States were assessed with data collected by lay interviewers using a revised version of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview. Nearly 50% of respondents reported at least one lifetime disorder, and close to 30% reported at least one 12-month disorder. The most common disorders were major depressive episode, alcohol dependence, social phobia, and simple phobia. More than half of all lifetime disorders occurred in the 14% of the population who had a history of three or more comorbid disorders. These highly comorbid people also included the vast majority of people with severe disorders. Less than 40% of those with a lifetime disorder had ever received professional treatment, and less than 20% of those with a recent disorder had been in treatment during the past 12 months. Consistent with previous risk factor research, it was found that women had elevated rates of affective disorders and anxiety disorders, that men had elevated rates of substance use disorders and antisocial personality disorder, and that most disorders declined with age and with higher socioeconomic status. The prevalence of psychiatric disorders is greater than previously thought to be the case. Furthermore, this morbidity is more highly concentrated than previously recognized in roughly one sixth of the population who have a history of three or more comorbid disorders. This suggests that the causes and consequences of high comorbidity should be the focus of research attention. The majority of people with psychiatric disorders fail to obtain professional treatment. Even among people with a lifetime history of three or more comorbid disorders, the proportion who ever obtain specialty sector mental health treatment is less than 50%. These results argue for the importance of more outreach and more research on barriers to professional help-seeking.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Mental health literacy. Public knowledge and beliefs about mental disorders.

            A. JORM (2000)
            Although the benefits of public knowledge of physical diseases are widely accepted, knowledge about mental disorders (mental health literacy) has been comparatively neglected. To introduce the concept of mental health literacy to a wider audience, to bring together diverse research relevant to the topic and to identify gaps in the area. A narrative review within a conceptual framework. Many members of the public cannot recognise specific disorders or different types of psychological distress. They differ from mental health experts in their beliefs about the causes of mental disorders and the most effective treatments. Attitudes which hinder recognition and appropriate help-seeking are common. Much of the mental health information most readily available to the public is misleading. However, there is some evidence that mental health literacy can be improved. If the public's mental health literacy is not improved, this may hinder public acceptance of evidence-based mental health care. Also, many people with common mental disorders may be denied effective self-help and may not receive appropriate support from others in the community.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              60,000 disaster victims speak: Part I. An empirical review of the empirical literature, 1981-2001.

              Results for 160 samples of disaster victims were coded as to sample type, disaster type, disaster location, outcomes and risk factors observed, and overall severity of impairment. In order of frequency, outcomes included specific psychological problems, nonspecific distress, health problems, chronic problems in living, resource loss, and problems specific to youth. Regression analyses showed that samples were more likely to be impaired if they were composed of youth rather than adults, were from developing rather than developed countries, or experienced mass violence (e.g., terrorism, shooting sprees) rather than natural or technological disasters. Most samples of rescue and recovery workers showed remarkable resilience. Within adult samples, more severe exposure, female gender, middle age, ethnic minority status, secondary stressors, prior psychiatric problems, and weak or deteriorating psychosocial resources most consistently increased the likelihood of adverse outcomes. Among youth, family factors were primary. Implications of the research for clinical practice and community intervention are discussed in a companion article (Norris, Friedman, and Watson, this volume).
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Indian J Psychiatry
                IJPsy
                Indian Journal of Psychiatry
                Medknow Publications (India )
                0019-5545
                1998-3794
                January 2010
                : 52
                : Suppl1
                : S95-S103
                Affiliations
                Department of Psychiatry, National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences (Deemed University), Bangalore - 560 029, India
                Author notes
                Address for correspondence: Dr. Suresh Bada Math, Department of Psychiatry, National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences (Deemed University), Bangalore - 560 029, India. E-mail: sbm@ 123456nimhans.kar.nic.in
                Article
                IJPsy-52-95
                10.4103/0019-5545.69220
                3146182
                21836725
                8634cec8-c927-4611-9043-8a98f2e35e8f
                © Indian Journal of Psychiatry

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                Categories
                Review Article

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                prevalence,research,psychiatric epidemiology,community
                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                prevalence, research, psychiatric epidemiology, community

                Comments

                Comment on this article