Is there an epidemic of child or adolescent depression?

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

Background: Both the professional and the general media have recently published concerns about an ‘epidemic’ of child and adolescent depression. Reasons for this concern include (1) increases in antidepressant prescriptions, (2) retrospective recall by successive birth cohorts of adults, (3) rising adolescent suicide rates until 1990, and (4) evidence of an increase in emotional problems across three cohorts of British adolescents.

Methods: Epidemiologic studies of children born between 1965 and 1996 were reviewed and a meta‐analysis conducted of all studies that used structured diagnostic interviews to make formal diagnoses of depression on representative population samples of participants up to age 18. The effect of year of birth on prevalence was estimated, controlling for age, sex, sample size, taxonomy (e.g., DSM vs. ICD), measurement instrument, and time‐frame of the interview (current, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months).

Results: Twenty‐six studies were identified, generating close to 60,000 observations on children born between 1965 and 1996 who had received at least one structured psychiatric interview capable of making a formal diagnosis of depression. Rates of depression showed no effect of year of birth. There was little effect of taxonomy, measurement instrument, or time‐frame of interview. The overall prevalence estimates were: under 13, 2.8% (standard error (SE) .5%); 13–18 5.6% (SE .3%); 13–18 girls: 5.9% (SE .3%); 13–18 boys: 4.6% (SE .3%).

Conclusions: When concurrent assessment rather than retrospective recall is used, there is no evidence for an increased prevalence of child or adolescent depression over the past 30 years. Public perception of an ‘epidemic’ may arise from heightened awareness of a disorder that was long under‐diagnosed by clinicians.

Related collections

Most cited references 86

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group.

D F Stroup, J A Berlin, S C Morton … (2000)

Because of the pressure for timely, informed decisions in public health and clinical practice and the explosion of information in the scientific literature, research results must be synthesized. Meta-analyses are increasingly used to address this problem, and they often evaluate observational studies. A workshop was held in Atlanta, Ga, in April 1997, to examine the reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies and to make recommendations to aid authors, reviewers, editors, and readers. Twenty-seven participants were selected by a steering committee, based on expertise in clinical practice, trials, statistics, epidemiology, social sciences, and biomedical editing. Deliberations of the workshop were open to other interested scientists. Funding for this activity was provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We conducted a systematic review of the published literature on the conduct and reporting of meta-analyses in observational studies using MEDLINE, Educational Research Information Center (ERIC), PsycLIT, and the Current Index to Statistics. We also examined reference lists of the 32 studies retrieved and contacted experts in the field. Participants were assigned to small-group discussions on the subjects of bias, searching and abstracting, heterogeneity, study categorization, and statistical methods. From the material presented at the workshop, the authors developed a checklist summarizing recommendations for reporting meta-analyses of observational studies. The checklist and supporting evidence were circulated to all conference attendees and additional experts. All suggestions for revisions were addressed. The proposed checklist contains specifications for reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies in epidemiology, including background, search strategy, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. Use of the checklist should improve the usefulness of meta-analyses for authors, reviewers, editors, readers, and decision makers. An evaluation plan is suggested and research areas are explored.

0 comments Cited 2199 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

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

Ronald C Kessler, Patricia Berglund, Olga Demler … (2003)

Uncertainties exist about prevalence and correlates of major depressive disorder (MDD). To 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). Face-to-face household survey conducted from February 2001 to December 2002. The 48 contiguous United States. Household residents ages 18 years or older (N = 9090) who responded to the NCS-R survey. Prevalence 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. The 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. Major 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.