Batelaan Neeltje, De Graaf Ron, Van Balkom Anton, Vollebergh Wilma, Beekman Aartjan
Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Psychol Med. 2007 Feb;37(2):247-56. doi: 10.1017/S0033291706009007. Epub 2006 Nov 1.
There is increasing evidence that subthreshold forms of psychopathology are both common and clinically relevant. To enable classification of these subthreshold forms of psychopathology, it may be useful to distinguish not only a threshold for illness but also for health. Our aim was to investigate this with regard to panic.
Data were derived from the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study (NEMESIS), which is based on a large representative sample of the adult general population (18-65 years) of The Netherlands (n=7076). The Composite International Diagnostic Interview was used as a diagnostic instrument. By defining two thresholds, three groups were formed: panic disorder, subthreshold panic disorder and no-panic. These groups were compared using multinomial regression analysis, chi2 and analysis of variance.
The 12-month prevalence of panic disorder was 2.2% while that of subthreshold panic disorder was 1.9%. Symptom profiles and risk indicators associated with panic disorder and subthreshold panic disorder were similar, and half of the risk indicators were more strongly associated with panic disorder than with subthreshold panic disorder. Subthreshold panic disorder occupied an intermediate position between panic disorder and no-panic with regard to the number of symptoms, the percentage of subjects with co-morbidity, and functioning.
Subthreshold panic disorder is common, and seems clinically relevant, but is milder than panic disorder. These results thus support the use of a double threshold in panic. Further research should focus on the positioning of the thresholds, the course of subthreshold panic disorder and its treatment options.
越来越多的证据表明,阈下形式的精神病理学现象既常见又具有临床相关性。为了对这些阈下形式的精神病理学现象进行分类,不仅区分疾病阈值,而且区分健康阈值可能会有所帮助。我们的目的是针对惊恐障碍对此进行研究。
数据来源于荷兰精神健康调查与发病率研究(NEMESIS),该研究基于荷兰成年普通人群(18 - 65岁)的大型代表性样本(n = 7076)。采用复合国际诊断访谈作为诊断工具。通过定义两个阈值,形成了三组:惊恐障碍、阈下惊恐障碍和无惊恐障碍组。使用多项回归分析、卡方检验和方差分析对这些组进行比较。
惊恐障碍的12个月患病率为2.2%,而阈下惊恐障碍的患病率为1.9%。与惊恐障碍和阈下惊恐障碍相关的症状特征和风险指标相似,且一半的风险指标与惊恐障碍的关联比与阈下惊恐障碍的关联更强。在症状数量、共病受试者百分比和功能方面,阈下惊恐障碍处于惊恐障碍和无惊恐障碍之间的中间位置。
阈下惊恐障碍很常见,似乎具有临床相关性,但比惊恐障碍症状较轻。因此,这些结果支持在惊恐障碍中使用双重阈值。进一步的研究应集中在阈值的定位、阈下惊恐障碍的病程及其治疗选择上。