Centre for Mental Health, Human Rights, and Social Justice, University of Essex, Colchester, UK.
Counseling Psychology Department, Applied Ethics Center, University of Massachusetts Boston, 100 William T Morrissey Blvd, Boston, MA, 02125, USA.
Community Ment Health J. 2024 Nov;60(8):1493-1503. doi: 10.1007/s10597-024-01302-6. Epub 2024 Jul 1.
Global Burden of Disease (GBD) estimates have significant policy implications nationally and internationally. Disease burden metrics, particularly for depression, have played a critical role in raising governmental awareness of mental health and in calculating the economic cost of depression. Recently, the World Health Organization ranked depression as the single largest contributor to global disability. The main aim of this paper was to assess the basis upon which GBD prevalence estimates for major depressive disorder (MDD) were made. We identify the instruments used in the 2019 GBD estimates and provide a descriptive assessment of the five most frequently used instruments. The majority of country studies, 356/566 (62.9%), used general mental health screeners or structured/semi-structured interview guides, 98/566 (17.3%) of the studies used dedicated depression screeners, and 112 (19.8%) used other tools for assessing depression. Thus, most of the studies used instruments that were not designed to make a diagnosis of depression or assess depression severity. Our results are congruent with and extend previous research that has identified critical flaws in the data underpinning the GBD estimates for MDD. Despite the widespread promotion of these prevalence estimates, caution is needed before using them to inform public policy and mental health interventions. This is particularly important in lower-income countries where resources are scarce.
全球疾病负担(GBD)估计数在国家和国际上具有重要的政策意义。疾病负担指标,特别是抑郁症,在提高政府对心理健康的认识和计算抑郁症的经济成本方面发挥了关键作用。最近,世界卫生组织将抑郁症列为全球残疾的最大单一致病因素。本文的主要目的是评估 GBD 对重度抑郁症(MDD)流行率估计的依据。我们确定了 2019 年 GBD 估计中使用的工具,并对五个最常用的工具进行了描述性评估。大多数国家研究(356/566,62.9%)使用了一般心理健康筛查工具或结构化/半结构化访谈指南,98/566(17.3%)的研究使用了专门的抑郁症筛查工具,112 项研究(19.8%)使用了其他评估抑郁症的工具。因此,大多数研究使用的工具并不是为了诊断抑郁症或评估抑郁症严重程度而设计的。我们的研究结果与之前的研究一致,并进一步证实了 GBD 对 MDD 估计所依据的数据存在严重缺陷。尽管这些流行率估计值得到了广泛的推广,但在将其用于为公共政策和心理健康干预提供信息之前,需要谨慎使用。在资源匮乏的低收入国家,这一点尤为重要。