2 results
Lo studio internazionale multicentrico dell'Organizzazione Mondiale della Sanità sui disturbi psichici nella medicina generale: risultati relativi all'area di Verona1
- Marco Piccinelli, Stefano Pini, Cesario Bellantuono, Paola Bonizzato, Elisabetta Paltrinieri, T. Bedirhan Üstün, Norman Sartorius, Michele Tansella
-
- Journal:
- Epidemiologia e Psichiatria Sociale / Volume 4 / Issue 1 / Gennaio-Aprile 1995
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 07 August 2014, pp. 27-50
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Objectives - To present the results obtained from a cross-sectional evaluation of a sample of primary care attenders selected in Verona in the framework of the World Health Organization International Multicentre Study on Psychological Problems in Primary Care Settings. Methods - Among consecutive attenders at 16 primary care clinics in Verona during the period April 1991/February 1992, a random sample, stratified on the basis of GHQ-12 scores, was selected for a thorough evaluation of psychological status, physical status and disability in occupational and other daily activities. All patients with psychopathological symptoms at baseline assessment and a 20% random sample of those without psychopathological symptoms were interviewed again after 3 and 12 months (data not presented here). Results - Overall, 1,656 subjects were approached at the primary care clinics and 1,625 met inclusion criteria. The screening procedure was completed by 1,558 subjects and the second-stage evaluation by 250. Psychiatric disorders according to ICD-10 criteria were diagnosed in 12.4% of consecutive primary care attenders; of these, about one-third (4.5% of consecutive primary care attenders) satisfied ICD-10 diagnostic criteria for two or more disorders. Current Depressive Episode (4.7%) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder (3.7%) were the most common diagnoses. In addition, 11.2% of consecutive primary care attenders had ‘sub-threshold’ psychiatric disorders (i.e., they suffered from symptoms in at least two different areas among those listed in ICD-10, but they did not satisfy diagnostic criteria for well-defined disorders). Psychiatric disorders were more common among females and those aged 24-44 years. Only 20.6% of the subjects with psychiatric disorders contacted the general practitioner for their psychological symptoms, 5.7% complained of symptoms which might have had a psychological origin, whereas in about 70% of the cases the psychiatric disorder was concealed behind the presentation of somatic symptoms, pains in various parts of the body or chronic physical illness. Sixty-two percent of the subjects with psychiatric disorders rated their health status as fair or poor, as compared to 52.0% of those with chronic physical illness and 31.3% of those without such disorders. According to the general practitioner, 40.1% of the subjects with psychiatric disorders and 45.3% of those with chronic physical illness had a fair or poor health status, compared to 14.4% of those without such disorders. Disability in occupational and other daily activities was reported by 52.5% of the subjects with psychiatric disorders (in 40.1% of the cases disability was moderate or severe), 44.4% of those with chronic physical illness (in 26.8% of the cases disability was moderate or severe), and 15.0% of the subjects without such disorders (in 9.1% of the cases disability was moderate or severe). According to the interviewer, disability was identified in 48.4% of the subjects with psychiatric disorders, 39.0% of those with chronic physical illness, and 27.6% of the subjects without such disorders. Sixty per cent of the subjects with psychiatric disorders suffered from concurrent chronic physical illness; these subjects had a poorer health status and higher disability levels than those with psychiatric disorders only. Conclusions - Psychiatric disorders among primary care attenders are frequent and represents a major public health problem, since they entail severe functional limitations for the patients and high costs for the society. Thus, appropriate programs for their recognition and treatment are needed.
Psychiatric disorders in primary care: why so many differences?
- Marco Piccinelli
-
- Journal:
- Epidemiologia e Psichiatria Sociale / Volume 3 / Issue 3 / December 1994
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 11 October 2011, pp. 195-208
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Objectives - (I) To review the studies which investigated the frequency of psychiatric disorders among primary care attenders, using a standardized psychiatric interview as the case finding instrument; (II) to discuss the factors possibly explaining the different results found; (III) to highlight the central role of international multicenter collaborative studies, carried out in primary care settings. Method - the studies were reviewed, which were published in international journals between 1970 and 1993. The studies were located through a computerized search of the databases MEDLINE and Psychological Abstracts; in addition, the reference lists of the studies located in this way were examined and international journals were manually scanned in order to avoid possible omissions. Finally, the annotated bibliography, edited by Wilkinson (1985), was examined, since it included the studies having psychiatric focus, carried out in primary care and published between 1977 and 1985. Results - Thirty papers were traced, but 9 were excluded since they duplicated results or because of methodological limitations. So far, the overall frequency of psychiatric disorders among primary care attenders has been investigated using standardized procedures in 13 countries only. The frequency of psychiatric disorders ranged between approximately 10% and 50%. The possible reasons accounting for the differe- nces between the studies were discussed in the light of three factors: I) the research design and study characteristics; II) the reliability and comparability of different diagnostic categories and classificatory systems; and III) the different organization of health services across countries. Conclusions - In the light of the difficulties faced when the findings of independent studies, carried out in different countries or even in the same country, are compared, the central role of in- ternational multicenter collaborative studies conducted in this field is suggested.
![](/core/cambridge-core/public/images/lazy-loader.gif)