Search

Additional file 1: Supplemental Table 1. Bivariate predictors of effective coverage and its components among those with 12-Month posttraumatic stress disorder, in HICs countries (n=694)a. Supplemental Table 2. Multivariable model of effective coverage among those with 12-Month posttraumatic stress disorder, in high-income countries (n=694) a. Supplemental Table 3. Predictors of contact coverage among those with 12-Month posttraumatic stress disorder, in LMICs countries (n=220) a.

Funding Information: The World Health Organization World Mental Health (WMH) Survey Initiative is supported by the United States National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH; R01 MH070884), the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Pfizer Foundation, the United States Public Health Service (R13-MH066849, R01-MH069864, and R01 DA016558), the Fogarty International Center (FIRCA R03-TW006481), the Pan American Health Organization, Eli Lilly and Company, Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical Inc., GlaxoSmithKline, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. We thank the staff of the WMH Data Collection and Data Analysis Coordination Centres for assistance with instrumentation, fieldwork, and consultation on data analysis. None of the funders had any role in the design, analysis, interpretation of results, or preparation of this paper. The views and opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and should not be construed to represent the views of the World Health Organization, other sponsoring organizations, agencies, or governments. The Argentina survey—Estudio Argentino de Epidemiología en Salud Mental (EASM)—was supported by a grant from the Argentinian Ministry of Health (Ministerio de Salud de la Nación)—(Grant Number 2002-17270/13-5). The 2007 Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing is funded by the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. The Colombian National Study of Mental Health (NSMH) is supported by the Ministry of Social Protection. The Mental Health Study Medellín—Colombia was carried out and supported jointly by the Center for Excellence on Research in Mental Health (CES University) and the Secretary of Health of Medellín. The World Mental Health Japan (WMHJ) Survey is supported by the Grant for Research on Psychiatric and Neurological Diseases and Mental Health (H13-SHOGAI-023, H14-TOKUBETSU-026, H16-KOKORO-013, H25-SEISHIN-IPPAN-006) from the Japan Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. The Mexican National Comorbidity Survey (MNCS) is supported by The National Institute of Psychiatry Ramon de la Fuente (INPRFMDIES 4280) and by the National Council on Science and Technology (CONACyT-G30544- H), with supplemental support from the PanAmerican Health Organization (PAHO). Te Rau Hinengaro: The New Zealand Mental Health Survey (NZMHS) is supported by the New Zealand Ministry of Health, Alcohol Advisory Council, and the Health Research Council. The Northern Ireland Study of Mental Health was funded by the Health & Social Care Research & Development Division of the Public Health Agency. The Peruvian World Mental Health Study was funded by the National Institute of Health of the Ministry of Health of Peru. The Portuguese Mental Health Study was carried out by the Department of Mental Health, Faculty of Medical Sciences, NOVA University of Lisbon, with collaboration of the Portuguese Catholic University, and was funded by Champalimaud Foundation, Gulbenkian Foundation, Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) and Ministry of Health. The Romania WMH study projects "Policies in Mental Health Area" and "National Study regarding Mental Health and Services Use" were carried out by National School of Public Health & Health Services Management (former National Institute for Research & Development in Health), with technical support of Metro Media Transilvania, the National Institute of Statistics-National Centre for Training in Statistics, SC, Cheyenne Services SRL, Statistics Netherlands and were funded by Ministry of Public Health (former Ministry of Health) with supplemental support of Eli Lilly Romania SRL. The Psychiatric Enquiry to General Population in Southeast Spain—Murcia (PEGASUS-Murcia) Project has been financed by the Regional Health Authorities of Murcia (Servicio Murciano de Salud and Consejería de Sanidad y Política Social) and Fundación para la Formación e Investigación Sanitarias (FFIS) of Murcia. The US National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R) is supported by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH; U01-MH60220) with supplemental support from the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA), the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF; Grant 044708), and the John W. Alden Trust. A complete list of all within-country and cross-national WMH publications can be found at http://www.hcp.med.harvard.edu/wmh . Publisher Copyright: © 2022, The Author(s). Purpose: Lesbian,gay, and bisexual (LGB) individuals, and LB women specifically, have anincreased risk for psychiatric morbidity, theorized to result from stigma-baseddiscrimination. To date, no study has investigated the mental healthdisparities between LGB and heterosexual AQ1individuals in a largecross-national population-based comparison. The current study addresses thisgap by examining differences between LGB and heterosexual participants in 13cross-national surveys, and by exploring whether these disparities wereassociated with country-level LGBT acceptance. Since lower social support hasbeen suggested as a mediator of sexual orientation-based differences inpsychiatric morbidity, our secondary aim was to examine whether mental healthdisparities were partially explained by general social support from family andfriends. Methods: Twelve-monthprevalence of DSM-IV anxiety, mood, eating, disruptive behavior, and substancedisorders was assessed with the WHO Composite International DiagnosticInterview in a general population sample across 13 countries as part of theWorld Mental Health Surveys. Participants were 46,889 adults (19,887 males; 807LGB-identified). Results: Maleand female LGB participants were more likely to report any 12-month disorder (OR2.2, p < 0.001 and OR 2.7, p < 0.001, respectively) and most individualdisorders than heterosexual participants. We found no evidence for anassociation between country-level LGBT acceptance and rates of psychiatricmorbidity between LGB and heterosexualAQ2 participants. However, among LBwomen, the increased risk for mental disorders was partially explained by lowergeneral openness with family, although most of the increased risk remainedunexplained. Conclusion: These results provide cross-national evidence for an association between sexual minority status and psychiatric morbidity, and highlight that for women, but not men, this association was partially mediated by perceived openness with family. Future research into individual-level and cross-national sexual minority stressors is needed. publishersversion published

Funding: The Portuguese Mental Health Study was carried out by the Department of Mental Health, Faculty of Medical Sciences, NOVA University of Lisbon, with collaboration of the Portuguese Catholic University, and was funded by Champalimaud Foundation, Gulbenkian Foundation, Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) and Ministry of Health Background Depressive and anxiety disorders are highly comorbid, which has been theorized to be due to an underlying internalizing vulnerability. We aimed to identify groups of participants with differing vulnerabilities by examining the course of internalizing psychopathology up to age 45. Methods We used data from 24158 participants (aged 45+) in 23 population-based cross-sectional World Mental Health Surveys. Internalizing disorders were assessed with the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI). We applied latent class growth analysis (LCGA) and investigated the characteristics of identified classes using logistic or linear regression. Results The best-fitting LCGA solution identified eight classes: A healthy class (81.9%), three childhood-onset classes with mild (3.7%), moderate (2.0%), or severe (1.1%) internalizing comorbidity, two puberty-onset classes with mild (4.0%) or moderate (1.4%) comorbidity, and two adult-onset classes with mild comorbidity (2.7% and 3.2%). The childhood-onset severe class had particularly unfavorable sociodemographic outcomes compared to the healthy class, with increased risks of being never or previously married (OR = 2.2 and 2.0, p < 0.001), not being employed (OR = 3.5, p < 0.001), and having a low/low-Average income (OR = 2.2, p < 0.001). Moderate or severe (v. mild) comorbidity was associated with 12-month internalizing disorders (OR = 1.9 and 4.8, p < 0.001), disability (B = 1.1-2.3, p < 0.001), and suicidal ideation (OR = 4.2, p < 0.001 for severe comorbidity only). Adult (v. childhood) onset was associated with lower rates of 12-month internalizing disorders (OR = 0.2, p < 0.001). Conclusions We identified eight transdiagnostic trajectories of internalizing psychopathology. Unfavorable outcomes were concentrated in the 1% of participants with childhood onset and severe comorbidity. Early identification of this group may offer opportunities for preventive interventions. publishersversion published

Purpose: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a pervasive public health problem. Existing research has focused on reports from victims and few studies have considered pre-marital factors. The main objective of this study was to identify pre-marital predictors of IPV in the current marriage using information obtained from husbands and wives. Methods: Data from were obtained from married heterosexual couples in six countries. Potential predictors included demographic and relationship characteristics, adverse childhood experiences, dating violence, and psychiatric disorders. Reports of IPV and other characteristics from husbands and wives were considered independently and in relation to spousal reports. Results: Overall, 14.4% of women were victims of IPV in the current marriage. Analyses identified ten significant variables including age at first marriage (husband), education, relative number of previous marriages (wife), history of one or more categories of childhood adversity (husband or wife), history of dating violence (husband or wife), early initiation of sexual intercourse (husband or wife), and four combinations of internalizing and externalizing disorders. The final model was moderately predictive of marital violence, with the 5% of women accounting for 18.6% of all cases of marital IPV. Conclusions: Results from this study advance understanding of pre-marital predictors of IPV within current marriages, including the importance of considering differences in the experiences of partners prior to marriage and may provide a foundation for more targeted primary prevention efforts.

Funding Information: The WHO World Mental Health Survey collaborators are Sergio Aguilar-Gaxiola, MD, PhD; Ali Al-Hamzawi, MD; Mohammed Salih Al-Kaisy, MD; Jordi Alonso, MD, PhD; Yasmin A. Altwaijri, PhD; Laura Helena Andrade, MD, PhD; Lukoye Atwoli, MD, PhD; Corina Benjet, PhD; Guilherme Borges, ScD; Evelyn J. Bromet, PhD; Ronny Bruffaerts, PhD; Brendan Bunting, PhD; Jose Miguel Caldas-de-Almeida, MD, PhD; Gra?a Cardoso, MD, PhD; Somnath Chatterji, MD; Alfredo H. Cia, MD; Louisa Degenhardt, PhD; Koen Demyttenaere, MD, PhD; Silvia Florescu, MD, PhD; Giovanni de Girolamo, MD; Oye Gureje, MD, DSc, FRCPsych; Josep Maria Haro, MD, PhD; Meredith G. Harris, PhD; Hristo Hinkov, MD, PhD; Chi-yi Hu, MD, PhD; Peter de Jonge, PhD; Aimee Nasser Karam, PhD; Elie G. Karam, MD; Norito Kawakami, MD, DMSc; Ronald C. Kessler, PhD; Andrzej Kiejna, MD, PhD; Viviane Kovess-Masfety, MD, PhD; Sing Lee, MBBS; Jean-Pierre Lepine, MD; John J. McGrath, MD, PhD; Maria Elena Medina-Mora, PhD; Zeina Mneimneh, PhD; Jacek Moskalewicz, PhD; Fernando Navarro-Mateu, MD, PhD; Marina Piazza, MPH, ScD; Jose Posada-Villa, MD; Kate M. Scott, PhD; Tim Slade, PhD; Juan Carlos Stagnaro, MD, PhD; Dan J. Stein, FRCPC, PhD; Margreet ten Have, PhD; Yolanda Torres, MPH, Dra.HC; Maria Carmen Viana, MD, PhD; Daniel V. Vigo, MD, DrPH; Harvey Whiteford, MBBS, PhD; David R. Williams, MPH, PhD; Bogdan Wojtyniak, ScD. Funding Information: The Argentina survey -- Estudio Argentino de Epidemiología en Salud Mental (EASM) -- was supported by a grant from the Argentinian Ministry of Health (Ministerio de Salud de la Nación) - (Grant Number 2002–17270/13–5). The 2007 Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing is funded by the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. The São Paulo Megacity Mental Health Survey is supported by the State of São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) Thematic Project Grant 03/00204–3. The Bulgarian Epidemiological Study of common mental disorders EPIBUL is supported by the Ministry of Health and the National Center for Public Health Protection. EPIBUL 2, conducted in 2016–17, is supported by the Ministry of Health and European Economic Area Grants. The Colombian National Study of Mental Health (NSMH) is supported by the Ministry of Social Protection. The Mental Health Study Medellín – Colombia was carried out and supported jointly by the Center for Excellence on Research in Mental Health (CES University) and the Secretary of Health of Medellín. The ESEMeD project is funded by the European Commission (Contracts QLG5–1999-01042; SANCO 2004123, and EAHC 20081308), (the Piedmont Region (Italy)), Fondo de Investigación Sanitaria, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Spain (FIS 00/0028), Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología, Spain (SAF 2000–158-CE), Generalitat de Catalunya (2017 SGR 452; 2014 SGR 748), Instituto de Salud Carlos III (CIBER CB06/02/0046, RETICS RD06/0011 REM-TAP), and other local agencies and by an unrestricted educational grant from GlaxoSmithKline. Implementation of the Iraq Mental Health Survey (IMHS) and data entry were carried out by the staff of the Iraqi MOH and MOP with direct support from the Iraqi IMHS team with funding from both the Japanese and European Funds through United Nations Development Group Iraq Trust Fund (UNDG ITF). The Israel National Health Survey is funded by the Ministry of Health with support from the Israel National Institute for Health Policy and Health Services Research and the National Insurance Institute of Israel. The World Mental Health Japan (WMHJ) Survey is supported by the Grant for Research on Psychiatric and Neurological Diseases and Mental Health (H13-SHOGAI-023, H14-TOKUBETSU-026, H16-KOKORO-013, H25-SEISHIN-IPPAN-006) from the Japan Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. The Lebanese Evaluation of the Burden of Ailments and Needs Of the Nation (L.E.B.A.N.O.N.) is supported by the Lebanese Ministry of Public Health, the WHO (Lebanon), National Institute of Health/Fogarty International Center (R03 TW006481–01), anonymous private donations to IDRAAC, Lebanon, and unrestricted grants from, Algorithm, AstraZeneca, Benta, Bella Pharma, Eli Lilly, Glaxo Smith Kline, Lundbeck, Novartis, OmniPharma, Pfizer, Phenicia, Servier, UPO. The Mexican National Comorbidity Survey (MNCS) is supported by The National Institute of Psychiatry Ramon de la Fuente (INPRFMDIES 4280) and by the National Council on Science and Technology (CONACyT-G30544- H), with supplemental support from the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO). Te Rau Hinengaro: The New Zealand Mental Health Survey (NZMHS) is supported by the New Zealand Ministry of Health, Alcohol Advisory Council, and the Health Research Council. The Northern Ireland Study of Mental Health was funded by the Health & Social Care Research & Development Division of the Public Health Agency. The Peruvian World Mental Health Study was funded by the National Institute of Health of the Ministry of Health of Peru. The Polish project Epidemiology of Mental Health and Access to Care –EZOP Project (PL 0256) was carried out by the Institute of Psychiatry and Neurology in Warsaw in consortium with Department of Psychiatry - Medical University in Wroclaw and National Institute of Public Health-National Institute of Hygiene in Warsaw and in partnership with Psykiatrist Institut Vinderen–Universitet, Oslo. The project was funded by the European Economic Area Financial Mechanism and the Norwegian Financial Mechanism. EZOP project was co-financed by the Polish Ministry of Health. The Portuguese Mental Health Study was carried out by the Department of Mental Health, Faculty of Medical Sciences, NOVA University of Lisbon, with collaboration of the Portuguese Catholic University, and was funded by Champalimaud Foundation, Gulbenkian Foundation, Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) and Ministry of Health. The Saudi National Mental Health Survey (SNMHS) is conducted by the King Salman Center for Disability Research. It is funded by Saudi Basic Industries Corporation (SABIC), King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology (KACST), Ministry of Health (Saudi Arabia), and King Saud University. Funding in-kind was provided by King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center, and the Ministry of Economy and Planning, General Authority for Statistics. The Psychiatric Enquiry to General Population in Southeast Spain – Murcia (PEGASUS-Murcia) Project has been financed by the Regional Health Authorities of Murcia (Servicio Murciano de Salud and Consejería de Sanidad y Política Social) and Fundación para la Formación e Investigación Sanitarias (FFIS) of Murcia. The US National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R) is supported by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH; U01-MH60220) with supplemental support from the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA), the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF; Grant 044708), and the John W. Alden Trust. Funding Information: The World Health Organization World Mental Health (WMH) Survey Initiative is supported by the United States National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH; R01 MH070884), the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Pfizer Foundation, the United States Public Health Service (R13-MH066849, R01-MH069864, and R01 DA016558), the Fogarty International Center (FIRCA R03-TW006481), the Pan American Health Organization, Eli Lilly and Company, Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical Inc., GlaxoSmithKline, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. We thank the staff of the WMH Data Collection and Data Analysis Coordination Centres for assistance with instrumentation, fieldwork, and consultation on data analysis. None of the funders had any role in the design, analysis, interpretation of results, or preparation of this paper. The views and opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and should not be construed to represent the views of the World Health Organization, other sponsoring organizations, agencies, or governments. Funding Information: In the past 3 years, RCK reports being a consultant for Datastat, Inc., RallyPoint Networks, Inc., Sage Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda. FNM reports non-financial support from Otsuka outside and not related to the submitted work. In the past 3 years LD has received untied educational grant funding from Indivior and Seqirus, not related to the submitted work. DJS has received research grants and/or honoraria from Lundbeck, Johnson & Johnson, Servier and Takeda. The remaining authors declare that they have no competing interests. Publisher Copyright: © 2021, The Author(s). Background: Treatment guidelines for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) are based on a relatively small number of randomized controlled trials and do not consider patient-centered perceptions of treatment helpfulness. We investigated the prevalence and predictors of patient-reported treatment helpfulness for DSM-5 GAD and its two main treatment pathways: encounter-level treatment helpfulness and persistence in help-seeking after prior unhelpful treatment. Methods: Data came from community epidemiologic surveys in 23 countries in the WHO World Mental Health surveys. DSM-5 GAD was assessed with the fully structured WHO Composite International Diagnostic Interview Version 3.0. Respondents with a history of GAD were asked whether they ever received treatment and, if so, whether they ever considered this treatment helpful. Number of professionals seen before obtaining helpful treatment was also assessed. Parallel survival models estimated probability and predictors of a given treatment being perceived as helpful and of persisting in help-seeking after prior unhelpful treatment. Results: The overall prevalence rate of GAD was 4.5%, with lower prevalence in low/middle-income countries (2.8%) than high-income countries (5.3%); 34.6% of respondents with lifetime GAD reported ever obtaining treatment for their GAD, with lower proportions in low/middle-income countries (19.2%) than high-income countries (38.4%); 3) 70% of those who received treatment perceived the treatment to be helpful, with prevalence comparable in low/middle-income countries and high-income countries. Survival analysis suggested that virtually all patients would have obtained helpful treatment if they had persisted in help-seeking with up to 10 professionals. However, we estimated that only 29.7% of patients would have persisted that long. Obtaining helpful treatment at the person-level was associated with treatment type, comorbid panic/agoraphobia, and childhood adversities, but most of these predictors were important because they predicted persistence rather than encounter-level treatment helpfulness. Conclusions: The majority of individuals with GAD do not receive treatment. Most of those who receive treatment regard it as helpful, but receiving helpful treatment typically requires persistence in help-seeking. Future research should focus on ensuring that helpfulness is included as part of the evaluation. Clinicians need to emphasize the importance of persistence to patients beginning treatment. publishersversion published

Background: Perceived helpfulness of treatment is an important healthcare quality indicator in the era of patient-centered care. We examine probability and predictors of two key components of this indicator for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Methods: Data come from World Mental Health surveys in 16 countries. Respondents who ever sought PTSD treatment (n = 779) were asked if treatment was ever helpful and, if so, the number of professionals they had to see to obtain helpful treatment. Patients whose treatment was never helpful were asked how many professionals they saw. Parallel survival models were estimated for obtaining helpful treatment in a specific encounter and persisting in help-seeking after earlier unhelpful encounters. Results: Fifty seven percent of patients eventually received helpful treatment, but survival analysis suggests that it would have been 85.7% if all patients had persisted in help-seeking with up to six professionals after earlier unhelpful treatment. Survival analysis suggests that only 23.6% of patients would persist to that extent. Odds of ever receiving helpful treatment were positively associated with receiving treatment from a mental health professional, short delays in initiating help-seeking after onset, absence of prior comorbid anxiety disorders and childhood adversities, and initiating treatment before 2000. Some of these variables predicted helpfulness of specific treatment encounters and others predicted persistence after earlier unhelpful encounters. Conclusions: The great majority of patients with PTSD would receive treatment they considered helpful if they persisted in help-seeking after initial unhelpful encounters, but most patients whose initial treatment is unhelpful give up before receiving helpful treatment.

Additional file 1: Table 1. WMH sample characteristics by World Bank income categoriesa. Table 2. Conditional and cumulative probabilities of obtaining helpful treatment for generalized anxiety disorder after each professional seen, among respondents with lifetime DSM-5 generalized anxiety disorder who obtained treatment in low/middle-income and high-income countries. Table 3. Conditional and cumulative probabilities of persistence in help-seeking after previous unhelpful treatment, among respondents with lifetime DSM-5 generalized anxiety disorder who obtained treatment in low/middle-income and high-income countries. Table 4. Predictors of obtaining helpful treatment (person-level), among people with lifetime DSM-5 generalized anxiety disorder who obtained treatment. Table 5. Interactions between main effects and country income group to predict obtaining helpful treatment (person-level composite outcome) and the decomposed encounter-level outcomes of helpful treatment and persistence, among people with lifetime DSM-5 generalized anxiety disorder who obtained treatment. Table 6. (Low/middle-income countries): Predictors of obtaining helpful treatment (person-level composite outcome) and of the decomposed encounter-level outcomes of helpful treatment and persistence, among people with lifetime DSM-5 generalized anxiety disorder who obtained treatment. Table 7. (High-income countries): Predictors of obtaining helpful treatment (person-level composite outcome) and of the decomposed encounter-level outcomes of helpful treatment and persistence, among people with lifetime DSM-5 generalized anxiety disorder who obtained treatment. Table 8. Interactions between main effects and historical time to predict obtaining helpfulness of treatment (person-level composite outcome) and the decomposed encounter-level outcomes of helpful treatment and persistence, among people with lifetime DSM-5 generalized anxiety disorder who obtained treatment. Table 9. (Started GAD treatment in 2000 or later): Predictors of obtaining helpful treatment (person-level composite outcome) and of the decomposed encounter-level outcomes of helpful treatment and persistence, among people with lifetime DSM-5 generalized anxiety disorder who obtained treatment. Table 10. (Started GAD treatment 1990 to 1999): Predictors of obtaining helpful treatment (person-level composite outcome) and of the decomposed encounter-level outcomes of helpful treatment and persistence, among people with lifetime DSM-5 generalized anxiety disorder who obtained treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To identify groups of participants with differing vulnerabilities to internalizing disorders by examining the course of internalizing psychopathology up to age 45. METHODS: We used data from 24,158 participants (aged 45+) in 23 population-based cross-sectional World Mental Health Surveys. Internalizing disorders were assessed with the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI). We applied latent class growth analysis (LCGA) and investigated the characteristics of identified classes using logistic or linear regression. RESULTS: The best-fitting LCGA solution identified 8 classes: a healthy class (81.9%), three childhood-onset classes with mild (3.7%), moderate (2.0%), or severe (1.1%) internalizing comorbidity, two puberty-onset classes with mild (4.0%) or moderate (1.4%) comorbidity, and two adult-onset classes with mild comorbidity (2.7% and 3.2%). Participants in the childhood-onset severe class reported particularly unfavorable sociodemographic outcomes compared to the healthy class, with an increased risk of being never or previously married (OR=2.2 and 2.0, p

Background: Specific phobia (SP) is a relatively common disorder associated with high levels of psychiatric comorbidity. Because of its early onset, SP may be a useful early marker of internalizing psychopathology, especially if generalized to multiple situations. This study aimed to evaluate the association of childhood generalized SP with comorbid internalizing disorders. Methods: We conducted retrospective analyses of the cross-sectional population-based World Mental Health Surveys using the Composite International Diagnostic Interview. Outcomes were lifetime prevalence, age of onset, and persistence of internalizing disorders; past-month disability; lifetime suicidality; and 12-month serious mental illness. Logistic and linear regressions were used to assess the association of these outcomes with the number of subtypes of childhood-onset (< 13 years) SP. Results: Among 123,628 respondents from 25 countries, retrospectively reported prevalence of childhood SP was 5.9%, 56% of whom reported one, 25% two, 10% three, and 8% four or more subtypes. Lifetime prevalence of internalizing disorders increased from 18.2% among those without childhood SP to 46.3% among those with one and 75.6% those with 4+ subtypes (OR = 2.4, 95% CI 2.3-2.5, p < 0.001). Twelve-month persistence of lifetime internalizing comorbidity at interview increased from 47.9% among those without childhood SP to 59.0% and 79.1% among those with 1 and 4+ subtypes (OR = 1.4, 95% CI 1.4-1.5, p < 0.001). Respondents with 4+ subtypes also reported significantly more disability (3.5 days out of role in the past month) than those without childhood SP (1.1 days) or with only 1 subtype (1.8 days) (B = 0.56, SE 0.06, p < 0.001) and a much higher rate of lifetime suicide attempts (16.8%) than those without childhood SP (2.0%) or with only 1 subtype (6.5%) (OR = 1.7, 95% CI 1.7-1.8, p < 0.001). Conclusions: This large international study shows that childhood-onset generalized SP is related to adverse outcomes in the internalizing domain throughout the life course. Comorbidity, persistence, and severity of internalizing disorders all increased with the number of childhood SP subtypes. Although our study cannot establish whether SP is causally associated with these poor outcomes or whether other factors, such as a shared underlying vulnerability, explain the association, our findings clearly show that childhood generalized SP identifies an important target group for early intervention. publishersversion published

Purpose: Understanding the effects of war on mental disorders is important for developing effective post-conflict recovery policies and programs. The current study uses cross-sectional, retrospectively reported data collected as part of the World Mental Health (WMH) Survey Initiative to examine the associations of being a civilian in a war zone/region of terror in World War II with a range of DSM-IV mental disorders. Methods: Adults (n = 3370) who lived in countries directly involved in World War II in Europe and Japan were administered structured diagnostic interviews of lifetime DSM-IV mental disorders. The associations of war-related traumas with subsequent disorder onset-persistence were assessed with discrete-time survival analysis (lifetime prevalence) and conditional logistic regression (12-month prevalence). Results: Respondents who were civilians in a war zone/region of terror had higher lifetime risks than other respondents of major depressive disorder (MDD; OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.1, 1.9) and anxiety disorder (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.1, 2.0). The association of war exposure with MDD was strongest in the early years after the war, whereas the association with anxiety disorders increased over time. Among lifetime cases, war exposure was associated with lower past year risk of anxiety disorders (OR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2, 0.7). Conclusions: Exposure to war in World War II was associated with higher lifetime risk of some mental disorders. Whether comparable patterns will be found among civilians living through more recent wars remains to be seen, but should be recognized as a possibility by those projecting future needs for treatment of mental disorders. publishersversion published

BACKGROUND:The treatment gap between the number of people with mental disorders and the number treated represents a major public health challenge. We examine this gap by socio-economic status (SES; indicated by family income and respondent education) and service sector in a cross-national analysis of community epidemiological survey data. METHODS: Data come from 16 753 respondents with 12-month DSM-IV disorders from community surveys in 25 countries in the WHO World Mental Health Survey Initiative. DSM-IV anxiety, mood, or substance disorders and treatment of these disorders were assessed with the WHO Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI). RESULTS: Only 13.7% of 12-month DSM-IV/CIDI cases in lower-middle-income countries, 22.0% in upper-middle-income countries, and 36.8% in high-income countries received treatment. Highest-SES respondents were somewhat more likely to receive treatment, but this was true mostly for specialty mental health treatment, where the association was positive with education (highest treatment among respondents with the highest education and a weak association of education with treatment among other respondents) but non-monotonic with income (somewhat lower treatment rates among middle-income respondents and equivalent among those with high and low incomes). CONCLUSIONS: The modest, but nonetheless stronger, an association of education than income with treatment raises questions about a financial barriers interpretation of the inverse association of SES with treatment, although future within-country analyses that consider contextual factors might document other important specifications. While beyond the scope of this report, such an expanded analysis could have important implications for designing interventions aimed at increasing mental disorder treatment among socio-economically disadvantaged people. The World Health Organization World Mental Health (WMH) Survey Initiative is supported by the US National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH; R01 MH070884), the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Pfizer Foundation, the US Public Health Service (R13-MH066849, R01-MH069864, and R01 DA016558), the Fogarty International Center (FIRCA R03-TW006481), the Pan American Health Organization, Eli Lilly and Company, Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical Inc., GlaxoSmithKline, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. We thank the staff of the WMH Data Collection and Data Analysis Coordination Centres for assistance with instrumentation, fieldwork, and consultation on data analysis. The São Paulo Megacity Mental Health Survey is supported by the State of São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) Thematic Project Grant 03/00204-3. The Bulgarian Epidemiological Study of common mental disorders EPIBUL is supported by the Ministry of Health and the National Center for Public Health Protection. The Chinese World Mental Health Survey Initiative is supported by the Pfizer Foundation. The Shenzhen Mental Health Survey is supported by the Shenzhen Bureau of Health and the Shenzhen Bureau of Science, Technology, and Information. The Colombian National Study of Mental Health (NSMH) is supported by the Ministry of Social Protection. The Mental Health Study Medellín – Colombia was carried out and supported jointly by the Center for Excellence on Research in Mental Health (CES University) and the Secretary of Health of Medellín. The ESEMeD project is funded by the European Commission (Contracts QLG5-1999-01042; SANCO 2004123, and EAHC 20081308), (the Piedmont Region (Italy)), Fondo de Investigación Sanitaria, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Spain (FIS 00/0028), Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología, Spain (SAF 2000-158-CE), Departament de Salut, Generalitat de Catalunya, Spain, Instituto de Salud Carlos III (CIBER CB06/02/0046, RETICS RD06/0011 REM-TAP), and other local agencies and by an unrestricted educational grant from GlaxoSmithKline. Implementation of the Iraq Mental Health Survey (IMHS) and data entry was carried out by the staff of the Iraqi MOH and MOP with direct support from the Iraqi IMHS team with funding from both the Japanese and European Funds through United Nations Development Group Iraq Trust Fund (UNDG ITF). The Israel National Health Survey is funded by the Ministry of Health with support from the Israel National Institute for Health Policy and Health Services Research and the National Insurance Institute of Israel. The World Mental Health Japan (WMHJ) Survey is supported by the Grant for Research on Psychiatric and Neurological Diseases and Mental Health (H13-SHOGAI-023, H14-TOKUBETSU-026, H16-KOKORO-013, H25-SEISHIN-IPPAN-006) from the Japan Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. The Lebanese Evaluation of the Burden of Ailments and Needs Of the Nation (L.E.B.A.N.O.N.) is supported by the Lebanese Ministry of Public Health, the WHO (Lebanon), National Institute of Health / Fogarty International Center (R03 TW006481-01), anonymous private donations to IDRAAC, Lebanon, and unrestricted grants from, Algorithm, AstraZeneca, Benta, Bella Pharma, Eli Lilly, Glaxo Smith Kline, Lundbeck, Novartis, OmniPharma, Pfizer, Phenicia, Servier, UPO. The Mexican National Comorbidity Survey (MNCS) is supported by The National Institute of Psychiatry Ramon de la Fuente (INPRFMDIES 4280) and by the National Council on Science and Technology (CONACyT-G30544- H), with supplemental support from the PanAmerican Health Organization (PAHO). Te Rau Hinengaro: The New Zealand Mental Health Survey (NZMHS) is supported by the New Zealand Ministry of Health, Alcohol Advisory Council, and the Health Research Council. The Nigerian Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing (NSMHW) is supported by the WHO (Geneva), the WHO (Nigeria), and the Federal Ministry of Health, Abuja, Nigeria. The Northern Ireland Study of Mental Health was funded by the Health & Social Care Research & Development Division of the Public Health Agency. The Peruvian World Mental Health Study was funded by the National Institute of Health of the Ministry of Health of Peru. The Polish project Epidemiology of Mental Health and Access to Care – EZOP Project (PL 0256) was supported by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through funding from the EEA Financial Mechanism and the Norwegian Financial Mechanism. EZOP project was co-financed by the Polish Ministry of Health. The Portuguese Mental Health Study was carried out by the Department of Mental Health, Faculty of Medical Sciences, NOVA University of Lisbon, with the collaboration of the Portuguese Catholic University, and was funded by Champalimaud Foundation, Gulbenkian Foundation, Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) and Ministry of Health. The Romania WMH study projects ‘Policies in Mental Health Area’ and ‘National Study regarding Mental Health and Services Use’ were carried out by National School of Public Health & Health Services Management (former National Institute for Research & Development in Health), with technical support of Metro Media Transilvania, the National Institute of Statistics-National Centre for Training in Statistics, SC. Cheyenne Services SRL, Statistics Netherlands and were funded by Ministry of Public Health (former Ministry of Health) with the supplemental support of Eli Lilly Romania SRL. The South Africa Stress and Health Study (SASH) is supported by the US National Institute of Mental Health (R01-MH059575) and National Institute of Drug Abuse with supplemental funding from the South African Department of Health and the University of Michigan. The Psychiatric Enquiry to General Population in Southeast Spain – Murcia (PEGASUSMurcia) Project has been financed by the Regional Health Authorities of Murcia (Servicio Murciano de Salud and Consejería de Sanidad y Política Social) and Fundación para la Formación e Investigación Sanitarias (FFIS) of Murcia. The Ukraine Comorbid Mental Disorders during Periods of Social Disruption (CMDPSD) study is funded by the US National Institute of Mental Health (RO1-MH61905). The US National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R) is supported by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH; U01-MH60220) with supplemental support from the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA), the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF; Grant 044708), and the John W. Alden Trust. Dr Evans-Lacko currently holds a Starting Grant from the European Research Council (337673). Dr Thornicroft is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care South London at King’s College London Foundation Trust. GT acknowledges financial support from the Department of Health via the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre and Dementia Unit awarded to South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust in partnership with King’s College London and King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. GT is supported by the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013) Emerald project. A complete list of all within-country and cross-national WMH publications can be found at http://www.hcp.med.harvard.edu/wmh/.

BackgroundTraumatic events are associated with increased risk of psychotic experiences, but it is unclear whether this association is explained by mental disorders prior to psychotic experience onset.AimsTo investigate the associations between traumatic events and subsequent psychotic experience onset after adjusting for post-traumatic stress disorder and other mental disorders.MethodWe assessed 29 traumatic event types and psychotic experiences from the World Mental Health surveys and examined the associations of traumatic events with subsequent psychotic experience onset with and without adjustments for mental disorders.ResultsRespondents with any traumatic events had three times the odds of other respondents of subsequently developing psychotic experiences (OR=3.1, 95% CI 2.7–3.7), with variability in strength of association across traumatic event types. These associations persisted after adjustment for mental disorders.ConclusionsExposure to traumatic events predicts subsequent onset of psychotic experiences even after adjusting for comorbid mental disorders.

Funding: The authors are grateful to M. Kumvaj for her assistance with the systematic literature search. They also thank the staff of the WMHS Data Collection and Data Analysis Coordination Centres for assistance with instrumentation, fieldwork and consultation on data analysis. The WHO’s WMHS are supported by the US National Institute of Mental Health (R01 MH070884), the MacArthur Foundation, the Pfizer Foundation, the US Public Health Service (R13-MH066849, R01-MH069864 and R01 DA016558), the Fogarty International Center (R03-TW006481), the Pan American Health Organization, Eli Lilly and Company, Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical Inc., GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Shire. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and should not be construed to represent the views or policies of the WHO, other sponsoring organizations, agencies, or governments. This work was supported by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) project grant (no. 1081984). L. Degenhardt is supported by an NHMRC Principal Research Fellowship (no. 1041472). Substance use is a major cause of disability globally. This has been recognized in the recent United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), in which treatment coverage for substance use disorders is identified as one of the indicators. There have been no estimates of this treatment coverage cross-nationally, making it difficult to know what is the baseline for that SDG target. Here we report data from the World Health Organization (WHO)'s World Mental Health Surveys (WMHS), based on representative community household surveys in 26 countries. We assessed the 12-month prevalence of substance use disorders (alcohol or drug abuse/dependence); the proportion of people with these disorders who were aware that they needed treatment and who wished to receive care; the proportion of those seeking care who received it; and the proportion of such treatment that met minimal standards for treatment quality (“minimally adequate treatment”). Among the 70,880 participants, 2.6% met 12-month criteria for substance use disorders; the prevalence was higher in upper-middle income (3.3%) than in high-income (2.6%) and low/lower-middle income (2.0%) countries. Overall, 39.1% of those with 12-month substance use disorders recognized a treatment need; this recognition was more common in high-income (43.1%) than in upper-middle (35.6%) and low/lower-middle income (31.5%) countries. Among those who recognized treatment need, 61.3% made at least one visit to a service provider, and 29.5% of the latter received minimally adequate treatment exposure (35.3% in high, 20.3% in upper-middle, and 8.6% in low/lower-middle income countries). Overall, only 7.1% of those with past-year substance use disorders received minimally adequate treatment: 10.3% in high income, 4.3% in upper-middle income and 1.0% in low/lower-middle income countries. These data suggest that only a small minority of people with substance use disorders receive even minimally adequate treatment. At least three barriers are involved: awareness/perceived treatment need, accessing treatment once a need is recognized, and compliance (on the part of both provider and client) to obtain adequate treatment. Various factors are likely to be involved in each of these three barriers, all of which need to be addressed to improve treatment coverage of substance use disorders. These data provide a baseline for the global monitoring of progress of treatment coverage for these disorders as an indicator within the SDGs. publishersversion published

Substance use is a major cause of disability globally. This has been recognized in the recent United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), in which treatment coverage for substance use disorders is identified as one of the indicators. There have been no estimates of this treatment coverage cross-nationally, making it difficult to know what is the baseline for that SDG target. Here we report data from the World Health Organization (WHO)'s World Mental Health Surveys (WMHS), based on representative community household surveys in 26 countries. We assessed the 12-month prevalence of substance use disorders (alcohol or drug abuse/dependence); the proportion of people with these disorders who were aware that they needed treatment and who wished to receive care; the proportion of those seeking care who received it; and the proportion of such treatment that met minimal standards for treatment quality ("minimally adequate treatment"). Among the 70,880 participants, 2.6% met 12-month criteria for substance use disorders; the prevalence was higher in upper-middle income (3.3%) than in high-income (2.6%) and low/lower-middle income (2.0%) countries. Overall, 39.1% of those with 12-month substance use disorders recognized a treatment need; this recognition was more common in high-income (43.1%) than in upper-middle (35.6%) and low/lower-middle income (31.5%) countries. Among those who recognized treatment need, 61.3% made at least one visit to a service provider, and 29.5% of the latter received minimally adequate treatment exposure (35.3% in high, 20.3% in upper-middle, and 8.6% in low/lower-middle income countries). Overall, only 7.1% of those with past-year substance use disorders received minimally adequate treatment: 10.3% in high income, 4.3% in upper-middle income and 1.0% in low/lower-middle income countries. These data suggest that only a small minority of people with substance use disorders receive even minimally adequate treatment. At least three barriers are involved: awareness/perceived treatment need, accessing treatment once a need is recognized, and compliance (on the part of both provider and client) to obtain adequate treatment. Various factors are likely to be involved in each of these three barriers, all of which need to be addressed to improve treatment coverage of substance use disorders. These data provide a baseline for the global monitoring of progress of treatment coverage for these disorders as an indicator within the SDGs.

Background: There is evidence that social anxiety disorder (SAD) is a prevalent and disabling disorder. However, most of the available data on the epidemiology of this condition originate from high income countries in the West. The World Mental Health (WMH) Survey Initiative provides an opportunity to investigate the prevalence, course, impairment, socio-demographic correlates, comorbidity, and treatment of this condition across a range of high, middle, and low income countries in different geographic regions of the world, and to address the question of whether differences in SAD merely reflect differences in threshold for diagnosis. Methods: Data from 28 community surveys in the WMH Survey Initiative, with 142,405 respondents, were analyzed. We assessed the 30-day, 12-month, and lifetime prevalence of SAD, age of onset, and severity of role impairment associated with SAD, across countries. In addition, we investigated socio-demographic correlates of SAD, comorbidity of SAD with other mental disorders, and treatment of SAD in the combined sample. Cross-tabulations were used to calculate prevalence, impairment, comorbidity, and treatment. Survival analysis was used to estimate age of onset, and logistic regression and survival analyses were used to examine socio-demographic correlates. Results: SAD 30-day, 12-month, and lifetime prevalence estimates are 1.3, 2.4, and 4.0% across all countries. SAD prevalence rates are lowest in low/lower-middle income countries and in the African and Eastern Mediterranean regions, and highest in high income countries and in the Americas and the Western Pacific regions. Age of onset is early across the globe, and persistence is highest in upper-middle income countries, Africa, and the Eastern Mediterranean. There are some differences in domains of severe role impairment by country income level and geographic region, but there are no significant differences across different income level and geographic region in the proportion of respondents with any severe role impairment. Also, across countries SAD is associated with specific socio-demographic features (younger age, female gender, unmarried status, lower education, and lower income) and with similar patterns of comorbidity. Treatment rates for those with any impairment are lowest in low/lower-middle income countries and highest in high income countries. Conclusions: While differences in SAD prevalence across countries are apparent, we found a number of consistent patterns across the globe, including early age of onset, persistence, impairment in multiple domains, as well as characteristic socio-demographic correlates and associated psychiatric comorbidities. In addition, while there are some differences in the patterns of impairment associated with SAD across the globe, key similarities suggest that the threshold for diagnosis is similar regardless of country income levels or geographic location. Taken together, these cross-national data emphasize the international clinical and public health significance of SAD. publishersversion published