Search

Objective: To describe the distribution of role limitation in the European population aged 18-64 years and to examine the contribution of health conditions to role limitation using a public-health approach. Methods: Representative samples of the adult general population (n=13,666) aged 18-64 years from 10 European countries of the World Mental Health (WMH) Surveys Initiative, grouped into three regions: Central-Western, Southern and Central-Eastern. The Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI 3.0) was used to assess six mental disorders and standard checklists for seven physical conditions. Days with full and with partial role limitation in the month previous to the interview were reported (WMH-WHODAS). Population Attributable Fraction (PAFs) of full and partial role limitation were estimated. Results: Health conditions explained a large proportion of full role limitation (PAF=62.6%) and somewhat less of partial role limitation (46.6%). Chronic pain was the single condition that consistently contributed to explain both disability measures in all European Regions. Mental disorders were the most important contributors to full and partial role limitation in Central-Western and Southern Europe. In Central-Eastern Europe, where mental disorders were less prevalent, physical conditions, especially cardiovascular diseases, were the highest contributors to disability. Conclusion: The contribution of health conditions to role limitation in the three European regions studied is high. Mental disorders are associated with the largest impact in most of the regions. There is a need for mainstreaming disability in the public health agenda to reduce the role limitation associated with health conditions. The cross-regional differences found require further investigation. Resumen Objetivo: Describir la distribución de la discapacidad en población europea de 18 a 64 años de edad y analizar la contribución de los trastornos físicos y mentales con una perspectiva de salud pública. Métodos: Se analizaron muestras representativas de población general adulta (n=13.666) de 10 países europeos participantes en la Iniciativa Mundial de Encuestas para la Salud Mental (World Mental Health Surveys Initiative), agrupados en tres regiones: Centro-Oeste, Sur y Centro-Este. La Entrevista Diagnóstica Internacional Compuesta (CIDI 3.0) se utilizó para evaluar seis trastornos mentales, y siete trastornos físicos fueron autorreportados a partir de una lista estandarizada. Se contabilizaron los días con discapacidad parcial y total del mes previo a la entrevista utilizando una versión modificada de la escala WHO-DAS. Se calcularon las fracciones de riesgo atribuible (PAF). Resultados: Los trastornos mentales y físicos fueron importantes contribuyentes a la discapacidad total (PAF=62,6%) y en menor medida a la discapacidad parcial (46,6%). El dolor crónico fue el único trastorno que ha contribuido a explicar tanto la discapacidad total como la parcial en las tres regiones europeas. Los trastornos mentales son los que contribuyen más a la discapacidad total y parcial en los países del Centro-Oeste y del Sur. En los países del Centro-Este, donde los trastornos mentales fueron poco prevalentes, la enfermedad cardiovascular fue la principal contribuyente a la discapacidad. Conclusión: La contribución de los trastornos físicos y mentales a la discapacidad en las tres regiones europeas estudiadas es importante. Los trastornos mentales están asociados con una gran discapacidad en la mayoría de las regiones. Es necesario incorporar el estudio del impacto de las enfermedades comunes en discapacidad a la agenda de salud pública. Se necesitan estudios adicionales que profundicen en las diferencias regionales encontradas.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that general practitioners (GPs) fail to diagnose up to half of common mental disorder cases. Yet no previous research has systematically summarized the evidence in the case of anxiety disorders. The aim of this review was to systematically assess and meta-analyze the diagnostic accuracy of GPs' assisted (i.e., using severity scales/diagnostic instruments) and unassisted (without such tools) diagnoses of anxiety disorders. METHODS: Systematic review (PROSPERO registry CRD42013006736) was conducted. Embase, Ovid Journals - Ovid SP Medline, Pubmed, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, and Science Direct were searched from January 1980 through June 2014. Seven investigators, working in pairs, evaluated studies for eligibility. The quality of included studies was assessed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool version 2 (QUADAS-2). The main outcome measures were sensitivity and specificity of clinical diagnoses of any anxiety disorder. We pooled sensitivity and specificity levels from included studies using bivariate meta-analyses. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies were included in the meta-analysis with a total sample of 34,902 patients. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were estimated at 44.5% (95% CI 33.7-55.9%) and 90.8% (95% CI 87-93.5%). GPs' sensitivity was higher when diagnoses were assisted (63.6%, 95% CI 50.3-75.1%) than when unassisted (30.5%, 95% CI 20.7-42.5%) to the expense of some specificity loss (87.9%, 95% CI 81.3-92.4% vs. 91.4%, 95% CI 86.6-94.6%, respectively). Identification rates remained constant over time (P-value = .998). CONCLUSIONS: The use of diagnostic tools might improve detection of anxiety disorders in "primary care." This study was funded by a grant from the Spanish Ministry of Health, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, FEDER PI10/00530, Fondo de Investigación Sanitaria ISCIII (FI11/00154), and by DIUE Generalitat de Catalunya (2014 SGR 748)