4.4 Article

Psychotic Experiences in the General Population A Cross-National Analysis Based on 31 261 Respondents From 18 Countries

Journal

JAMA PSYCHIATRY
Volume 72, Issue 7, Pages 697-705

Publisher

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2015.0575

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Thematic Project Grant from the State of Sao Paulo Research Foundation [03/00 204-3]
  2. Shenzhen Mental Health Survey
  3. Shenzhen Bureau of Health
  4. Shenzhen Bureau of Science, Technology, and Information
  5. Colombian National Study of Mental Health
  6. Ministry of Social Protection
  7. Saldarriaga Concha Foundation
  8. European Study of the Epidemiology of Mental Disorders project [QLG5-1999-01042]
  9. European Commission [2004123]
  10. Fondo de Investigacion Sanitaria (the Piedmont Region [Italy])
  11. Instituto de Salud Carlos III (Spain) [FIS 00/0028]
  12. Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnologia (Spain) [SAF 2000-158-CE]
  13. grants Centro de Investigacion Biomedica en Red [CB06/02/0046]
  14. Redes Tematicas de Investigacion Cooperativa en Salud from the Departament de Salut, Generalitat de Catalunya, Spain [RD06/0011 REM-TAP]
  15. Instituto de Salud Carlos III
  16. GlaxoSmithKline
  17. Iraq Mental Health Survey (IMHS)
  18. Japanese and European funds through United Nations Development Group Iraq Trust Fund
  19. Lebanese National Mental Health Survey
  20. Lebanese Ministry of Public Health
  21. World Health Organization (WHO) (Lebanon)
  22. Janssen Cilag
  23. Eli Lilly and Company
  24. Roche
  25. Novartis
  26. Mexican National Comorbidity Survey (MNCS)
  27. National Institute of Psychiatry Ramon de la Fuente [INPRFMDIES 4280]
  28. National Council on Science and Technology, and supplemental support from the Pan American Health Organization [CONACyT-G30544-H]
  29. New Zealand Mental Health Survey
  30. New Zealand Ministry of Health
  31. Alcohol Advisory Council
  32. Health Research Council
  33. Nigerian Survey of Mental Health and Well-being
  34. WHO (Geneva)
  35. WHO (Nigeria)
  36. Federal Ministry of Health, Abuja
  37. Peruvian World Mental Health Study
  38. National Institute of Health of the Ministry of Health of Peru
  39. US National Comorbidity Survey Replication
  40. National Institute of Mental Health [U01-MH60220]
  41. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation [044708]
  42. John W. Alden Trust
  43. John Cade Fellowship from the National Health and Medical Research Council [APP1056929]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

IMPORTANCE Community-based surveys find that many otherwise healthy individuals report histories of hallucinations and delusions. To date, most studies have focused on the overall lifetime prevalence of any of these psychotic experiences (PEs), which might mask important features related to the types and frequencies of PEs. OBJECTIVE To explore detailed epidemiologic information about PEs in a large multinational sample. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS We obtained data from the World Health Organization World Mental Health Surveys, a coordinated set of community epidemiologic surveys of the prevalence and correlates of mental disorders in representative household samples from 18 countries throughout the world, from 2001 through 2009. Respondents included 31 261 adults (18 years and older) who were asked about lifetime and 12-month prevalence and frequency of 6 types of PEs (2 hallucinatory experiences and 4 delusional experiences). We analyzed the data from March 2014 through January 2015. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Prevalence, frequency, and correlates of PEs. RESULTS Mean lifetime prevalence (SE) of ever having a PE was 5.8% (0.2%), with hallucinatory experiences (5.2% [0.2%]) much more common than delusional experiences (1.3% [0.1%]). More than two-thirds (72.0%) of respondents with lifetime PEs reported experiencing only 1 type. Psychotic experiences were typically infrequent, with 32.2% of respondents with lifetime PEs reporting only 1 occurrence and 31.8% reporting only 2 to 5 occurrences. We found a significant relationship between having more than 1 type of PE and having more frequent PE episodes (Cochran-Armitage z = -10.0; P < .001). Lifetime prevalence estimates (SEs) were significantly higher among respondents in middle-and high-income countries than among those in low-income countries (7.2% [0.4%], 6.8% [0.3%], and 3.2% [0.3%], respectively;chi(2)(2) range, 7.1-58.2; P < .001 for each) and among women than among men (6.6% [0.2%] vs 5.0% [0.3%]; chi(2)(1) = 16.0; P < .001). We found significant associations with lifetime prevalence of PEs in the multivariate model among nonmarried compared with married respondents (chi(2)(2) = 23.2; P < .001) and among respondents who were not employed (chi(2)(4) = 10.6; P < .001) and who had low family incomes (chi(2)(3) = 16.9; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE The epidemiologic features of PEs are more nuanced than previously thought. Research is needed that focuses on similarities and differences in the predictors of the onset, course, and consequences of distinct PEs.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available