4.7 Article

Prevalence, correlates, and comorbidities of four DSM-IV specific phobia subtypes: Results from the Korean Epidemiological Catchment Area study

期刊

PSYCHIATRY RESEARCH
卷 209, 期 3, 页码 596-603

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2012.12.025

关键词

Specific phobia; Subtype; Epidemiology; Mental disorders; Korea

资金

  1. Korean Ministry of Health and Welfare

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although several studies have detected differences in clinical features among specific phobias, there is a shortage of detailed national data on the on the DSM-IV SP subtypes, particularly in the Asian population. To examine the prevalence, demographic and other correlates, and co-morbidities of DSM-IV SP subtypes in a nationwide sample of Korean adults. We recruited 6510 participants aged 18-64 years for this study. Lay interviewers used the Composite International Diagnostic Interview to assess participants. We analyzed socio-demographics, health-related correlates and frequencies of comorbid mental disorders among participants with SP and each subtypes compared to unaffected adults. The prevalence of lifetime DSM-IV SP was 3.8%, and animal phobias were the most prevalent type of SP. Blood-injection-injury phobia was negatively associated with education, whereas situational phobia was positively associated with education. The strongest mental disorder comorbidity was associated with situational phobia; there is a higher probability of comorbid mood (OR=5.73, 95% CI=2.09-15.73), anxiety (OR=7.54, 95% CI=2.34-24.28), and somatoform disorders (OR=7.61, 95% CI=1.64-35.22) with this subtype. Blood-injection-injury phobia was highly associated with alcohol dependence (OR=9.02, 95% CI=3.54-23.02). Specific phobias are heterogeneous with respect to socio-demographic characteristics and comorbidity pattern. Implications of the usefulness of current subtype categories should continue to be investigated. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据