Cosgrove, Sheldon: 69% of DSM-5 task force members report pharmaceutical industry ties

Cosgrove, Sheldon: 69% of DSM-5 task force members report pharmaceutical industry ties – review identifies potential COIs

Post #151 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-1ZM

“Board of Trustee Principles” here:
http://www.dsm5.org/about/Pages/BoardofTrusteePrinciples.aspx

“DSM-V Task Force and Work Group Acceptance Form” here:
Approved by BOT July2006 Amended and Approved by BOT October 2007
http://www.dsm5.org/about/Documents/DSM%20Member%20Acceptance%20Form.pdf

DSM-5 Task Force members’ bios and disclosures here: http://www.dsm5.org/MeetUs/Pages/TaskForceMembers.aspx

DSM-5 Work Group members’ bios and disclosures here: http://www.dsm5.org/MeetUs/Pages/WorkGroupMembers.aspx

(All 13 DSM-5 Work Group Chairs are members of the Task Force, which totals 29 members.)

A number of stories following publication of PLoS Medicine Essay by Linda Cosgrove and Sheldon Krimsky:

A Comparison of DSM-IV and DSM-5 Panel Members’ Financial Associations with Industry: A Pernicious Problem Persists

Full text available on PLoS site under “Open-access”

Or open PDF here

Citation: Cosgrove L, Krimsky S (2012) A Comparison of DSM-IV and DSM-5 Panel Members’ Financial Associations with Industry: A Pernicious Problem Persists. PLoS Med 9(3): e1001190. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001190

Published: March 13, 2012

 

ABC News

DSM-5 Criticized for Financial Conflicts of Interest

Katie Moisse | March 13, 2012

Controversy continues to swell around the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, better known as DSM-5. A new study suggests the 900-page bible of mental health, scheduled for publication in May 2013, is ripe with financial conflicts of interest.

The manual, published by the American Psychiatric Association, details the diagnostic criteria for each and every psychiatric disorder, many of which have pharmacological treatments. After the 1994 release of DSM-4, the APA instituted a policy requiring expert advisors to disclose drug industry ties. But the move toward transparency did little to cut down on conflicts, with nearly 70 percent of DSM-5 task force members reporting financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies – up from 57 percent for DSM-4.

“Organizations like the APA have embraced transparency too quickly as the solution,” said Lisa Cosgrove, associate professor of clinical psychology at the University of Massachusetts-Boston and lead author of the study published today in the journal PLoS Medicine. “Our data show that transparency has not changed the dynamic.”…

Read on


New Scientist

Many authors of psychiatry bible have industry ties

Peter Aldhous | March 13, 2012

Just as many authors of the new psychiatry “bible” are tied to the drugs industry as those who worked on the previous version, a study has found, despite new transparency rules…

…”Transparency alone can’t mitigate bias,” says Lisa Cosgrove Havard University of Harvard University, who along with Sheldon Krimsky of Tufts University in Medford, Massachusetts, analysed the financial disclosures of 141 members of the “work groups” drafting the manual. They found that just as many contributors – 57 per cent – had links to industry as were found in a previous study of the authors of DSM-IV and an interim revision, published in 1994 and 2000 respectively.

Cosgrove also points out that the $10,000-per-year limit on payments excludes research grants. “Nothing has really changed,” she says…

Read on

Journal reference: PLoS Medicine, DOI: 10.1371/ journal.pmed.1001190

Please note that the petition launched in October by an ad hoc committee of the Society for Humanistic Psychology (Division 32 of the American Psychological Association) referred to in this article is intended for signing by mental health professionals.


Nature | News

Industry ties remain rife on panels for psychiatry manual
Review identifies potential conflicts of interest among those drawing up DSM-5.

Heidi Ledford | March 13, 2012

Potential conflicts of interest among the physicians charged with revising a key psychiatric manual have not declined despite changes to the rules on disclosing ties to industry, says a study published today1.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is used to diagnose patients, shape research projects and guide health-insurance claims. The fifth edition of the manual, DSM-5, currently being prepared by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) in Arlington, Virginia, is scheduled for publication in May 2013. But some of the suggested revisions are proving to be contentious. In particular, some psychiatrists worry that the broader diagnostic criteria for selected psychiatric conditions would encroach into the realm of the normal, thereby pathologizing ordinary behaviour and expanding the market for drug prescriptions (see ‘Diagnostics tome comes under fire’ and ‘Mental health guide accused of overreach’)…

Read on


From TIME Magazine:

TIME Magazine

What Counts As Crazy?

John Cloud | Online March 14, 2012

Print edition | March 19, 2012

…The mind, in our modern conception, is an array of circuits we can manipulate with chemicals to ease, if not cure, depression, anxiety and other disorders. Drugs like Prozac have transformed how we respond to mental illness. But while this revolution has reshaped treatments, it hasn’t done much to help us diagnose what’s wrong to begin with. Instead of ordering lab tests, psychiatrists usually have to size up people using subjective descriptions of the healthy vs. the afflicted.

…Which is why the revision of a single book is roiling the world of mental health, pitting psychiatrists against one another in bitter…

Full article available to subscribers


From last week’s New Scientist:

New Scientist

Should we rewrite the autism rule book?

Fred Volkmar and Francesca Happé | March 7, 2012
Magazine issue 2855.

AN EFFORT is under way to update the American Psychiatric Association’s diagnostic guide – the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). In particular, changes suggested for diagnosis of autism are the focus of much debate.

There are clear reasons for changing and tweaking DSM categories and criteria in the light of new research, but the impact in this case is likely to be major…

Full article available to subscribers


Human Givens

International society removes ‘schizophrenia’ from its title

March 13, 2012

A statement from the ISPS today reveals that the society has voted to remove the word ‘schizophrenia’ from its title due to the term being deemed ‘unscientific and stigmatizing’:

“Members of the International Society for the Psychological Treatments of the Schizophrenias and Other Psychoses ( www.isps.org ) have just voted, by an overwhelming majority, to change the society’s name to the International Society for Psychological and Social Approaches to Psychosis. The new logo and letterhead are to be adopted by the end of March…”

Read on

Advertisements

Science Media Centre DSM-5 press briefing: Comments from research and clinical professionals

Science Media Centre DSM-5 press briefing: Comments from research and clinical professionals

Post #141 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-1TL

On February 9, psychiatrist, Prof Nick Craddock, and psychologist, Prof Peter Kinderman, discussed the implications of proposals for the next edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) at a Science Media Centre press briefing for invited journalists.

There has been significant UK and international media interest in mental health professionals’ concerns for a range of controversial proposals for DSM-5. Press coverage is being collated in this Dx Revision Watch post:

Media coverage of UK concerns over DSM-5 (Science Media Centre press briefing)

Commentaries from Allen Frances, MD, today, on Huffington Post:

Can the Press Save DSM 5 from Itself? 

“…The intense press scrutiny of DSM 5 is really just beginning. I know of at least 10 additional reporters who are preparing their work now for publication in the near future. And many of the journalists whose articles appeared during these last few weeks intend to stay on this story for the duration — at least until DSM 5 is published, and probably beyond. They understand that DSM 5 is a document of great individual and societal consequence — and that its impact and risks need a thorough public airing…”

and Christopher Lane, Ph.D. on Side Effects at Psychology Today

DSM-5 Controversy Is Now Firmly Transatlantic

Why the APA’s lower diagnostic thresholds are causing widespread concern.

“Proposed draft revisions to the DSM, which the American Psychiatric Association recently made available on its website, are stirring major controversy on both sides of the Atlantic…”  Read on

 

Science Media Centre has very kindly given permission to publish, in full, the comments provided by research and clinical professionals for use by the press:

DSM5: New psychiatry bible broadens definitions of mental illness to include normal quirks of personality

10.02.2012

Round-up comments

Tim Carey, Associate Professor at the Centre for Remote Health and Central Australian Mental Health Service, said:

“The DSM does not assist in understanding psychological distress nor in treating it effectively. It does not “carve nature at its joints” as it were. It is a collection of symptom patterns that have no underlying form or structure. It is akin to an anthology of the constellations in the night sky. While it does not assist in understanding or treating psychological distress, it has generated phenomenal revenues for the APA, expanded the market for pharmaceutical companies, assisted in promulgating and maintaining a disease and illness model of psychological suffering, and constrained the focus of research activity. Are these the activities a humane and scientific society should seek to promote?

“The authors of the DSM themselves acknowledge the inadequacy of the DSM diagnostic system.

“On page xxxi of the latest edition of the DSM it states: ‘there is no assumption that each category of mental disorder is a completely discrete entity with absolute boundaries dividing it from other mental disorders or from no mental disorder. There is also no assumption that all individuals described as having the same mental disorder are alike in all important ways’.

“So, according to the DSM authors, the boundaries demarcating ‘schizophrenia’ (for example) don’t separate ‘schizophrenia’ from ‘depression’ (or social phobia or intermittent explosive disorder or post-traumatic stress disorder or …) or (perhaps most importantly) the boundaries don’t separate ‘schizophrenia’ from ‘no schizophrenia’.

“One would have to ask: if the function of creating particular categories is not to separate these categories from each other or from their absence, what exactly are they for?”

David Pilgrim, Professor of Mental Health Policy, University of Central Lancashire, said:

“It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that DSM-5 will help the interests of the drug companies and the wrong-headed belief of some mental health professionals (mainly most psychiatrists, but sadly all too often others as well). Some patients and many relatives also gain some advantages from diagnosis some of the time because it reduces the reality of the complexity of their experiences and their responsibilities within those existential struggles.

“Madness and misery exist but they come in many shapes and sizes and so they need to be appreciated in their very particular biographical and social contexts. At the individual level this should mean replacing diagnoses with tailored formulations, and for research purposes we should be either looking at single symptoms or shared predicaments of those with mental health problems and their significant others. I worry that we risk treating the experience and conduct of people as if they are botanical specimens waiting to be identified and categorised in rigid boxes – in my opinion that would itself be a form of collective madness for all those complicit in the continuing pseudo-scientific exercise.”

Dr Felicity Callard, Senior Research Fellow, Service User Research Enterprise, Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London, said:

“The ongoing chaos surrounding the development of DSM-5 has intensified rather than lessened fears that this project is ill-conceived and founded on a weak evidence base. People’s lives can be altered profoundly – and, we should bear in mind, sometimes ruinously – by being given a psychiatric diagnosis. In my opinion, that the architects of DSM-5 are pressing on with such a flawed framework undermines their claim that they wish to produce a DSM that is ‘useful to all health professionals, researchers and patients’.”

Dr Paul Keedwell, Honorary Consultant Psychiatrist and Clinical Lecturer in the Neurobiology of Mood Disorders, Cardiff University, said:

“New findings arising from genetics and brain imaging studies hint at biological mechanisms, and challenge the way we classify disorders: syndromes (like bipolar and unipolar depression) might merge, while others (like “the schizophrenias”) might diverge. However a few more decades will pass before we radically change our existing classifications.

“Where the proposed DSMV is particularly controversial is in its addition of more disorders, like “Apathy Syndrome” and “Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder”, which suggest a worrying trend toward medicalising normal variation in behaviour.

“Every new diagnosis implies a new treatment, suiting vested interests in the health industry. Nothing should enter the final version of DSMV without sound research evidence of the need for professionals to intervene.

“Also, every mental health professional should remember that classification systems are a guide to diagnosis only: they do not necessarily map on to the complex needs of an individual in real practice, and they are definitely not a guide to treatment.”

Allen Frances, Emeritus Professor at Duke University and Chair of the DSM-4 Steering Committee, said:

“DSM 5 will radically and recklessly expand the boundaries of psychiatry by introducing many new diagnoses and lowering the thresholds for existing ones. As an unintended consequence, many millions of people will receive inaccurate diagnosis and inappropriate treatment. Costs include: the side effects and complications of unnecessary medication; the perverse misallocation of scarce mental health resources toward those who don’t really need them (and may actually be harmed) and away from those who do most desperately require help; stigma; a medicalization of normality, individual difference, and criminality; and a reduced sense of personal responsibility. The publication of DSM 5 should be delayed until it can be subjected to a rigorous and independent review, using the methods of evidence based medicine, and meant to ensure that it is both safe and scientifically sound. New diagnoses can be as dangerous as new drugs and require a much more careful and inclusive vetting than has been provided by the American Psychiatric Association. Future revisions of psychiatric diagnosis can no longer be left to the sole responsibility of just one professional organization.”

David Elkins, Professor Emeritus of Psychology, Pepperdine University, Los Angeles, and Chair of the Division 32 Task Force for DSM-5 Reform, said:

“My committee and I remain very concerned the DSM-5, as currently proposed, could result in the widespread misdiagnosis of hundreds of thousands of individuals whose behaviour is within the continuum of normal variation. If this occurs, it means these individuals will be labelled with a mental disorder for life and many will be treated with powerful psychiatric drugs that can have dangerous side effects.

“We are also alarmed that the DSM-5 Task Force seems unresponsive to the concerns of thousands of mental health professionals and dozens of mental health associations from around the world.

“My committee recently asked the DSM-5 Task Force to submit the controversial proposals for review by an outside, independent group of scientists and scholars. Our request was denied.

“My committee launched the Open Letter/Petition Website which has now gathered more than 11, 000 individual signatures and endorsements from more than 40 from mental health associations including 13 other Divisions of the American Psychological Association.”

Dr Kevin Morgan, Senior Lecturer, Department of Psychology, University of Westminster, said:

“The proposed revisions to the diagnosis of schizophrenia i.e. the elimination of subtypes and the use instead of symptom dimensions, is an example of how DSM5 may prove to be more clinically beneficial than the current version of the manual. I wait with great interest to see the final agreed set of changes.”

Til Wykes, Professor of Clinical Psychology and Rehabilitation, Institute of Psychiatry, Kings College London, said:

“The proposals in DSM 5 are likely to shrink the pool of normality to a puddle with more and more people being given a diagnosis of mental illness. This may be driven by a health care system that reimburses only if the individual being treated has a recognised diagnosis – one in the DS manual. Luckily in the UK we have the NHS which treats people on the basis of need, not if they fit a diagnostic system.

“It isn’t just a health care system that is subverted by the spreading of diagnostic labels into normality, research will also be changed. Most research studies that reach the widest readership get published in US journals which will expect these diagnostic labels to have been used.

“We shouldn’t use labels unless we are clear they have some benefit. Saying someone is at risk of a mental illness (in some categories of DSM5) puts a lot of pressure on the individual and their family. When we do not have a good enough prediction mechanism, this is too high a burden.”

Dr David Harper, Reader in Clinical Psychology, University of East London, said:

“The American Psychiatric Association’s revisions of the DSM have become as regular as updates for Microsoft Windows and about as much use. It has facilitated an increasing medicalisation of life (the number of disorders the DSM covers has increased exponentially from its first edition in 1952 to 357 in 2000) and is hugely costly (the text revision of DSM IV made $44m in revenue between 2000 and 2006). The problem is not simply the revisions proposed in DSM 5 but the idea that psychological distress matches its diagnostic categories – people’s experiences of distress cluster in an entirely different manner. This is why most people end up with more than one diagnosis, why the ‘not otherwise specified’ category is massively over-used and why ratings of agreement between psychiatrists continue to be poor. The DSM represents a massive failure of imagination: most clinicians and researchers know the system is flawed but try to convince themselves, despite the evidence, that it aids communication, research and treatment. It does not. The frustrating thing is that there are other viable alternatives – for example, a focus on homogenous experiences of distress would aid research, the use of case formulation would aid treatment. Unfortunately, the pharmaceutical industry can see little profit in either alternative and, instead, continue to swing their considerable weight behind the DSM.”

Richard Bentall, Chair of Clinical Psychology at the University of Bangor, said:

“I share the widespread concerns about the proposed revisions to the DSM diagnostic system. Like earlier editions, this version of the manual is not based on coherent research into the causes or nature of mental illness. For example, it treats ‘schizophrenia’ and ‘bipolar disorder’ as separate conditions despite evidence that this is, at best, an over-simplification. It also looks set to widen some of the diagnostic criteria, for example by removing the grief exclusion from major depression, and by expanding the range of psychotic disorders to include an ‘attenuated psychosis syndrome’ (my own research on this, in press, shows that only about 10% of people meeting the attenuated or prodromal psychosis criteria are likely to go on to develop a full-blown psychotic illness). As there is no obvious scientific added value compared to DSM-IV, and as there are some obvious risks associated with this expansion of diagnostic boundaries, one is bound to ask why there is a need for this revision, or who will benefit from it. It seems likely that the main beneficiaries will be mental health practitioners seeking to justify expanding practices, and pharmaceutical companies looking for new markets for their products.”

Dr Lucy Johnstone, Consultant Clinical Psychologist, Cwm Taf Health Board, Mid Glamorgan, South Wales, said:

“The DSM debate is all about how we understand mental distress. DSM and the proposed revisions are based on the assumption that mental distress is best understood as an illness, mainly caused by genetic or biochemical factors. It is important to realise that, with the exception of a few conditions such as dementia, there is no firm evidence to support this. On the contrary, the strongest evidence is about psychological and social factors such as trauma, loss, poverty and discrimination. In other words, even the more extreme forms of distress are ultimately a response to life problems. We need a paradigm shift in the way we understand mental health problems. DSM cannot be reformed – it is based on fundamentally wrong principles and should be abandoned.”

Dr Warren Mansell, Reader in Psychology & Clinical Psychologist, University of Manchester, said:

“Contemporary research across genetics, neuroscience, psychology and culture all point to the fact that the majority of psychiatric disorders share the same underlying processes and are treated by very similar interventions. Therefore in further emphasising different categories of mental health problems, DSM5 is heading in completely the opposite direction from the most pioneering research across the field of mental health.”

Simon Wessely, Professor of Epidemiological and Liaison Psychiatry at the Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London:

“We need to be very careful before further broadening the boundaries of illness and disorder. Back in 1840 the Census of the United States included just one category for mental disorder. By 1917 the American Psychiatric Association recognised 59, rising to 128 in 1959, 227 in 1980, and 347 in the last revision. Do we really need all these labels? Probably not. And there is a real danger that shyness will become social phobia, bookish kids labelled as Asperger’s and so on.”

Professor Sue Bailey, President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, said:

“We recognise the importance of accurate and prompt diagnosis in psychiatry. The classification system used in NHS hospitals and referred to by UK psychiatrists is the World Health Organisation’s International Classification of Disease (ICD). Therefore, the publication of DSM-V will not directly affect diagnosis of mental illness in our health service.”

The British Psychological Society has released a statement on the DSM-5 which can be found here: BPS Statement on DSM-5

* The fifth edition of The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) will be published in May 2013 by the American Psychiatric Association.

Preventive Psychiatry Can Be Bad for Our Health: Allen Frances on Huffington Post #2

Preventive Psychiatry Can Be Bad for Our Health: Allen Frances on Huffington Post #2

Post #131 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-1I2

Allen Frances, MD, who chaired the Task Force that had oversight of the development of DSM-IV, publishes the second in a series of Huffington Post blogs on his concerns for the forthcoming DSM-5.

Huffington Post

Preventive Psychiatry Can Be Bad for Our Health

Allen Frances | January 19, 2012
Professor Emeritus, Duke University

Preventive psychiatry may someday be of significant service in reducing the burden of human suffering – but only if it can be done really well. And the sad truth is that we don’t yet have the necessary tools. More people will be harmed than helped if psychiatry stretches itself prematurely to do what is currently well beyond its reach. That’s what is so scary about the unrealistic prevention ambitions of DSM-5, the new manual of mental disorders now in preparation and set to become official in 2013. DSM-5 proposes a radical redefinition of the boundaries of psychiatry, giving it the impossible role of identifying and treating mental disorders in their nascent stages before they have fully declared themselves. Tens of millions of people now deemed normal would suddenly be relabeled mentally disordered and subjected to stigma and considerable risks consequent to inappropriate treatment…

Read on

 

Related content:

CDC study quoted in Huffington Post blog #2:

Antidepressant use in persons aged 12 and over: United States, 2005–2008. Pratt LA, Brody DJ, Gu Q, NCHS data brief, no 76. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2011  PDF

America Is Over Diagnosed and Over Medicated: Allen Frances on Huffington Post
Allen Frances, Huffington Post #1, January 09, 2012

Government survey finds that 5 percent of Americans suffer from a ‘serious mental illness’
David Brown, Washington Post, January 19, 2012

SAMHSA News Release
Date: 1/19/2012 12:05 AM
Media Contact: SAMHSA Press Office
Telephone: 240-276-2130

National report finds one-in-five Americans experienced mental illness in the past year
Substance dependence and abuse rates higher among those experiencing mental illness

A new national report reveals that 45.9 million American adults aged 18 or older, or 20 percent of this age group, experienced mental illness in the past year. The rate of mental illness was more than twice as high among those aged 18 to 25 (29.9 percent) than among those aged 50 and older (14.3 percent). Adult women were also more likely than men to have experienced mental illness in the past year (23 percent versus 16.8 percent).

Mental illness among adults aged 18 or older is defined as having had a diagnosable mental, behavioral, or emotional disorder (excluding developmental and substance use disorders) in the past year, based on criteria specified in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association [APA], 1994).

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s (SAMHSA) National Survey on Drug Use and Health also shows that 11.4 million adults (5 percent of the adult population) suffered from serious mental illness in the past year. Serious mental illness is defined as one that resulted in serious functional impairment, which substantially interfered with or limited one or more major life activities.

SAMHSA through its strategic initiative on substance abuse and mental illness prevention and recovery is working to assist states, territories, tribal governments, and communities to adopt evidence-based practices; deliver health education related to prevention; and establish effective policies, programs, and infrastructure to help address these problems. Throughout the nation new programs are underway to strengthen the capacity of communities to better service the needs of those suffering from mental illness.

“Mental illnesses can be managed successfully, and people do recover,” said SAMHSA Administrator Pamela S. Hyde. “Mental illness is not an isolated public health problem. Cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and obesity often co-exist with mental illness and treatment of the mental illness can reduce the effects of these disorders. The Obama Administration is working to promote the use of mental health services through health reform. People, families and communities will benefit from increased access to mental health services.”

The economic impact of mental illness in the United States is considerable—about $300 billion in 2002. According to the World Health Organization, mental illness accounts for more disability in developed countries than any other group of illnesses, including cancer and heart disease.

In terms of treatment statistics, the report indicates that about 4 in 10 people experiencing any mental illness in the past year (39.2 percent) received mental health services during that period. Among those experiencing serious mental illness the rate of treatment was notably higher (60.8 percent).

The report also noted that an estimated 8.7 million American adults had serious thoughts of suicide in the past year – among them 2.5 million made suicide plans and 1.1 million attempted suicide. Those in crisis or knowing someone they believe may be at immediate risk of attempting suicide are urged to call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline 1-800-273-TALK (8255) or http://www.suicidepreventionlifeline.org . This suicide prevention hotline network funded by SAMHSA provides immediate free and confidential crisis round-the-clock counseling to anyone in need throughout the country, everyday of the year.

According to the report, rates for substance dependence were far higher for those who had experienced either any mental illness or serious mental illness than for the adult population which had not experienced mental illness in the past year. Adults experiencing any mental illness in the past year were more than three times as likely to have met the criteria for substance dependence or abuse in that period than those who had not experienced mental illness in the past year (20 percent versus 6.1 percent). Those who had experienced serious mental illness in the past year had even a higher rate of substance dependence or abuse (25.2 percent). “These data underscore the importance of substance abuse treatment as well,” said SAMHSA Administrator Pamela S. Hyde.

“Mental illness is a significant public health problem in itself, but also because it is associated with chronic medical diseases such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, obesity, and cancer, as well as several risk behaviors including physical inactivity, smoking, excessive drinking, and insufficient sleep,” said Ileana Arias, Ph.D., Principal Deputy Director of CDC. “Today’s report issued by SAMHSA provides further evidence that we need to continue efforts to monitor levels of mental illness in the United States in order to effectively prevent this important public health problem and its negative impact on total health.”

The report also has important findings regarding mental health issues among those aged 12 to 17. According to the report 1.9 million youth aged 12 to 17 (8 percent of this population) had experienced a major depressive episode in the past year. A major depressive episode is defined as a period of at least 2 weeks when a person experienced a depressed mood or loss of interest or pleasure in daily activities and had at least four of seven additional symptoms reflecting the criteria as described in the 4th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association [APA], 1994).

In addition, the report finds that young people aged 12 to 17 who experienced a major depressive episode in the past year have more than twice the rate of past year illicit drug use (37.2 percent) as their counterparts who had not experienced a major depressive episode during that period (17.8 percent).

The complete survey findings from this report are available on the SAMHSA Web site at http://www.samhsa.gov/data/NSDUH/2k10MH_Findings/

The 2010 National Survey on Drug Use and Health is a scientifically conducted annual survey of approximately 67,500 people throughout the country, aged 12 and older. Because of its statistical power, it is the nation’s premier source of statistical information on the scope and nature of many behavioral health issues affecting the nation.

For more information about SAMHSA visit: http://www.samhsa.gov

SAMHSA is a public health agency within the Department of Health and Human Services. Its mission is to reduce the impact of substance abuse and mental illness on America’s communities.

Last updated: 1/18/2012 2:53 PM

%d bloggers like this: