The World Mental Health Missionaries?

Is research on the global distribution of mental health problems a kind of modern-day missionary work?

Maybe, says Australia's Dr Stephen Rosenman in a provocative paper: Cause for caution: culture,sensitivity and the World Mental Health Survey Initiative.

The World Mental Health Survey (WMHS) is a huge World Health Organization project that aims to measure the rates of various psychiatric disorders in countries around the world. The WMHS has produced a great deal of data, but Rosenman points out that this assumes that people all over the world suffer from the same psychiatric disorders (and display them in the same ways) as the Americans and Europeans about whom the diagnostic manual was originally written.

The surveys translated the diagnostic criteria into the local languages, of course, but that doesn't mean they were appropriate to the local cultures.

He suggests that all this is a bit like missionaries who went around translating the Bible and trying to convince people to read it -

Looked at with a less admiring eye, the [WMHS] resembles in some ways the missionary movements of the last two centuries. Like the missionaries, the organisers are committed, selfless people of extraordinary goodwill who have come to poor countries from cultures at the apogee of their wealth, prestige and intellectual power.

They bring an evolved and highly developed system of thought. They set about delivering the fruits of that to the people. The survey initiative has engaged the leaders of the profession in the countries and, in a sense, has converted them to this view of psychopathology.

It is difficult to know if their success is due to the power of the ideas they brought, or the power and prestige of the cultures they came from, or from their technique of taking over both the centre and the contours of the beliefs of a culture. Missionaries brought a ‘colonisation of consciousness’... etc.

He does goes on to say though, "I do not want to push the missionary analogy too far" which is wise I think; there are important differences and other analogies are equally apt.

The paper's a good read though. It refers to Crazy Like Us, a book I'm fond of.

Although Rosenman doesn't cite another important source (cough cough): he points out that the WMHS national estimates of rates of depression don't correlate at all with national suicide rates, which is seriously odd -

According to the CIDI [the psychiatric interview used in the WMHS], Japan, for example, has one-third the rate of mood disorders (3.1%) seen in the USA (9.6%). At the same time, Japan’s suicide rate (20.3/100,000) is twice that of the USA (10.8/100,000). Suicide rates seem to have almost no relationship with CIDI diagnoses of affective disorder... Suicide, of course, is complexly shaped by the culture but are we to believe that answers to the CIDI are any less culturally determined and which is to be considered the better index of disorder?

I made the very same point using the very same datasets in 2009 (although I looked at 'all mental illness' rather than 'mood disorders').

Rosenman, S. (2012). Cause for caution: culture, sensitivity and the World Mental Health Survey Initiative Australasian Psychiatry, 20 (1), 14-19 DOI: 10.1177/1039856211430149

Britain - the Prozac Nation? Not So Fast...

Oh no! The stress of the recession has turned us into a nation of antidepressant addicts, according to every single British newspaper this morning.

The media coverage has been predictable with lots of scary, context-free statistics, and boilerplate quotes from the usual suspects. No doubt tomorrow we'll see a selection of moralistic op-eds about this.

But not one of the many nigh-identical articles provided a link to the original data, or even a useful description of where one might find it. After contacting one of the NHS organizations named as the source, I managed to track the numbers down.

It turns out that the key figures have been publicly available since April 2011, so I'm not sure why this story appeared in British "news"papers at all. Also, it would have been easy for journalists to link to the source, if they respected the intelligence of their readers enough to do that. I just did it and it wasn't terribly hard to click "Add Link".

On that note, I actually read a bizarre article today criticizing British journalists for providing too many links to their source data... if only.

Anyway, the data. Ben Goldacre has already written an excellent piece on this (in fact, he wrote it back in April 2011, curiously enough...see above), but here's some more detail.

First off, the data are all about antidepressants, not depression. A crucial distinction, there, because nowadays, antidepressants are widely used for all kinds of other things. Everything from other psychiatric disorders like anxiety and OCD, to non-psychiatric stuff like back and joint pain, premature ejaculation, and menopausal hot flushes.

We can't tell how much of the antidepressant use was for depression. But there are clues suggesting that a lot of it wasn't. It turns out that the second most popular antidepressant (after citalopram) was the very old drug amitriptyline, with nearly 9 million prescriptions per year - or 20% of the total.

Nowadays amitriptyline is rarely used for depression, because newer, less toxic alternatives are available. However it is used, in low doses, to treat chronic pain. So I suspect that pain accounts for a large % of amitriptyline use. That would also explain why the cost to the NHS per prescription of amitryptiline was by far the lowest of all antidepressants: low doses are cheap.

How about the increase over time?

The newspapers are correct that antidepressant use rose from 33.9 million prescriptions in the year 2007/8, to 43 million in 2010/2011. That's a 28% rise over 3 years. However, if we go 3 years further back to the equivalent 2004/5 Prescription Cost Analysis, we find that antidepressant prescriptions were 28.9 million. So they rose 17% in the 3 years before 2007/8, long before the recession was on the horizon.

The recent 28% rise, in other words, is unlikely to be related to the recession, at least not entirely.

We also know(1,2) that the number of antidepressant prescriptions per person has been rising over the past several years in the UK. So the increase in prescriptions might not even mean more antidepressant users - it might just mean that the same number of users are using more each. (And that could mean anything, including that bureaucracies are saving money by prescribing for shorter periods).

One study found that there was no increase in the number of people taking antidepressants for depression from 1993 to 2005, with all of the rise in prescriptions over that period being a product of more prescriptions per person.

Another study did find a true rise in users from 1995 to 2007, albeit lower than the raw figures would suggest, but those figures were limited to a particular part of Scotland and it wasn't just about depression - it included all other uses of these drugs as well.

Overall, it's just impossible to know, from these data, whether there's been a true increase in antidepressant use for depression in recent years. The most we can say is that there might have been one, and if so it might have something to do with the economy.

The Network of Mental Illness

A provocative but problematic paper just out offers a new perspective on psychiatric symptoms.

The basic idea is that rather than psychiatric disorders being entities, they are just bundles of symptoms which cause each other:

...symptoms are unlikely to be merely passive psychometric indicators of latent conditions; rather, they indicate properties with autonomous causal relevance. That is, when symptoms arise, they can cause other symptoms on their own. For instance, among the symptoms of MDE we find sleep deprivation and concentration problems, while GAD (generalized anxiety disorder) comprises irritability and fatigue. It is feasible that comorbidity between MDE and GAD arises from causal chains of directly related symptoms; e.g., sleep deprivation (MDE)→fatigue (MDE)→concentration problems (GAD)→irritability (GAD).

The authors seem to have mixed up their labels in the middle there, but you see the drift.

This symptom-based approach stands in contrast to the idea that psychiatric illnesses are underlying things which lead to some symptoms. So it's a challenge to the notion of underlying biological dysfunction (except maybe for specific symptoms) but it's equally incompatible with any theory of underlying psychological causes - there's no room for Freudian unconscious "complexes" here.

So there's something very straightforward and un-mysterious about this model, which will either make it attractive or suspect, depending on whether you think human life is mysterious or not.

What's the evidence? First, the authors do an analysis of the DSM-IV diagnostic manual in terms of symptoms. They take every symptom which is mentioned in at least one diagnosis. They found 439 symptoms in total, over 201 disorders, with many symptoms, such as insomnia, shared between lots of different "disorders".

They then used network analysis to create a kind of graph where the "distance" between the nodes (symptoms) is based on the number of shared diagnoses. They found that while some symptoms are unique to just one disorder, there's a core of highly shared symptoms which form a "giant component"

It's a very clever approach but I wonder what it really tells us. The DSM-IV is not data about mental illness. It's data about what we think about mental illness. Actually, it's not even that: it's data about what a particular set of people, at a particular time, were able to agree upon.

DSM-V is coming soon, and before that we had DSM's I, II and III. What about them? Do they have a different network structure? I'd have thought they would, but we don't know.

We've already seen the kinds of politics that lie behind the decision to include or exclude a diagnosis in the DSM. In the upcoming DSM-V they're seriously proposing to add a new diagnosis ("TDDD"), purely in order to stop people getting another diagnosis (childhood "bipolar").

There is a lot of symptom overlap between TDDD and bipolar disorder. Because one was designed for the purpose of diverting patients from the other. But that doesn't tell us anything about real people with real symptoms. This is an extreme example and to be fair to the authors they do acknowledge some of these problems with the DSM, but still.

The authors then show that the symptomatic closeness between DSM-IV disorders predicts the rates of comorbidity between those disorders, as measured in the American population survey the NCS-R. This is true even of disorders which don't share a common symptom but which are connected indirectly by a mutual friendship, as it were.

Finally they show that a statistical model based on interacting symptoms can predict the prevalence of depression (10% per year according to the NCS-R survey) and GAD (3% per year). It does so much better than a random model in which symptoms randomly interact.

However, I'm not convinced that all these show us that the symptom-network approach is the best model to explain the occurence of these disorders. It only shows us that it's a model that works better than a crazy random model. I'm also not sure that being able to model the NCS-R data is even a good thing, since these data are themselves of questionable validity.

But it's a genuinely interesting approach and well worth following up.

Borsboom D, Cramer AO, Schmittmann VD, Epskamp S, and Waldorp LJ (2011). The small world of psychopathology. PloS one, 6 (11) PMID: 22114671

One in Four Revisited

In a recent Telegraph article, professional contrarian Brendan O'Neill argues against the idea that one in four people experience mental illness - and indeed against the idea that one in four people are bullied, abused or whatever else:

Can it really be true that a quarter of Brits are bullied or beaten up at home or are mentally ill, or is this simply a case of social campaigners exaggerating how bad life is in order that they can continue to make headlines, make an impact, and get funding? I reckon it's the latter. Next time you see the "one in four" figure, be very sceptical – it's probably Dickensian-style doom-mongering disguised as social research, where the aim is to convince us, against the evidence of our own eyes and ears, that loads of the people we encounter everyday are basket cases in need of rescue.

I say "argues against", but he doesn't actually provide any arguments. He just links to the claims and says they're silly.

As Neuroskeptic readers know, I am myself skeptical of the idea that one in four people are mentally ill, but I'm skeptical of it because I've looked at the evidence and it doesn't support that figure. Actually, if you take the available evidence at face value, it says that the true figure for the lifetime prevalence is much higher than one in four. I don't think those figures are very useful however because of various methodological issues.

So in my view we just don't know how many people are mentally ill, largely because we don't have any clear definition of what "mentally ill" means. But that doesn't mean we can just assume that it can't possibly be one in four just because "our own eyes and ears" tell us that most people are not "basket cases".

Much mental illness goes undiagnosed and unnoticed, and I'd imagine also that Brendan O'Neill and the kind of people who read him don't tend to "encounter everyday" people from groups such as the unemployed, the elderly and so forth, in whom the rates are higher.

But even beyond that, it's a silly argument because of selection bias. If you as a healthy person encounter someone everyday, chances are they're not severely ill - mentally or physically - because if they were, they'd be less likely to be around in places for you to encounter. Unless you're a doctor or whatever, you live your life in the world of healthy people.

It's like saying that you don't believe children or the elderly exist, because in your life as a working age adult, you never meet any of them.

Mountains of Mental Disorders

This is a story about a man who lived in a house. Here it is:

The house was a lovely thatched cabin, situated in a wooded valley between two little hills, set against the spectacular scenary of a snow-capped mountain. He'd been born there, and he'd lived there all his life.

One day, there was a knock on the man's door. He opened it to find two official-looking people carrying clipboards, with serious expressions on their faces.

"Hello, sir. We are officials from the Ministry of Mountains. Sorry it took us so long."
"Oh... excuse me?", the man replied, puzzled.
"We're very sorry we didn't get here earlier."
"I'm afraid that I don't know what you mean. I wasn't expecting any..."
"Hmm. Let me explain. The Ministry of Mountains exists to help people who live on mountains. So, you see, we're here to..."
"Ask for directions to the mountain? It's about 10 miles down the road. Just look up - you can't miss it."

The official looked unamused.
"No. We're here to help you, sir."
"Help you to cope with the rigors of mountain living!" the other chimed in, helpfully.
"But... I don't live on a mountain."
"I'm afraid you do. Look - " and the first official unfolded a large map. "Do you agree that there is a mountain, here?" and she pointed to a spot 10 miles down the road.
"Yes. Actually I just told you about i..."
"...and, do you agree that you live - here?"
"Of course, but..."

"So you do live on the mountain. The very ground beneath our feet right now is part of that mountain nearby."
"No it's not." The man protested. "This is a valley, miles away. I mean just look outside. We're clearly not on a mountain now, are we?"
"How old fashioned. That's what we used to think. But, thanks to advances in geology, we now appreciate that these hills and valleys are merely a part of the mountain."
"Yes!" the other said, whipping out a textbook and becoming increasingly enthusiastic. "You see, a mountain is merely a mass of rock, and this rock extends underground for a considerable distance... It's impossible, really, to draw a line on the map and say categorically, this side is mountain, this isn't. So 'mountains' are an arbitrary construct. 'Hills' are likewise just protrusions of the underlying mountain and..."

The man was even more confused now. "Umm... well, I suppose, technically...but..."
"...so yes, so you do live on a mountain. And we know that this is very difficult. You're exposed to all kinds of dangers like blizzards, altitude sickness, avalanches..."
"Not really. It's nice here. It doesn't even snow most years."
"That's unlikely. You agree that mountains have blizzards and avalanches? Right. And you earlier agreed that there's no dividing line between you and a mountain. So logically..."
"Er..."
"So you are in danger! Don't worry, though. We're here to help. To start off with, we're going to reinforce your house with six tons of cement, to protect you against rockfalls. The construction crew will arrive tomorrow morning. Now, as for those blizzards..."
The man had had enough of this.
"This is absurd. Now look - there is a guy who really does live on top of the mountain in a rickety old shack. Old Grandpa McHermit. He might actually need your help. I don't. Get out! And if I see anyone with a bag of cement tomorrow morning, I'll shove it right up their..."

---

As you may have guess, this story is a metaphor. There is a movement in psychiatry at the moment, away from a 'categorical' view of mental illness towards a 'spectrum' view. Mental disorders are not things you either have or don't - defined according to some arbitrary cut-off. Rather, they're things that everyone has, to some degree.

This has already happened, or is happening, to autism, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, personality disorders, and more.

Now, the "spectrum" or "dimensional" approach has much to recommend it. It's true that diagnostic cutoffs are arbitrary. It's true that the categorical approach doesn't capture the true degree of variation that real people display.

My worry is that these new "spectra" are, in practice, merely the old categories, just bigger. We still think of people as being ill or not-ill, although we may call it on the spectrum or off it. Worse, we still think of "ill" in the same way as we used to i.e. as referring to the most severe end of the spectrum. The only difference is that we've expanded the old category of "ill" to cover more people.

This is evident in the fact that we still use the old categorical labels. It's the autism (or schizophrenia or bipolar) spectrum, even though "autism", in the old sense of a discrete disorder, is now supposed to be just one extreme of that spectrum. Yet the point about an extreme is that it's unusual, so why call it that?

We don't call the rainbow the red spectrum. We don't call height the midget spectrum. We don't call hills part of the mountain spectrum.

The point is, we really think of color and height and altitude as spectra, not as approximations to an extreme point, and that's good, because they are. Now it might well be possible to think of autistic or bipolar traits in the same way - but not if we call them autistic and bipolar traits. And not if we just rename them, while keeping the mental associations the same.

Not unless we can find a way of referring to what's currently called the autism spectrum without making anyone think of autism when they hear it. Similarly for "bipolar" and all the rest. Until we get to that point, there's a real risk that "spectra" will just be big categories.

Edit: This post has been very kindly translated into Hebrew over at the alhasapa.com blog.

Antidepressants In The UK

Antidepressant sales have been rising for many years in Western countries, as regular Neuroskeptic readers  will remember.

Most of the studies on antidepressant use come from the USA and the UK, although the pattern also seems to hold for other European countries. The rapid rise of antidepressants from niche drugs to mega-sellers is perhaps the single biggest change in the way medicine treats mental illness since the invention of psychiatric drugs.

But while a rise in sales has been observed in many countries, that doesn't mean the same causes were at work in every case. For example, in the USA, there is good evidence that more people have started taking antidepressants over the past 15 years.

In the UK, however, it's a bit more tricky. Antidepressant prescriptions have certainly risen. However, a large 2009 study revealed that, between 1993 and 2005, there was not any significant rise in people starting on antidepressants for depression. Rather, the rise in prescriptions was caused by patients getting more prescriptions each. The same number of users were using more antidepressants.

Now a new paper has looked at antidepressant use over much the same period (1995-2007), but using a different set of data. Pauline Lockhart and Bruce Guthrie looked at pharmacy records of drugs actually dispensed, not just prescribed, and their data only covers a specific region, Tayside in Scotland. The 2009 study was nationwide.

So what happened?

The new paper confirmed the 2009 survey's finding of a strong increase in the number of antidepressant prescriptions per patient.

However, unlike the old study, this one found an increase in the number of people who used antidepressants each year. It went up from 8% of the population in 1995, to 13% in 2007 - an extremely high figure, higher even than the USA.

In other words, more people took them, and they took more of them on average - adding up to a threefold increase in antidepressants actually sold. The increase was seen across men and women of all ages and social classes.

There's no good evidence of an increase in mental illness in Britain in this period, by the way.

But why did the 2009 paper report no change in antidepressant users, while this one did? It could be that the increase was localized to the Tayside area. Another possibility is that there was an increase nationwide, but it wasn't about people with depression.

The 2009 study only looked at people with a diagnosis of depression. Yet modern antidepressants are widely used for other things as well - like anxiety, insomnia, pain, premature ejaculation. Maybe this non-depression-based use of antidepressants is what's on the rise.

Lockhart, P. and Guthrie, B. (2011). Trends in primary care antidepressantprescribing 1995–2007 British Journal of General Practice