Dementia: case ascertainment in a community survey.

The three-stage East Baltimore Mental Health Survey, conducted in 1981 as part of the Epidemiological Catchment Area Program, provided an opportunity to assess the prevalence of dementia and specific dementing disorders in a community-based, cross-sectional sample of the population. From the 3,841 households originally sampled, 810 individuals were selected for clinical psychiatric evaluation. Forty-one individuals were given a provisional diagnosis and referred to Stage 3 for differential diagnosis, with 32 individuals completing this evaluation. Thorough clinical evaluation of these cases resulted in an overall prevalence of dementia of 4.5% in those 65 years of age and older. The prevalence of specific dementing disorders was Alzheimer's disease (AD) (2.0%), Multi-Infarct Dementia (MID) (2.0%) and Mixed Dementia (MD) (0.5%). Prevalence increased with age for all dementias: Non-Whites had higher rates of dementia than Whites; females had higher rates of AD while males had higher rates of MID; and the prevalence of AD increased with increasing education, whereas the prevalence of MID decreased with increased education. Although this study includes only a small number of cases, necessitating some caution in interpreting the results, these figures do represent an estimate of the prevalence of severe dementing disorders and provide a basis for further community study.

The General Health Questionnaire by interview. Performance in relation to recent use of health services.

The General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) is a widely used method of assessing psychiatric distress in clinical settings and in the community. The authors administered a 20-item interview version of the GHQ and a battery of survey items on use of ambulatory health care services to 3,389 respondents in eastern Baltimore as part of the Epidemiologic Catchment Area survey. In addition, a subsample of these respondents (n = 810) was examined by research psychiatrists who provided a reference mental disorder diagnosis for comparison with GHQ results. Psychiatrists determined that 102 respondents had American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, third edition, (DSM-III) disorders suitable for detection by the GHQ. These respondents were categorized by the health service use they reported over the previous 6 months. A comparison indicated that 82% of the diagnosed cases with recent specialty care also had elevated GHQ scores. Among cases with recent general medical care, 52% had elevated GHQ scores. Among diagnosed cases reporting no recent ambulatory health care, only 38% had elevated GHQ scores. Receiver operating characteristic analysis demonstrated a similar trend. Cases of depression were separated into less severe cases (adjustment disorder with depressed mood) and more severe cases (major depression). There were relatively more cases of severe depression than cases of mild depression in those respondents reporting recent health service use compared with those respondents reporting no recent service use. This may account for the higher sensitivity of the GHQ in detecting psychiatric disorders for those persons utilizing health services compared with individuals using no health services.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Comparison of the lay Diagnostic Interview Schedule and a standardized psychiatric diagnosis. Experience in eastern Baltimore.

We studied DSM-III diagnoses made by the lay Diagnostic Interview Schedule (DIS) method in relation to a standardized DSM-III diagnosis by psychiatrists in the two-stage Baltimore Epidemiologic Catchment Area mental morbidity survey. Generally, prevalence estimates based on the DIS one-month diagnoses were significantly different from those based on the psychiatric diagnoses. Subjects identified as cases by each method were often different subjects. Measured in terms of kappa, the chance-corrected degree of agreement between the DIS and psychiatrists' one-month diagnoses was moderate for DSM-III alcohol-use disorder (abuse and dependence combined), and lower for other mental disorder categories. The unreliability of either the DIS or psychiatric diagnoses is one potential explanation for the observed disagreements. Others include the following: insufficient or inadequate information (on which to base a diagnosis); recency of disorder; incomplete criterion coverage; overinclusive DIS questions; and degree of reliance on subject symptom reports. Further study of the nature and sources of these discrepancies is underway. This work should produce a more complete understanding of obstacles to mental disorder case ascertainment by lay interview and clinical examination methods in the context of a field survey.