ObjectivesThe purpose of this study is to provide an updated systematic review to identify studies describing the prevalence of psychosis in order to explore methodological factors that could account for the variation in prevalence estimates.MethodsStudies with original data related to the prevalence of psychosis (published between 1990 and 2015) were identified via searching electronic databases and reviewing manual citations. Prevalence estimates were sorted according to prevalence type (point, 12-months and lifetime). The independent association between key methodological variables and the mean effect of prevalence was examined (prevalence type, case-finding setting, method of confirming diagnosis, international classification of diseases, diagnosis category, and study quality) by meta-analytical techniques and random-effects meta-regression.ResultsSeventy-three primary studies were included, providing a total of 101 estimates of prevalence rates of psychosis. Across these studies, the pooled median point and 12-month prevalence for persons was 3.89 and 4.03 per 1000 respectively; and the median lifetime prevalence was 7.49 per 1000. The result of the random-effects meta-regression analysis revealed a significant effect for the prevalence type, with higher rates of lifetime prevalence than 12-month prevalence (p<0.001). Studies conducted in the general population presented higher prevalence rates than those carried out in populations attended in health/social services (p = 0.006). Compared to the diagnosis of schizophrenia only, prevalence rates were higher in the probable psychotic disorder (p = 0.022) and non-affective psychosis (p = 0.009). Finally, a higher study quality is associated with a lower estimated prevalence of psychotic disorders (p<0.001).ConclusionsThis systematic review provides a comprehensive comparison of methodologies used in studies of the prevalence of psychosis, which can provide insightful information for future epidemiological studies in adopting the most relevant methodological approach.

BackgroundPrevention of depression must address multiple risk factors. Estimating overall risk across a range of putative risk factors is fundamental to prevention of depression. However, we lack reliable and valid methods of risk estimation. This protocol paper introduces PREDICT, an international research study to address this risk estimation.Methods/designThis is a prospective study in which consecutive general practice attendees in six European countries are recruited and followed up after six and 12 months. Prevalence of depression is assessed at baseline and each follow-up point. Consecutive attendees between April 2003 and September 2004 who were aged 18 to 75 were asked to take part. The possibility of a depressive episode was assessed using the Depression Section of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview. A selection of presumed risk factors was based on our previous work and a systematic review of the literature. It was necessary to evaluate the test-retest reliability of a number of risk factor questions that were developed specifically, or adapted, for the PREDICT study. In a separate reliability study conducted between January and November 2003, consecutive general practice attendees in the six participating European countries completed the risk factor items on two occasions, two weeks apart. The overall response rate at entry to the study was 69%. We exceeded our expected recruitment rate, achieving a total of 10,048 people in all. Reliability coefficients were generally good to excellent.DiscussionResponse rate to follow-up in all countries was uniformly high, which suggests that prediction will be based on almost a full cohort. The results of our reliability analysis are encouraging and suggest that data collected during the course of PREDICT will have a satisfactory level of stability. The development of a multi-factor risk score for depression will lay the foundation for future research on risk reduction in primary care. Our data will also provide the necessary evidence base on which to develop and evaluate interventions to reduce the prevalence of depression.

No abstract

IR among different psychotic disorders was found to vary depending on gender, urbanicity, and immigration (as most of the previous literature focuses on non-affective psychosis or schizophrenia).

The PSRA included new variables and afforded an improved performance over the PERA for predicting the onset of major depression in Spain. However, the PERA is still the best option in other European countries.