Development of Lifetime Comorbidity in the World Health Organization World Mental Health Surveys

Abstract

CONTEXT Although numerous studies have examined the role of latent variables in the structure of comorbidity among mental disorders, none has examined their role in the development of comorbidity. OBJECTIVE To study the role of latent variables in the development of comorbidity among 18 lifetime DSM-IV disorders in the WHO World Mental Health (WMH) surveys. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS Nationally or regionally representative community surveys in 14 countries with a total of 21,229 respondents. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES First onset of 18 lifetime DSM-IV anxiety, mood, behavior, and substance disorders assessed retrospectively in the WHO Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI). RESULTS Separate internalizing (anxiety and mood disorders) and externalizing (behavior and substance disorders) factors were found in exploratory factor analysis of lifetime disorders. Consistently significant positive time-lagged associations were found in survival analyses for virtually all temporally primary lifetime disorders predicting subsequent onset of other disorders. Within-domain (i.e., internalizing or externalizing) associations were generally stronger than between-domain associations. The vast majority of time-lagged associations were explained by a model that assumed the existence of mediating latent internalizing and externalizing variables. Specific phobia and obsessive-compulsive disorder (internalizing) and hyperactivity disorder and oppositional-defiant disorder (externalizing) were the most important predictors. A small number of residual associations remained significant after controlling the latent variables. CONCLUSIONS The good fit of the latent variable model suggests that common causal pathways account for most of the comorbidity among the disorders considered here. These common pathways should be the focus of future research on the development of comorbidity, although several important pair-wise associations that cannot be accounted for by latent variables also exist that warrant further focused study.

Attention‐deficit‐hyperactivity disorder increases risk of bone fracture: a population‐based cohort study

“…2 Previous studies have reported increased rates of comorbid substance abuse, anxiety, mood, personality, and disruptive behaviour disorders among adults with ADHD, persisting from childhood into adulthood. [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] Several studies have investigated the psychosocial characteristics of children in relation to accidental injuries. 12,13 Children with behavioural disorders were reported to exhibit a 1.5-times higher risk of injury compared with those without such disorders.…”

Common psychiatric disorders share the same genetic origin: a multivariate sibling study of the Swedish population

“…Two broad factors, internalizing and externalizing, have been found to explain much of the co-occurrence among psychopathologies. (2,4,5) The internalizing dimension puts individuals at risk for depression and anxiety, and the externalizing dimension puts individuals at risk for drug abuse and conduct problems.…”

The joint structure of major depression, anxiety disorders, and trait negative affect

“…12 However, some recent evidence has favored a singlefactor model. 15,18 It has also been suggested that a general internalizing factor may account for the covariation among traits related to NA and internalizing disorders. 28,29 Nonetheless, very few attempts have been made to address this particular issue empirically.…”

“…16,17 The internalizing factor is composed --at a next-order structural level --by two subfactors of distress or anxious-misery (comprising unipolar mood disorders, generalized anxiety disorder, and posttraumatic stress disorder) and fear (comprising phobic, panic, and obsessive-compulsive disorders). However, this twosubfactor higher-order internalizing structure is somewhat controversial, with recent evidence examining: 1) the role of latent internalizing and externalizing variables in the development of lifetime comorbidity 18 ; 2) the structure of common mental disorders in incarcerated offenders 15 ; and 3) the structure of common and uncommon mental disorders, 19 suggesting a less-differentiated, single-factor solution to the domain of mood and anxiety disorders.…”