A new study in the British Journal of Psychiatry says: no, it's not. They looked at the UK APMS mental health surveys, which were done in 1993, 2000 and 2007. Long-time readers will remember these.The authors of the new paper analyzed the data by birth cohort, i.e. when you were born, and by age at the time of the survey. If mental illness were rising, you'd predict that people born more recently would have higher rates of mental illness at any given age.
The headline finding: there was no cohort effect, implying that rates of mental illness aren't changing. There was a strong age effect: in men, rates peak at about age 50; in women the data is rather messy but in general the rate is flat up to age 50 and then it falls off, like in men. But there's no evidence that those born recently are at higher risk.The only exception was that men born after 1950 were at somewhat higher risk than those born earlier as shown by the "break" on the graph above. The effect for women was smaller. The most recent cohort, those born after 1985, were also above the curve but there was only one datapoint there, so it's hard to interpret.
We also get a rather cute graph showing how life changes with age:
As you get older, you get less irritable and, if you're a woman, you'll worry less. But sleep problems and, in men, fatigue, increase. Overall, 50 is the worst age in terms of total symptoms. After that, it gets better. Well, that's nice to know. Or not, depending on your age.Overall, the authors say:
Our finding of subsequently stable rates contradicts popular media stories of a relentlessly rising tide of mental illness, at least for men. Stable prevalence in the male population, together with peaking of the prevalence of common mental disorder at about age 50 years, indicates that a large increase in projected rates of poor mental health is unlikely in the male population in the near future....Caution's warranted, though, because the APMS data were based on self-reported symptoms of mental illness assessed by lay interviewers. As I've argued before, self-report is problematic, but this is true of almost all of these kinds of studies.
Trends in women are less clearly identified, with considerable increases in the prevalence of sleep problems, but no clear increase or even some decrease in other measures. Further research is needed to relate these age and cohort differences to drivers of mental health such as employment status and family composition.
More unusual is that this study didn't attempt to assign formal diagnoses, it just looked at total symptoms on the CIS Scale; a total of 12 or more was considered to indicate "probable disorder".
Purists would say that this is a weakness and that you ought to be making full DSM-IV diagnoses, but honestly, it's got its own problems, and I think this is no worse.
Finally, this study only looked at "common mental disorders" i.e. depression and various kinds of anxiety symptoms. Things like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder weren't included, but from what I remember they're not rising either.
Spiers N, Bebbington P, McManus S, Brugha TS, Jenkins R, & Meltzer H (2011). Age and birth cohort differences in the prevalence of common mental disorder in England: National Psychiatric Morbidity Surveys 1993-2007. The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science, 198, 479-84 PMID: 21628710
9 comments:
Just wait another generation. Many cultures that allow/promote inbreeding are entering Europe. The mental deficiency rate amongst those cultures is higher then the average in non inbreeding cultures.
Whoa, did I end up on Stormfront by mistake?
A simple search would have prevented you from making such non-informational post:
http://scholar.google.fr/scholar?hl=en&q=arab+mental+deficiency+consanguinity&btnG=Search&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=&as_vis=0
'inbreeding' is stereotypically 'white'. Could explain why French cinema flagrantly display incestual plots like it's a matter of art, but they've banned incest recently. It probably took this long because 'white' monarchs practiced inbreeding whereas aside from Islamic nations, it was strictly forbidden in other parts of the world, like Asian monarchs.
@veri
If we go back long enough almost everyone was consanguine. Inbreeding was normal in many societies. The proud ancient Egyptians for example. Where you get the idea from it wasn't beats me.
Problem it still is in societies that are in a position to know better.
Since the 19th we know that's a bad idea so there's no excuse for still practicing it.
And the research supports that quite strongly.
I can understand the political correct kneejerk reaction of denial but denial doesn't make it go away.
But here in the States, we are becoming more mentally ill and disabled! Se Robert Whitaker's book, "Anatomy of an Epidemic." Or just watch the rise of the Tea Party!
Petrossa, true. I guess I meant in terms of stereotypes. The 'white' man invented evolution.. morally creepy enough as is.
I was referring to culture not skin color. I seriously doubt Darwin skin color had anything to do with his being able to form the theory.
As a man of his time he sure felt to be superior to other colors but that's not the issue.
@Anonymous said...
Or just watch the rise of the Tea Party!
Having another political pov is not a sign of mental deficiency. It's called democracy.
petrossa:
You are such a pompous ass. Maybe all of those in Iran shouting "Death to America" and "Satan rules America" are not delusional but just sharing a democratic POV? Kiss my Irish ass.
Post a Comment