1 / 21

Public Health Surveillance

Public Health Surveillance. “The ongoing, systematic collection, analysis, interpretation, and dissemination of data about a health-related event for use in public health action to reduce morbidity and mortality and to improve health.”

elina
Download Presentation

Public Health Surveillance

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Public Health Surveillance • “The ongoing, systematic collection, analysis, interpretation, and dissemination of data about a health-related event for use in public health action to reduce morbidity and mortality and to improve health.” • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, (2001). Updated guidelines for evaluating public health surveillance systems: Recommendations from the guidelines working group. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2001, 50 (No. RR-13), 1 – 35.

  2. Features of Public Mental Health Surveillance System (Galea & Norris) • A functionally hybrid system to maximize cost-effectiveness because disease-specific surveillance of psychological disorders (diagnoses) would be prohibitively expensive, • they recommend ongoing syndromic surveillance focusing on key indicators of current depression, PTSD, dysfunction, anxiety/fears, and psychosocial resources, punctuated with occasional disease-specific surveys and more in-depth assessment of risk and protective factors

  3. Features of Public Mental Health Surveillance System (Galea & Norris) • Surveillance be implemented on a large enough scale to provide data for specific racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups. • This would increase understanding of the differences in the need for and use of mental health services. • Public Mental Health Surveillance must aim to educate major stakeholders, including the general public.

  4. Mental Health Epidemiologic Studies • First-generation - 16 (Prior to World War II) • E. Jarvis: Insanity and Idiocy in MA: Report of the Commission on Lunacy, 1855. Cambridge, MA: HU ‘71 • Institutional records and key informants • Prevalence in specialty mental health settings • Second-generation - 60 (1950 – 1980) • Stirling County Study (1952) • Baltimore Morbidity Survey (1953/54) • Midtown Manhattan Study (1954) • Mental Health Study in New Haven (1967-75) • Predefined “operationalized” criteria • Structured interviews by non-clinician interviewers • Prevalence in the community

  5. Mental Health Epidemiologic Studies • Third-generation (1980 - present) • Epidemiologic Catchment Area (1980-85) • In response to President’s Commission on Mental Health (PCMH) • Diagnostic Interview Schedule (DIS) • Prevalence and incidence of mental disorders • Use and need for services • Research teams from 5 universities • Yale, Johns Hopkins, Washington University, Duke, and UCLA in collaboration with NIMH • Community Mental Health Catchment Area sites: • New Haven, CT, Baltimore, MD, St Louis, MO, Durham, NC, and Los Angeles, CA

  6. Mental Health Epidemiologic Studies • Third-generation (1980 - present) • National Comorbidity Survey (NCS) • First nationally representative mental health survey in the U.S. to use a fully structured interview (WHO revised CIDI) to assess the prevalence and correlates of DSM-III-R disorders • Composite International Diagnostic Instrument (CIDI) • Interviews from Fall 1990 to Spring 1992 • Re-interviewed in 2001 – 2002 (NCS-2)

  7. Mental Health Epidemiologic Studies • Third-generation (1980 - present) • NCS Replication (NCS-R) • Reinterviewed in 2001 – 2002 (NCS-2) • Interviewed a new nationally representative sample repeating many of the questions from the original NCS and expanding disease assessment criteria based on DSM-IV • Uncover trends in mental health • Prevalence • Impairment • Service use

  8. Instruments • Diagnostic Interview Schedule (DIS) • Used in ECA • World Health Organization (WHO) Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) • Used in NCS

  9. Instruments • Short Form (SF-36) • Mental Component Score (MCS), and Mental Health (MH-5) 1 0f 8 domains • General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) • GHQ-12 • Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), Sheehan et al., (1998)

  10. Instruments • Patient Health Questionnaires (PHQ) • Prime-MD, PHQ-9, PHQ-8, and PHQ-2 • PHQ-8 used in: • BRFSS 2006 and 2008 • PHQ-9 used in: • NHANES 2005 - 2006

  11. Instruments • Kessler scales • K10 has been used in: • WHO World Mental Health (WMH) Surveys • 250,000 people • 30 countries • Australian Bureau of Statistics, National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing (SMHWB) • K6 (past 30 days) used in: • BRFSS 2007 • NHIS (since 1997) • K6 (worst 30 days in past year) used in: • NSDUH

  12. SMI • SAMHSA’s official definition of adults with SMI, based on a notice published in the Federal Register (SAMHSA, Center for Mental Health Services, 1993): • Age 18 and over, and • Currently have, or at any time during past year, had a diagnosable mental, behavioral, or emotional disorder of sufficient duration to meet DSM-IV or ICD-9-CM equivalent, with the exception of substance use disorders, and developmental disorders; • Has resulted in functional impairment which substantially interferes with or limits one or more major life activities.

  13. From SMI… • NSDUH implemented the modified K6 (worst 30 days in past year) to assess SMI based on a methodological study to evaluate several screening scales for measuring SMI • Truncated version of WHO-CIDI • K10/K6 scale of non-specific psychological distress • WHO-Disability Assessment Schedule • Respondents with a total score of 13 or greater were classified as having past year SMI

  14. …to SPD • In 2003 NSDUH contained a broad array of questions about mental health that preceded the K6 items, and the four extra questions in the K10 scale interspersed among the items in the K6 scale. • In 2004 NSDUH, the sample of respondents 18 or older was split evenly between the “long form” as used in 2003 NSDUH, and a “short form” consisting of only K6 items. • Results showed large differences between the two samples in both the K6 total score and the proportion of respondents with a K6 total score of 13 or greater. • K6 scale was found not to be context independent • GAF score of less than 60 (moderate) not per definition • Changed: GAF score of less than or equal to 50 (serious)

  15. Clinically Significant vs Mild Disorders • Using data on clinical significance lowered past-year prevalence rates of “any disorder” among 18 – 54-year-olds by 17% in the ECA and 32% in NCS and discrepancies between these two surveys are largely due to methodologic differences. • Establishing the clinical significance of disorders in the community is crucial for estimating treatment need • Narrow WE, Rae DS, Robins LN, Regier DA. Revised prevalence estimates of mental disorders in the United States. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2002;59:115-123

  16. Clinically Significant vs Mild Disorders • Twelve-month NCS/DSM-III-R disorders were disaggregated into: • 3.2% severe, 3.2% serious, 8.7% moderate, and 16.0% mild case categories • All 4 case categories were associated with statistically significant (p<.05) elevated risk of NCS-2 outcomes compared with baseline non-cases, with odds ratios of any outcome ranging monotonically from 2.4 to 15.1 for mild to severe cases. • There is a graded relationship between mental illness severity and later clinical outcomes. • Kessler RC, Merikangas KR, Berglund P, Eaton WW, Koretz DS, Walters EE. Mild disorders should not be eliminated from DSM-V. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2003;60:1117-1122.

  17. Managing depression as a chronic disease • Evidence from trials of the efficacy of short term treatment • Nathan PE, Gorman, J, eds. A guide to treatments that work. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998 • Four types of antidepressant drugs, cognitive behavior and interpersonal therapy, and electroconvulsive therapy produced benefits of 0.5 to 1.0 standard deviation over the response to placebo. • Depression is a disorder that remits • Depression also recurs

  18. Dynamic and chronic nature of depression • Results from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Collaborative Depression Study (CDS) indicate six-month recovery and remission rates of 50% and 70% respectively. • Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) trial evaluated depression treatment strategies comparing four sequential steps of different medications, medication combinations, or medication with cognitive behavior therapy. • 37% of depressed patients had remission after the first step (citalopram only), • a total of 67% achieved remission after all four steps, and • only 43% had sustained recovery.

  19. Take-away messages • Depression, while recognized as a highly recurrent and often a chronic disorder requiring long-term treatment, frequently remains unrecognized and untreated or inadequately treated. • Sub-threshold or minor depression is often associated with disability and poor psychosocial functioning, and a potentially more severe course that requires treatment. • If left untreated or inadequately treated, depression can be a source of much unnecessary personal distress, prolonged family burden, and significant morbidity and mortality. • When left untreated or inadequately treated, including premature termination of treatment, depression more likely persists, reoccurs, and worsens

  20. Take-away messages • Need ongoing syndromic surveillance focusing on key indicators of current depression because disease-specific surveillance of psychological disorders (diagnoses) would be prohibitively expensive. • Occasional disease-specific surveys and more in-depth assessment of risk and protective factors. • Periodic combination of the two types of data (indicators and diagnoses) would facilitate interpretation of the indicator data, which would be collected more frequently and regularly. • Clinically significant and mild or sub-syndromal disorders need to be monitored

  21. Public Mental Health Surveillance: Questions Satvinder “Pearly” Dhingra, MPH Behavioral Surveillance Branch SDhingra@cdc.gov 770-488-5444

More Related