Background: The spectrum of disorders of the brain is large, covering hundreds of disorders that are listed in either the mental or neurological disorder chapters of the established international diagnostic classification systems. These disorders have a high prevalence as well as short- and long-term impairments and disabilities. Therefore they are an emotional, financial and social burden to the patients, their families and their social network. In a 2005 landmark study, we estimated for the first time the annual cost of 12 major groups of disorders of the brain in Europe and gave a conservative estimate of €386 billion for the year 2004. This estimate was limited in scope and conservative due to the lack of sufficiently comprehensive epidemiological and/or economic data on several important diagnostic groups. We are now in a position to substantially improve and revise the 2004 estimates. In the present report we cover 19 major groups of disorders, 7 more than previously, of an increased range of age groups and more cost items. We therefore present much improved cost estimates. Our revised estimates also now include the new EU member states, and hence a population of 514 million people. Aims: To estimate the number of persons with defined disorders of the brain in Europe in 2010, the total cost per person related to each disease in terms of direct and indirect costs, and an estimate of the total cost per disorder and country. Methods: The best available estimates of the prevalence and cost per person for 19 groups of disorders of the brain (covering well over 100 specific disorders) were identified via a systematic review of the published literature. Together with the twelve disorders included in 2004, the following range of mental and neurologic groups of disorders is covered: addictive disorders, affective disorders, anxiety disorders, brain tumor, childhood and adolescent disorders (developmental disorders), dementia, eating disorders, epilepsy, mental retardation, migraine, multiple sclerosis, neuromuscular disorders, Parkinson's disease, personality disorders, psychotic disorders, sleep disorders, somatoform disorders, stroke, and traumatic brain injury. Epidemiologic panels were charged to complete the literature review for each disorder in order to estimate the 12-month prevalence, and health economic panels were charged to estimate best cost-estimates. A cost model was developed to combine the epidemiologic and economic data and estimate the total cost of each disorder in each of 30 European countries (EU27 + Iceland, Norway and Switzerland). The cost model was populated with national statistics from Eurostat to adjust all costs to 2010 values, converting all local currencies to Euro, imputing costs for countries where no data were available, and aggregating country estimates to purchasing power parity adjusted estimates for the total cost of disorders of the brain in Europe 2010. Results: The total cost of disorders of the brain was estimated at €798 billion in 2010. Direct costs constitute the majority of costs (37% direct healthcare costs and 23% direct non-medical costs) whereas the remaining 40% were indirect costs associated with patients' production losses. On average, the estimated cost per person with a disorder of the brain in Europe ranged between €285 for headache and €30,000 for neuromuscular disorders. The European per capita cost of disorders of the brain was €1550 on average but varied by country. The cost (in billion €PPP 2010) of the disorders of the brain included in this study was as follows: addiction: €65.7; anxiety disorders: €74.4; brain tumor: €5.2; child/adolescent disorders: €21.3; dementia: €105.2; eating disorders: €0.8; epilepsy: €13.8; headache: €43.5; mental retardation: €43.3; mood disorders: €113.4; multiple sclerosis: €14.6; neuromuscular disorders: €7.7; Parkinson's disease: €13.9; personality disorders: €27.3; psychotic disorders: €93.9; sleep disorders: €35.4; somatoform disorder: €21.2; stroke: €64.1; traumatic brain injury: €33.0. It should be noted that the revised estimate of those disorders included in the previous 2004 report constituted €477 billion, by and large confirming our previous study results after considering the inflation and population increase since 2004. Further, our results were consistent with administrative data on the health care expenditure in Europe, and comparable to previous studies on the cost of specific disorders in Europe. Our estimates were lower than comparable estimates from the US. Discussion: This study was based on the best currently available data in Europe and our model enabled extrapolation to countries where no data could be found. Still, the scarcity of data is an important source of uncertainty in our estimates and may imply over- or underestimations in some disorders and countries. Even though this review included many disorders, diagnoses, age groups and cost items that were omitted in 2004, there are still remaining disorders that could not be included due to limitations in the available data. We therefore consider our estimate of the total cost of the disorders of the brain in Europe to be conservative. In terms of the health economic burden outlined in this report, disorders of the brain likely constitute the number one economic challenge for European health care, now and in the future. Data presented in this report should be considered by all stakeholder groups, including policy makers, industry and patient advocacy groups, to reconsider the current science, research and public health agenda and define a coordinated plan of action of various levels to address the associated challenges. Recommendations: Political action is required in light of the present high cost of disorders of the brain. Funding of brain research must be increased; care for patients with brain disorders as well as teaching at medical schools and other health related educations must be quantitatively and qualitatively improved, including psychological treatments. The current move of the pharmaceutical industry away from brain related indications must be halted and reversed. Continued research into the cost of the many disorders not included in the present study is warranted. It is essential that not only the EU but also the national governments forcefully support these initiatives.

Lifetime prevalence estimates of psychotropic medicine use as well as prevalence of DSM-IV prescription drug use disorders from the baseline investigation of the Early Developmental Stages of Psychopathology (EDSP) Study are presented. Use of prescription medication at some time in their life was reported by 27.4% of the respondents. Illicit use of prescription drugs, which means an intake without medical legitimation, was reported by 4.5% of the sample. The findings suggest that abuse of and dependence on prescription drugs, with most cases reporting polysubstance use, is quite rare in the 14- to 24-year-olds. DSM-IV abuse was more prevalent than dependence (0.5 vs. 0.3%). In general, women reported higher prevalence rates of prescription drug use, whereas men reported higher prevalence rates of prescription drug disorders. This result suggests that men have a higher risk to develop a substance-use-related disorder.

Sedentary lifestyles and energy-rich diets are driving an increasing prevalence of abdominal obesity, which is associated with cardiovascular risk. Reliable estimates of the worldwide prevalence of abdominal obesity are needed to quantify the associated health risk. The International Day for the Evaluation of Abdominal obesity (IDEA) study is a large, international epidemiological cross-sectional study designed to provide reliable data on the distribution of waist circumference according to region, gender, age, and socio-economic level in 177 345 primary care patients from 63 countries across five continents. Any non-pregnant patient aged 18–80 consulting one of the randomly selected primary care physicians on two pre-defined half days was eligible to participate in the study. The primary objective was to estimate the prevalence of abdominal obesity in primary care, in each participating country. Secondary objectives were to estimate the prevalence of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, dyslipidaemia, and smoking, and to evaluate their associations with abdominal obesity, according to age, gender, and socio-economic level and region. The IDEA study will provide the first global map of the prevalence of abdominal obesity and associated comorbidities in primary care practice.

Objectives and methods: DETECT is a cross-sectional study of 55,518 unselected consecutive patients in 3188 representative primary care offices in Germany. In a random subset of 7519 patients, an extensive standardized laboratory program was undertaken. The study investigated the prevalence of cardiovascular disease, known risk factors (such as diabetes, hypertension and dyslipidemia and their co-morbid manifestation), as well as treatment patterns. The present analysis of the DETECT laboratory dataset focused on the prevalence and treatment of dyslipidemia in primary medical care in Germany. Coronary artery disease (CAD), risk categories and LDL-C target achievement rates were determined in the subset of 6815 patients according to the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) ATP III Guidelines. Results: Of all patients, 54.3% had dyslipidemia. Only 54.4% of the NCEP-classified dyslipidemic patients were diagnosed as ‘dyslipidemic’ by their physicians. Only 27% of all dyslipidemic patients (and 40.7% of the recognized dyslipidemic patients) were treated with lipid-lowering medications, and 11.1% of all dyslipidemic patients (41.4% of the patients treated with lipid-lowering drugs) achieved their LDL-C treatment goals. In conclusion, 80.3% of patients in the sample with dyslipidemia went undiagnosed, un-treated or under-treated.

Die Arbeit gibt einen methodenkritischen Überblick über die in Deutschland vorliegenden Ergebnisse zur Prävalenz sowie Risikofaktoren von Substanzmißbrauch und -abhängigkeit (SMA). Es wird gezeigt, daß die vorliegenden epidemiologischen Studien unvollständig und methodisch unbefriedigend sind. Vor allem die fehlende Erfassung spezifischer diagnostischer Kriterien zur Ableitung klinisch relevanter Mißbrauchs- und Abhängigkeitsstörungen erschwert eine Interpretation der Ergebnisse der vorliegenden Repräsentativerhebungen. Diese geben zwar aussagekräftige populationsbezogene Informationen über die Häufigkeit und Verteilungsmuster von legalen und illegalen Substanzen, klinisch relevante Beurteilungsaspekte wie z.B. zu Schweregrad, Toleranz und Abstinenzproblemen sowie zu Einstieg und Verlauf der "Sucht"-Problematik fehlen jedoch vollständig. Dies trifft auch für Untersuchungen zu Risikofaktoren zu. Als ein durchgängiger Mangel wird ferner die Erfassungsmethodologie angesehen, die sich bislang fast ausschließlich auf Fragebögen oder Interviews stützt, über deren Reliabilität und Validität nur unzureichende psychometrische Daten vorliegen. / A critical review of prevalence and risk factor studies of substance abuse and dependence in Germany is presented. It is shown that currently available epidemiological data are incomplete due to the failure of instruments to allow for a detailed assessment of specific substance use disorders. The neglect of diagnostic criteria for clinically significant abuse and dependence disorders makes it especially difficult to draw conclusions about the results of representative surveys. Although the give clear population-related information about frequency and distribution patterns of legal and illegal substancees, relevant clinical data regarding aspects such as severity, tolerance, problems of abstinence, onset and course of abuse and dependence are completely lacking. This is also true of studies on risk factors. An additional problem is diagnostic assessment based almost exclusively on questionnaires and interviews whose reliability and validity have not been sufficiently established.

Die Studie berichtet die Stichtags-Prävalenz depressiver Syndrome bei 20.421 unselegierter Patienten, die an einem Stichtag ihren Hausarzt aufsuchten. Zusätzlich wurde das hausärztliche Erkennungs- und Verschreibungsverhalten ermittelt. Im Rahmen einer Vorstudie wurden die teilnehmenden Arztpraxen (N=633) mittels Fragebogen charakterisiert. Am Erhebungstag erhielten alle Patienten Fragebögen, darunter den „Depression Screening Questionaire“ (DSQ), um die Diagnose einer depressiven Störung gemäß der Kriterien von DSM-IV oder ICD-10 zu stellen. Diese Daten wurden mit den Angaben in den Bewertungsbögen der Ärzte verglichen, die diese am Erhebungstag für jeden Patienten ausfüllten. Die Befunde bestätigen die hohe Prävalenz depressiver Syndrome in der Hausarztpraxis: 11,3% erfüllten die ICD-10-Kriterien für eine depressive Episode. Obwohl die Erkennungsrate von 59% wie auch die Häufigkeit verordneter Behandlungen tendenziell höher erscheint als in früheren Studien, so gibt doch die Situation bei den Depressionen leichterer Ausprägung sowie der hohe Anteil an „Fehldiagnosen“ bei Patienten, die deutlich die Falldefinitionskriterien verfehlen, Anlass zur Besorgnis. / This study examines the prevalence of depressive syndromes among unselected primary care patients as well as doctors' recognition and treatment rates. This nationwide study included a total of 20,421 patients attending their primary care doctors (n=633) on the study's target day. Patients received a self-report questionnaire including the depression screening questionnaire (DSQ) to provide diagnoses of depressive disorders according to the criteria of DSM-IV and ICD- 10.These data were compared to the doctor's evaluation form for each patient to assess the physician's diagnostic decision, assessment of clinical severity, and treatment choices. The findings confirm the high prevalence of depressive syndromes in primary care settings (11.3%) and underline the particular challenge posed by a high proportion of patients near the diagnosis threshold. Although recognition rates among more severe major depressive patients (59%) as well as treatments prescribed appear to be more favourable than in previous studies, the situation in less severe cases and the high proportion of doctors' definite depression diagnoses in patients who do not fulfill the diagnostic criteria still raise significant concerns.

Die klinische Forschung zu Häufigkeit und Krankheitslast psychischer Störungen ist meist in mehrerer Hinsicht nicht repräsentativ. Insbesondere die Tatsache, dass die untersuchten Patienten sich von sich aus in Behandlung begeben, bedeutet eine gewisse Selektion (z.B. überdurchschnittlich motivierte). Mit wie vielen Fällen haben wir es aber zu tun, wenn man auch diejenigen berücksichtigt, die kein aktives Hilfesuch-Verhalten zeigen? Und wie hoch ist die in klinischen Stichproben offensichtliche individuelle Krankheitslast psychischer Störungen auf einer gesellschaftlichen Ebene – auch im Vergleich mit körperlichen Erkrankungen – einzuschätzen? Ansätze für solche Hochrechnungen und die Abschätzung von Häufigkeit, Störungskosten und Behandlungsbedarf psychischer Störungen müssen epidemiologisch anhand von Daten aus der Allgemeinbevölkerung geklärt werden. Die vorliegende Habilitationsschrift basiert auf Publikationen, die in meiner Arbeitsgruppe „Epidemiologie und Versorgungsforschung“ am Lehrstuhl für Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie zwischen 2001 und 2006 entstanden sind. Die entsprechenden Befunde und Implikationen wurden und werden nicht nur in der Klinischen Psychologie, sondern auch in Nachbardisziplinen (z.B. Psychiatrie, Epidemiologie, Occupational Health Psychology, Gesundheitsökonomie, Versorgungsforschung) sowie in der nicht-wissenschaftlichen Öffentlichkeit (z.B. Gesundheitsberichterstattung, Versorgungsplanung) zur Kenntnis genommen und zitiert. In den vorgestellten Arbeiten habe ich zunächst – erstmals für Deutschland – auf der Grundlage bevölkerungsbezogener Daten bundesrepräsentative Befunde zur Verbreitung psychischer Störungen herausgestellt (z.B. Jacobi, Wittchen et al., 2004; Jacobi, Hoyer & Wittchen, 2004; Jacobi, Klose & Wittchen, 2004). Zum zweiten beschäftigte ich mich mit der internationalen Befundlage, indem ich mich an der Koordination eines internationalen und multidisziplinären Forscher-Netzwerkes beteiligte, das eine umfassende Abschätzung der Größenordnung im Sinne von Verbreitung und Kosten für die EU vorgenommen hat (Wittchen & Jacobi, 2005). Vor diesem Hintergrund habe ich zum dritten ausgewählte Fragestellungen zum Zusammenhang zwischen psychischen Störungen und körperlichen Erkrankungen bzw. zur Stärke und zu Konsequenzen solcher Komorbidität verfolgt (z.B. Goodwin, Jacobi & Thefeld, 2003; Sareen, Jacobi et al., 2006). Die Habilitationsschrift verdeutlicht nicht nur die eminente Größenordnung und Krankheitslast psychischer Störungen (z.B. reduzierte Lebensqualität, Beeinträchtigungen, Krankheitskosten, Verschlechterung des gesundheitlichen Outcomes bei körperlichen Erkrankungen). Sie eröffnet auch neue wissenschaftliche Perspektiven ihrer Erforschung, z.B. im Hinblick auf Prävention und Behandlungsbedarf, oder hinsichtlich der Verschränkungen mit Prozessen körperlicher Morbidität. / This Habilitation-Thesis, based on 10 peer-reviewed publications (2001-2006), presents findings on size and burden of mental disorders in the community. First, following an introductory discussion of methodological aspects in epidemiological studies, an overview of the prevalence of mental disorders in Germany and Europe is given (Part A). As Examples for socio-economic determinants of mental disorders, some analyses on gender differences and a comparison between West and East Germany are presented (Part B). Further, it is shown that mental disorders are costly (in terms of disability adjusted life years as well as in terms of direct and indirect monetary burden) (Part C). This refers also to the interplay between mental disorders and somatic conditions: comorbid cases show significantly poorer outcomes (reduced health related quality of life, work loss and disability, help-seeking behaviour) (Part D).

No description available.

No description available.

Background: Epidemiological data on the prevalence of Parkinson’s disease (PD) in Germany are limited. The aims of this study were to estimate the age- and gender-specific prevalence of PD in Germany as well as the severity and illness duration. Summary: A systematic literature search was performed in 5 different databases. European studies were included if they reported age- and gender-specific numbers of prevalence rates of PD. Meta-analytic approaches were applied to derive age- and gender-specific pooled prevalence estimates. Data of 4 German outpatient samples were incorporated to calculate the proportion of patients with PD in Germany grouped by Hoehn and Yahr (HY) stages and disease duration. In the German population, 178,169 cases of PD were estimated (prevalence: 217.22/100,000). The estimated relative illness duration was 40% with less than 5 years, 31% with 5–9 years, and 29% with more than 9 years. The proportions for different HY stages were estimated at 13% (I), 30% (II), 35% (III), 17% (IV), and 4% (V), respectively. Key Message: We provide an up-to-date estimation of age and gender-specific as well as severity-based prevalence figures for PD in Germany. Further community studies are needed to estimate population-based severity distributions and distributions of non-motor symptoms in PD.