Global Burden Disease Estimates for Major Depressive Disorders (MDD): A review of diagnostic instruments used in studies of prevalence.

Global Burden of Disease (GBD) estimates have significant policy implications nationally and internationally. Disease burden metrics, particularly for depression, have played a critical role in raising governmental awareness of mental health and in calculating the economic cost of depression. Recently, the World Health Organization ranked depression as the single largest contributor to global disability. The main aim of this paper was to assess the basis upon which GBD prevalence estimates for major depressive disorder (MDD) were made. We identify the instruments used in the 2019 GBD estimates and provide a descriptive assessment of the five most frequently used instruments. The majority of country studies, 356/566 (62.9%), used general mental health screeners or structured/semi-structured interview guides, 98/566 (17.3%) of the studies used dedicated depression screeners, and 112 (19.8%) used other tools for assessing depression. Thus, most of the studies used instruments that were not designed to make a diagnosis of depression or assess depression severity. Our results are congruent with and extend previous research that has identified critical flaws in the data underpinning the GBD estimates for MDD. Despite the widespread promotion of these prevalence estimates, caution is needed before using them to inform public policy and mental health interventions. This is particularly important in lower-income countries where resources are scarce.

Undisclosed financial conflicts of interest in DSM-5-TR: cross sectional analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the extent and types of financial ties to industry of panel and task force members of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition, text revision (DSM-5-TR), published in 2022. DESIGN: Cross sectional analysis. SETTING: Open Payments database, USA. PARTICIPANTS: 92 physicians based in the US who served as members of either a panel (n=86) or task force (n=6) on the DSM-5-TR with information recorded in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database during 2016-19. This period was chosen to include the year that development of the DSM-5-TR began and the three years preceding, a time consistent with previous research on conflicts of interest and consistent with the American Psychiatric Association's disclosure requirements for the fifth revision (DSM-5) of the manual. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Type and amount of compensation the panel and task force members of DSM-5-TR received during 2016-19. RESULTS: After duplicate names had been removed, 168 individuals were identified who served as either panel or task force members of the DSM-5-TR. 92 met the inclusion criteria of being a physician who was based in the US and therefore could be included in Open Payments. Of these 92 individuals, 55 (60%) received payments from industry. Collectively, these panel members received a total of $14.2m (£11.2m; €13m). One third (33.3%) of the task force members had payments reported in Open Payments. CONCLUSIONS: Conflicts of interest among panel members of DSM-5-TR were prevalent. Because of the enormous influence of diagnostic and treatment guidelines, the standards for participation on a guideline development panel should be high. A rebuttable presumption should exist for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders to prohibit conflicts of interest among its panel and task force members. When no independent individuals with the requisite expertise are available, individuals with associations to industry could consult to the panels, but they should not have decision making authority on revisions or the inclusion of new disorders.

Industry influence on mental health research: depression as a case example.

Emotional distress has been rising since before the COVID-19 pandemic and the public is told that depression is a major public health problem. For example, in 2017 depressive disorders were ranked as the third leading cause of "years lost to disability" and the World Health Organization now ranks depression as the single largest contributor to global disability. Although critical appraisals of the epidemiological data raise questions about the accuracy of population-based depression estimates, the dominance of the medical model and the marketing of psychotropics as "magic bullets," have contributed to a dramatic rise in the prescription of psychiatric drugs. Unfortunately, the pharmaceutical industry's influence on psychiatric research and practice has resulted in over-estimates of the effectiveness of psychotropic medications and an under-reporting of harms. This is because the principles that govern commercial entities are incongruent with the principles that guide public health research and interventions. In order to conduct mental health research and develop interventions that are in the public's best interest, we need non-reductionist epistemological and empirical approaches that incorporate a biopsychosocial perspective. Taking depression as a case example, we argue that the socio-political factors associated with emotional distress must be identified and addressed. We describe the harms of industry influence on mental health research and show how the emphasis on "scaling up" the diagnosis and treatment of depression is an insufficient response from a public health perspective. Solutions for reform are offered.