I am undertaking a review of depression in a specific population and the majority of the research studies included use a questionnaire to assess for depression symptoms. When writing up the review is it acceptable in a academic paper to describe the “prevalence” of depressive symptom? are there examples of papers where the authors defend the use of the term “prevalence” when discussing symptoms of depression. Are there definitions of “prevalence“ that can be used to justify using the term “prevalence” for symptoms of depression and not a clinical diagnosis as per the DSM V?
Yes. I have searched NCBI and found lots of papers which title includes words like "prevalence of symptoms". Obviously, the term "prevalence" is a broader concept than we thought before.
Thank you Selman for joining the discussion. I am aware that there are many papers reporting the prevalence of symptoms. My I did not find in those papers authors defending the use of the term “prevalence” when discussing symptoms of depression. I also failed to find definitions of “prevalence“ that can be used to justify using the term “prevalence” for symptoms of depression and not a clinical diagnosis as per the DSM V?
In don't think the problem really is the use of the term prevalence. Depression is not a categorical concept anyway so it is only defined by a symptom cluster and by degree. The main thing is that you state what symptoms are prevalent and how measured. Of course many symptoms of depression are very common and normal under certain life circumstances e.g. low mood, crying etc. I think the greater danger to rigour is in not being explicit about the model, the symptoms measured, how they are assessed and what it means. E.g. if 40% of the population report low mood in a given timeframe is this good or bad? appropriate or inappropriate? This needs consideration both in terms of psycho-social determinants and values. Poverty is an example of the former, and appropriate feelings of remorse associated with maturity the latter - you would not describe these as dysfunctional or as depression unless extended and disproportionate. For me the key lies in rigorous analysis rather than concern about terms like prevalence. I personally am happy to see the term used as long as I understand what is being measured in what population.
In general, I concur with the responses from McColloch, Philpott, and Repisti. McCulloch's last sentence, " I personally am happy to see the term used as long as I understand what is being measured in what population. ", is what I would like to focus on. In diagnosing using the DSM-5, we use the terms prevalence and incidence as related to individuals receiving a particular diagnosis with prevalence being the number of individuals receiving that diagnosis at a particular point in time (ex. today or this day) and incidence being the number of NEW cases of a disorder within a given point in time (ex. new cases within the past year). However, prevalence, as stated by the above researchers, does not simply refer to a diagnosis. Like McCulloch, I would happily accept the use of the term prevalence if the research thoroughly describes how prevalence is being used.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Asia
- India