Previous papers from the World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) World Mental Health (WMH) Survey Initiative1have described the pattern of mental health service use,2 unmet need for treatment3and delays in seeking help for mental health problems.4 The current paper focuses on drop out, defined here as stopping treatment for mental health problems before the treatment provider thought that treatment was complete. Drop out is known to be a common and important contributing factor to poor outcomes and results in inefficient use of limited resources.5,6 Although mental health treatment drop out is common, patterns and predictors of drop out are poorly understood and are based on a small number of studies from high-income countries (Canada and the USA) with comparatively well-resourced health and specialist mental health sectors.5,7,8 This study explores
patterns and predictors of mental health treatment drop out in 24 countries that carried out WMH surveys. These countries vary widely in economic status, health service structure and resourcing. The countries are stratified into high, upper-middle and low/lower-middle income groups based on criteria established by the World Bank (http://data.worldbank.org/about/country-classifications). As with earlier studies from national samples in Canada and the
USA, a uniform definition of treatment drop out was applied to the representative samples of adults. Mental disorders and patterns of health service use across health sectors were ascertained with the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI).9 The behavioural model of access to care10used in previous studies
of treatment drop out7,8provided the framework for considering the person-level predictors of drop out that included predisposing demographic (age, gender) and social factors (marital status, educational level), enabling factors (household income, health insurance, type and number of treatment providers) and indicators of need for treatment (type of mental disorder, number of mental disorders, past treatment of mental disorder).
Method Samples
Data from 24 countries are included in this paper, 6 of them low/ lower-middle, 6 upper-middle and 12 high-income countries (see online Table DS1 for WMH sample charateristics by World Bank income categories). Trained lay interviewers conducted all
1
Drop out from out-patient mental healthcare
in the World Health Organization’s World Mental
Health Survey initiative
J. Elisabeth Wells, Mark Oakley Browne, Sergio Aguilar-Gaxiola, Ali Al-Hamzawi, Jordi Alonso, Matthias C. Angermeyer, Colleen Bouzan, Ronny Bruffaerts, Brendan Bunting, Jose´ Miguel
Caldas-de-Almeida, Giovanni de Girolamo, Ron de Graaf, Silvia Florescu, Akira Fukao, Oye Gureje, Hristo Ruskov Hinkov, Chiyi Hu, Irving Hwang, Elie G. Karam, Stanislav Kostyuchenko,
Viviane Kovess-Masfety, Daphna Levinson, Zhaorui Liu, Maria Elena Medina-Mora, S. Haque Nizamie, Jose´ Posada-Villa, Nancy A. Sampson, Dan J. Stein, Maria Carmen Viana and Ronald C. Kessler
Background
Previous community surveys of the drop out from mental health treatment have been carried out only in the USA and Canada.
Aims
To explore mental health treatment drop out in the World Health Organization World Mental Health Surveys.
Method
Representative face-to-face household surveys were conducted among adults in 24 countries. People who reported mental health treatment in the 12 months before interview (n= 8482) were asked about drop out, defined as stopping treatment before the provider wanted.
Results
Overall, drop out was 31.7%: 26.3% in high-income countries, 45.1% in upper-middle-income countries, and 37.6% in low/ lower-middle-income countries. Drop out from psychiatrists was 21.3% overall and similar across country income groups (high 20.3%, upper-middle 23.6%, low/lower-middle 23.8%) but the pattern of drop out across other sectors differed by country income group. Drop out was more likely early in treatment, particularly after the second visit.
Conclusions
Drop out needs to be reduced to ensure effective treatment.
Declaration of interest
R.C.K. has been a consultant for AstraZeneca, Analysis Group, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cerner-Galt Associates, Eli Lilly & Company, GlaxoSmithKline, HealthCore, Health Dialog, Integrated Benefits Institute, John Snow, Kaiser Permanente, Matria, Mensante, Merck & Co., Ortho-McNeil Janssen Scientific Affairs, Pfizer, Primary Care Network, Research Triangle Institute, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe, Shire US, SRA International, Takeda Global Research & Development, Transcept Pharmaceuticals, and Wyeth-Ayerst; has served on advisory boards for Appliance Computing II, Eli Lilly & Company, Mindsite, Ortho-McNeil Janssen Scientific Affairs, Plus One Health Management and Wyeth-Ayerst; and has had research support for his epidemiological studies from Analysis Group, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly & Company, EPI-Q, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceuticals, Ortho-McNeil Janssen Scientific Affairs, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe and Shire US. D.J.S. has received research grants and/or consultancy honoraria from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Eli-Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson, Lundbeck, Orion, Pfizer, Pharmacia, Roche, Servier, Solvay, Sumitomo, Takeda, Tikvah and Wyeth.
The British Journal of Psychiatry 1–8. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.112.113134
interviews face to face in multistage clustered area probability samples of household respondents. Part I of the interview was administered to everyone, whereas Part II, in most countries, was administered to only a subsample consisting of those who met criteria for any Part I disorder and a random subsample of other participants. Core disorders were in Part I. Health service use was in Part II of the interview in most countries. The current analyses are limited to Part II respondents (n= 63 678). The data have been weighted to adjust for the undersampling into Part II of Part I respondents without Part I disorders.
Details about the standardised survey methods (interviewer training procedures, WHO translation protocols for all study materials, quality control procedures for interviewers and data accuracy) employed in all WMH surveys are available elsewhere.11 Informed consent was obtained prior to the beginning of all interviews. Informed consent procedures and human subject safeguards were approved by the institutional review boards of the organisations coordinating the survey in each country. Measures
Diagnostic assessments
The WHO’s Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) Version 3.09,11was used to assess mental disorders using DSM-IV criteria.12Disorders considered in this paper include only 12-month disorders: mood disorders (major depressive episode, dysthymia, bipolar I or II disorder, subthreshold bipolar disorder), anxiety disorders (panic disorder, specific phobia, social phobia, generalised anxiety disorder, agoraphobia, post-traumatic stress disorder, separation anxiety), impulse disorders (conduct disorder, inter-mittent explosive disorder, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, oppositional-defiant disorder) and substance use disorders (alcohol and drug misuse with and without dependence). Lifetime prevalence and age at onset were assessed separately for each disorder.13All diagnoses were considered with organic exclusions
and without diagnostic hierarchy rules.
Mental health service sectors
Sources of care were classified into five sectors: psychiatrist; other mental health specialty (psychologist or other non-psychiatrist mental health professional in any setting or social worker/counsellor in a mental health specialty setting, or use of a mental health hotline); general medical services (primary care doctor, other general medical doctor, nurse, any other health professional not previously mentioned); human services (religious or spiritual advisor or social worker/counsellor in any setting other than a specialty mental health setting); and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) (treatment from healers and self-help groups).
Treatment drop out
For each treatment provider, respondents were asked whether they received treatment in the past 12 months for ‘problems with your emotions, nerves, mental health or your use of alcohol or drugs?’ If so, they were asked whether treatment had stopped or was ongoing. Those who had stopped treatment with a provider were asked ‘Did you complete the full recommended course of treatment? Or did you stop before the [provider] wanted you to stop?’ Respondents who reported quitting were classified as having dropped out from a treatment sector if they had quit all providers they had seen in that sector. A separate variable denotes dropping out from all sectors. Because self-help groups have no providers, it was not possible to determine whether drop out occurred before the provider wanted.
Predictors of treatment drop out
Sociodemographic predictor variables. Sociodemographic predic-tors included age (18–34, 35–49, 50–64, 65+), gender, marital status (married/cohabitating, separated/widowed/divorced, never married), educational attainment (no education, some primary, primary finished, some secondary, secondary finished, some college, college finished or more) and household income. The per capita income of the respondent’s household was divided by the median income of the country the respondent was from. Based on this ratio, household income was categorised as either low (0.5 or less), low-average (0.5+ to 1), high-average (1+ to 2) and high (2+).
Health service predictor variables. A history of mental health-care utilisation prior to the past 12 months included in-patient care, out-patient counselling/psychotherapy or prescription of psychotropic medications. The number of different provider groups seen in the past 12 months for mental health treatment, treatment stage (the number of visits in that period) and health insurance for treatment of mental disorders were also included as predictors of drop out.
Diagnostic predictor variables. Four groups of mental disorders were used as predictors: mood, anxiety, substance use and impulse disorders. The number of mental disorders was used as an indicator of comorbidity. Severity was included in some additional analyses. Severity in the past 12 months was categorised as severe, moderate or mild, depending on the mental disorders experienced and the extent of disability reported.3
Analysis procedures
As noted above, Part-II data (n= 63 678) were weighted to adjust for the undersampling of respondents without Part I disorders and to make the Part II sample representative of the initial Part I sample. All analyses also used weights to adjust for differential sample selection probabilities and differential non-response and to post-stratify to population sociodemographic characteristics.
Twelve-month treatment episodes were aggregated into the five treatment sectors. Kaplan–Meier curves were used to examine drop out by number of visits. Predictors of drop out were examined with discrete-time survival analysis. Differences in predictors across sectors were examined with interaction terms between predictors and dummy variables for sector. Standard errors were estimated using the SUDAAN software system on Unix to adjust for stratification, clustering and weighting. Multivariable significance tests were conducted using Waldw2 tests based on coefficient variance–covariance matrices adjusted for design effects using the Taylor series method. Statistical significance was evaluated using two-sided design-based tests (a= 0.05). None-theless, for the many additional comparisons made in the online tables, only those withP50.01 are reported here.
Results
Over all the countries combined, the prevalence of any treatment in the past 12 months for ‘emotions, nerves, alcohol or drug problems’ was 9.0% (s.e. = 0.2). Treatment was more common in high-income (12.0%, s.e. = 0.2) than in higher-middle-income (8.7%, s.e. = 0.3) or in low/lower-middle-income (3.4%, s.e. = 0.2) countries. All further results are based on the 8482 participants who reported any mental health treatment in the 12 months prior to interview.
Table 1 indicates that the general medical sector was the sector in which treatment was most likely to occur (58.7%), but the median number of visits (1.6) was the lowest in this sector and
2
Drop out from mental health treatment
the upper quartile of visits was particularly low. When countries were grouped by income level (online Table DS2), general medical services were the most common source of treatment in all groups: high income (61.2%), upper-middle income (56.8%) and low/ lower-middle income (45.9%). Similarly, the median number of visits in this sector was low (high income, 1.5; middle income, 2.1; low income, 1.4).
Across all countries, about a fifth of patients (22.0%) saw a psychiatrist and this varied little by country income level (19.7 to 22.8%). In contrast, the percentage of patients seen by other men-tal health services rose from 13.7% in low/lower-middle-income countries to 29.1% in high-income countries. The number of visits was for the most part positively related to country income level in each of the sectors, apart from general medical services. Nonetheless, because general medical services were the most common source of treatment, the median number of visits across all sectors was similar in high- and upper-middle-income countries (2.4 and 2.5 respectively), although the upper quartile was higher in high-income countries (9.0 v. 5.3). Low/lower-middle-income countries had a lower median (1.6) and a lower upper quartile (3.1).
Treatment status at time of interview
At the time of interview, respondents who had been treated in the past 12 months were classified as having ended treatment prematurely, having completed treatment or still being in
treatment (Table 2). Overall, 48.0% were still in treatment, 20.3% had completed treatment and 31.7% had dropped out. Drop out was least likely from psychiatrists (21.3%) and most likely from general medical services (40.5%). Online Tables DS3a–c present treatment status at time of interview for high-, upper-middle- and low/lower-middle-income countries. Drop out overall was higher in upper-middle- (45.1%) than in low/ lower-middle- (37.6%) and high-income countries (26.3%). This pattern was also seen for human services and for CAM, but drop out from treatment by a psychiatrist was similar for all three country groups (20.3 to 23.8%). In contrast, drop out from general medical services was higher for the two lower-income groups (52.5% for both) than for the high-income group (33.4%). Completion of treatment was similar across the income groups (19.5 to 24.2%). The percentage of patients still in treatment was higher in high-income countries (53.7%) than in upper-middle-income countries (35.4%) or low/lower-middle-income countries (38.2%), largely reflecting the pattern seen for general medical services (44.1%, 27.2%, 24.9%).
The cumulative probability of drop out by visit number
Drop out was most likely to occur after the second visit, with 21.6% dropping out after the second visit. Figure 1 shows the cumulative probability of treatment drop out by the number of
3
Table 1 Number in treatment and number of visits, by service
In treatment Number of visits
Service provider na %b s.e. Median IQR
Psychiatrist 2014 22.0 0.6 2.8 1.1–7.9
Other mental health 2097 24.7 0.7 3.5 1.2–11.3
General medical 5147 58.7 0.7 1.6 1.0–2.8
Human services 1091 13.8 0.5 2.3 1.1–4.4
Complementary and alternative medicine 1126 14.0 0.5 2.4 1.2–10.2
Anyc 8482 – – 2.3 1.2–6.8
a. Unweighted number of respondents who received treatment in the sector.
b. The percentages in treatment with each service provider sum to more than 100% because some patients saw multiple providers. Percentages are weighted to adjust for differences in selection probabilities, differential non-response, oversampling of Part II cases and residual differences on sociodemographic variables between the sample and the population. c. The median number of visits for any sector represents the median across all sectors, not within any one sector, among patients treated in one or more sectors.
Table 2 Treatment status by sector among World Mental Health Survey respondents who had received mental health treatment in the past 12 months (all countries)
Treatment status at the time of interviewa
Premature termination Completed treatment Still in treatment
nb % (s.e.)
w2 P nc % (s.e.)
w2 P nd % (s.e.)
w2 P
I. Among service providers
Psychiatrist 405 21.3 (1.3) 414 21.8 (1.2) 1195 56.9 (1.4) Other mental health 488 24.1 (1.2) 522 27.4 (1.3) 1087 48.5 (1.3) General medical 2115 40.5 (0.9) 979 20.6 (0.8) 2053 38.9 (1.0) Human services 307 29.5 (2.1) 249 23.4 (1.8) 535 47.1 (2.1) Complementary and
alternative medicine 249 25.8 (1.8) 141 12.7 (1.4) 736 61.6 (2.0) Any 2699 31.7 (0.7) 1541 20.3 (0.6) 4242 48.0 (0.8) II. Significance tests
Statistical test across providers, 4 degrees
of freedom 174.3 50.001 55.2 50.001 196.4 50.001
a. The three proportions in each row sum to 100%. Percentages are weighted to adjust for differences in selection probabilities, differential non-response, oversampling of Part II cases and residual differences on sociodemographic variables between the sample and the population.
b. Unweighted number of respondents who dropped out of treatment in the sector. c. Unweighted number of respondents who completed treatment in the sector. d. Unweighted number of respondents who were still in treatment in the sector.
Wells et al
visits within the past 12 months. Each curve rises steeply and then tends to flatten out.
The cumulative probability of drop out varied across the five sectors (P50.0001). More than half (55.6%) of patients dropped out of general medical sector treatment by the fifth visit (online Table DS4). The next highest drop out by the fifth visit was from the human services sector (38.9%), followed by the CAM sector (28.6%), psychiatrists (23.0%) and other mental health providers
(22.0%). Over all health sectors combined, approximately a third (34.8%) of patients dropped out of treatment by the fifth visit.
Predictors of treatment drop out
Drop out across all sectors was investigated in a model that included sociodemographics (age group, gender, marital status, education and household income), clinical and treatment information as the predictors. Sociodemographic predictors were all non-significant (minimumP= 0.40, online Table DS5). Results for the other predictors are shown in Table 3.
Drop out was much more likely after only one or two rather than more visits (odds ratio (OR) = 17.7) and was less likely for those with prior mental health treatment (OR = 0.7) and for those seen by three or four v. only one or two types of providers (OR = 0.2). Drop out was highest among those seen in the general medical sector (OR = 1.0), lower among those seen in the human services (OR = 0.7) and CAM (OR = 0.6) sectors, and lowest among those seen by psychiatrists (OR = 0.0) and other mental health specialists (OR = 0.2). Neither health insurance for mental health treatment nor number of disorders was a significant predictor of treatment drop out, although patients with substance use disorders had elevated odds of drop out (OR = 1.4).
Predictors of drop out within sectors
To investigate the consistency of predictors of drop out within and across sectors, separate models were run to predict drop out within each sector and, in an overall model, interaction terms between predictor and sector were used to assess the heterogeneity of ORs across sectors (online Table DS6).
Drop out was more likely after the first or second than later visits within each sector (OR = 3.1 to 3.8), except for human
4
70 – 60 – 50 – 40 – 30 – 20 – 10 – 0 – 0 5 10 15 Number of visits Psychiatrist Other mental health General medical Human services CAM Any provider Cumulative % drop outFig. 1 Cumulative percentage that dropped out of treatment by visit, for each treatment provider sector.
CAM, complementary and alternative medicine.
Table 3 Predictors of treatment drop out among World Mental Health Survey respondents who had received mental health treatment in the past 12 months, over all sectors (all countries)a
Across all sectors (n= 8482)
OR (95% CI) w2 d.f. P
Number of visits in past 12 months
1–2 17.7 (15.0–20.9)
3+ 1.0 1177.4 1 50.0001
Prior mental health treatment (ever)
Yes 0.7 (0.6–0.8) 18.8 1 50.0001 Number of providers 1 or 2 1.0 68.6 1 50.0001 3 or 4 0.2 (0.1–0.3) Service provider Psychiatrist 0.0 (0.0–0.1) Other mental health profession 0.2 (0.2–0.3)
General medical 1.0 648.7 4 50.0001
Human services 0.7 (0.5–0.9) Complementary and alternative medicine 0.6 (0.4–0.8) Insurance
Yes 1.1 (0.9–1.5) 1.1 1 0.290
Mental disorders 7.4 4 0.120
Any mood 1.1 (0.9–1.3)
Any anxiety 1.1 (0.9–1.3) Any substance use 1.4 (1.1–1.9) Any impulse 1.1 (0.7–1.5) Number of disorders
Only 1 1.0 2.2 1 0.140
2 or more 0.8 (0.6–1.1)
a. The multivariable model was based on a discrete time survival framework with a person-visit file. Sociodemographic predictors – age group, gender, marital status, education and household income – were also included but were all non-significant withP50.40 (full model in online Table DS4).
Drop out from mental health treatment
services (sector heterogeneity P50.0001). Prior treatment for mental disorders was consistently associated with lower drop out across sectors (OR = 0.6 to 0.8).
With three or more treatment providers, drop out was less likely from a psychiatrist (OR = 0.6) or from general medical services (OR = 0.4) but having multiple providers was unrelated to drop out from other sectors (sector heterogeneity
P50.0001). Insurance for mental health problems was unrelated to drop out within each sector.
Drop out within each sector was unrelated to the mental disorders experienced. Likewise the number of disorders was unrelated to drop out, except for human services for which those patients with two or more disorders were much less likely to drop out (OR = 0.3) (sector heterogeneityP= 0.003). As in the overall analysis, age group, gender, marital status and education were consistently unrelated to treatment drop out in the disaggregated analysis. Household income was related only to drop out from human services (OR = 1.8 to 1.9 for all groups relative to the high-income group (sector heterogeneity,P= 0.01)).
In summary, the predictors found to matter overall were mostly also found to predict within sectors, but there was some heterogeneity.
Predictors of drop out in high-, middle- and low-income countries
Table 4 shows the results for predictors of drop out within each country income group. Drop out was significantly more likely after the first two than later visits in all country groups but the extent differed, with ORs of 25.7 in high-income countries, 6.4 in upper-middle-income countries and 18.4 in
low/lower-middle-income countries. There was also diversity across the country groups in the association of prior treatment with drop out: upper-middle-income countries (OR = 0.5), high-income countries (OR = 0.8), low/lower-middle-high-income countries (OR = 0.9). Three or more providers was associated with reduced drop out in high- and upper-middle-income countries (ORs of 0.1 and 0.3 respectively) but there were insufficient data to test for this in low/lower-middle-income countries.
Type of provider was significantly associated with drop out in each of the three country income groups but the pattern varied. The lowest drop-out rate was consistently for psychiatrists. High-income countries had a low drop out for other mental health services (OR = 0.2), as did upper-middle-income countries (OR = 0.4) but not low/lower-middle-income countries (OR = 0.7). The results for CAM were very different, with a low drop out relative to general medical services in high-income countries (OR = 0.2) but not in upper-middle-high-income countries (OR = 1.5) and low/lower-middle-income countries (OR = 1.1).
Drop out showed some minor relationship to which particular mental disorders were experienced in high-income countries (P= 0.04), a clearer relationship in upper-middle-income countries (OR of 1.5 for mood disorders and 2.2 for substance use disorders,P= 0.002 across all four disorder groups), and no relationship in low/lower-middle-income countries (P= 0.20). The number of disorders was not related to drop out in any of the income groups. Insurance was marginally associated with higher drop out in upper-middle-income countries (OR = 1.4,
P= 0.053) and not associated elsewhere.
In all three country income groups sociodemographic predictors were non-significant except for a marginally significant
5
Table 4 Predictors of treatment drop out among World Mental Health Survey respondents in high-, upper-middle-, low/lower-middle-income countries who had received mental health treatment in the past 12 months (over all sectors)a
High-income countries Upper-middle-income countries Low/lower-middle-income countries OR (95% CI) w2c P OR (95% CI) w2c P OR (95% CI) w2c P
Number of visits in past 12 months 1069.8 50.0001 101.7 50.0001 125.1 50.0001 1–2 25.7 (21.2–31.3) 6.4 (4.5–9.3) 18.4 (11.0–30.6)
3+ 1.0 1.0 1.0
Prior mental health treatment (ever) 3.2 0.070 16.2 50.0001 0.1 0.770
Yes 0.8 (0.7–1.0) 0.5 (0.4–0.7) 0.9 (0.5–1.6) Number of providers 39.3 50.0001 31.3 50.0001 1 or 2 1.0 1.0 –b 3 or 4 0.1 (0.1–0.2) 0.3 (0.2–0.4) –b Type of provider 525.4 50.0001 178.2 50.0001 63.2 50.0001 Psychiatrist 0.1 (0.0–0.1) 0.0 (0.0–0.1) 0.1 (0.0–0.1)
Other mental health profession 0.2 (0.1–0.2) 0.4 (0.3–0.7) 0.7 (0.3–1.6)
General medical 1.0 1.0 1.0 Human services 0.6 (0.4–0.9) 1.0 (0.6–1.6) 0.4 (0.2–0.7) CAM 0.2 (0.1–0.3) 1.5 (0.9–2.2) 1.1 (0.4–3.3) Insurance 1.5 0.230 3.7 0.053 0.0 0.950 Yes 0.8 (0.5–1.2) 1.4 (1.0–1.9) 1.0 (0.5–2.3) Mental disorders 9.9 0.040 16.8 0.002 6.0 0.200 Any mood 1.0 (0.8–1.3) 1.5 (1.0–2.3) 0.9 (0.4–1.9) Any anxiety 1.3 (1.1–1.6) 0.8 (0.5–1.2) 1.8 (0.9–3.5) Any substance use 1.1 (0.8–1.5) 2.2 (1.4–3.6) 1.4 (0.6–3.2) Any impulse 1.3 (0.8–2.1) 0.8 (0.4–1.6) 0.6 (0.3–1.4)
Number of disorders 0.6 0.460 0.9 0.340 0.4 0.540
Only 1 1.0 1.0 1.0
2 or more 0.9 (0.6–1.2) 0.7 (0.4–1.4) 0.7 (0.2–2.3)
CAM, complementary and alternative medicine.
a. Models are multivariable (all predictors in each column were entered at once) and based on a survival framework (with a person-visit file). Each column represents a separate multivariable model of drop out from care in a group of countries. Age group, gender, marital status, education and household income were included in each model but were all non-significant (minimumP= 0.14) except for an age effect in low-income countries (P= 0.04).
b. Results not shown because of small cell size. Small cell size determined by calculating the expected number of cases based on the percentage of people with the outcome and the total number of people with the condition. If the expected value was less than five, then the OR is dashed out.
Wells et al
non-ordinal association of age with drop out in low/lower-middle-income countries (P= 0.04) (results for the full model are available on request from the authors).
Severity was added as a predictor of drop out in some analyses (detailed results are available on request from the authors). For all countries combined there were no main effects for severity (moderate OR = 1.1 (95% CI 0.8–1.3) and severe OR = 1.1 (95% CI 0.9–1.4) compared with mild; w2= 0.4, d.f. = 2,P= 0.81) but
a significant interaction effect whereby those with moderate or severe disorder(s) and three or more visits were less likely to drop out than expected from the main effects (moderate severity 3+ visits OR = 0.7 (95% CI 0.5–1.0); severe 3+ visits OR = 0.7 (95% CI 0.5–0.9); overall interactionw2= 8.8, d.f. = 2,P= 0.01). Results were similar within each income group.
Further analyses investigated predictors of drop out within sectors separately for country income groups (detailed results are available on request from the authors). Some sociodemographic predictors reached significance for some income groups for some sectors (possible type 1 errors).
Predictors of drop out after 1–2 visits or after 3 or more visits
Because so much drop out occurred very early, analyses were carried out with separate models for overall drop out after one or two visits, or after three or more visits (online Table DS7) (detailed results for each sector are available from the authors on request). In general the patterns were similar in both models. However, human services (OR = 0.3) and CAM (OR = 0.5) had lower drop out early on but similar (OR = 1.4) or slightly higher (OR = 1.9) drop out later. Drop out was higher for patients with substance use disorders only after three or more visits (OR = 2.1). Further analyses fitted the same sets of models within country income groups (detailed results available from the authors on request).
Discussion Main findings
In this paper, using data from the WHO WMH surveys, the overall percentage who dropped out of treatment for mental health problems in the past 12 months was 31.7%. Even when looked at by treatment sector and by the income group of the country it was never trivial. Over all countries combined, the psychiatric sector had the lowest drop out (21.3%). The drop out from the psychiatric sector was similar across high-income, upper-middle-income and low/lower-middle-income countries but, for any treatment, upper-middle-income countries had higher drop out (45.1%) than high-income (26.3%) and low/ lower-middle-income (37.6%) countries.
The results of the WHO WMH surveys differ in important respects from those of previous national surveys from Canada and the USA in which similar analyses were carried out.5,7,8The overall drop-out rate in the current study (31.7%) is higher than found in the early 1990s in the Ontario Health Survey (OHS) (17%) and the US National Comorbidity Survey (NCS) (19%)7 as well as in the 2003–2004 Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) (22.3%).5Slightly different definitions of drop out were used in these earlier studies5 but these seem unlikely to have produced such large differences. Even the US National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R),8one of the high-income countries in the WMH surveys, had a somewhat lower level of drop out
(22.4%) than that for the high-income countries as a group (26.3%).
In the entire set of WMH surveys included here, drop out in the past 12 months was more likely after only one or two visits, and less likely if there had been prior treatment at any time, and if there were three or more providers. These findings may reflect severity and chronicity whereby patients with more need for services are less likely to drop out. However, the specific disorders experienced by the patients had little relationship to drop out and what associations were seen were inconsistent across sectors and across high-, middle- and low-income groups. Nor was the number of disorder groups associated with drop out. Moreover, analyses of severity indicated that drop out was lower for moderate and severe cases only among those with three or more visits. As drop out can occur because patients think that treatment is ineffective, or conversely, because they think it has been effective even though their provider does not think that they have completed treatment, these two very different reasons for treatment drop out14 may explain the failure to find measures of need for treatment to be strong predictors of drop out. An important implication of the findings for drop out by the number of visits is that more attention needs to be paid to the early stages of treatment, as one or two visits are unlikely to provide much benefit to patients.
There were some clear differences in drop out across treatment sectors. In contrast to the results from Canada,5drop out was less
common from the mental health sectors, particularly from psychiatric care. This finding held across high-, higher-middle-and low/lower-middle-income countries. The pattern for other sectors, however, was not consistent across country income groups and is undoubtedly related to what services are provided and how they can be accessed. Results for CAM were the most different.
Insurance was generally not related to drop out in the WMH surveys, in contrast to the OHS, NCS and the NCS-R, in which mental health insurance was associated with lower odds of drop out. The WMH failure to find a similar pattern may arise from significant heterogeneity in the structure and resources of the health systems of the countries surveyed, even within the income-level groups. For instance, the USA and New Zealand are both high-income countries, yet in the USA, for the majority of the population, access to care is dependent on health insurance, whereas in New Zealand most mental healthcare by professionals is accessed through a publically funded system, with very limited private insurance-funded mental healthcare available.
Sociodemographic characteristics are important prediposing factors for mental disorder3 and are associated with access to treatment.2Once an individual has accessed treatment, however, sociodemographic characteristics were found here to have little association with drop out. Both the OHS and NCS7found that younger people were more likely to drop out.
Strengths and limitations
The WMH survey results are strengthened by the fact that they are based on large national or regional probability samples and include middle-income and low-income countries, not just the high-income countries previously studied. Standard measures were used across the surveys and there was joint analysis of data. Nonetheless, there are several important limitations. One is that there is heterogeneity across the countries in health system service structure, funding and resourcing15and prevalence of disorders.3 This heterogeneity means that caution is needed in interpreting results based on pooled analyses, even though pooling was
Drop out from mental health treatment
necessary to avoid sparse data. A second limitation is that all data are based on self-report (as for all the other surveys discussed). Not only are there issues of recall over the past 12 months,16
but the definition of treatment drop out is based on the patient’s report that they terminated treatment prematurely, which might not always be the judgement of the provider. Also, analyses are based on visits in the past 12 months and may not correspond to an episode of care. Other limitations are that detailed characteristics of care and the matching of patient and treatment provider could not be considered. Despite these limitations, the findings from this study show that drop out is quite common regardless of the broader economic, health resourcing and health service structure in which the care is being provided, that drop out is most likely to occur early in the treatment process and that drop out is widely distributed in the sense that it is not strongly related either to sociodemographic or to clinical characteristics of patients. Drop out from general medical services is high and requires particular attention.
There have been many clinical studies of drop out from out-patient treatment in a variety of settings such as psychiatric or general mental health services, psychotherapy services and substance use services, mostly in high-income countries. These studies are able to define episodes of care. Many,17especially large studies of routinely collected data,18,19have few predictors apart
from sociodemographic characteristics.20 These are useful for indicating which groups of patients are hardest to retain in treatment but have not been particularly consistent across studies.21 Other smaller clinical studies have a richer set of predictors including more clinical details,22 views of patients and staff22–24and measures of the therapeutic alliance.25
Implications
The results reported here, other survey results and clinical studies all show that we have a good deal of work to do to address the important and widespread problem of treatment drop out. Not only is it important to provide access to treatment for mental health problems but it is also necessary to retain patients in treatment long enough for them to benefit.
Strategies for retention in psychotherapy have been reviewed21,26 with a call for more research, especially into
strategies other than pretherapy preparation.26 Barrett et al21
provide recommendations for role induction, motivational interviewing, therapist feedback and careful attention to the therapuetic alliance to reduce drop out. In an impoverished patient group, drop out was reduced by adding case management to therapy.27
Attempts to address drop out have been made in other settings. For example a prompt to encourage first attendance at psychiatric out-patient clinics,28and strategies like this may assist
with reducing early drop out. Patient–physician communication has been shown to influence use of antidepressants.29Strategies to address drop out from general medical services are required and most likely require further education and training, particularly for general practitioners, plus opportunities for them to refer patients on to other services. A salutory tale comes from a study of a change in case management for patients with substance misuse that found that the new centralised system reduced attendance and completion, indicating the need for careful evaluation of new systems.30
As we found predictors of drop out to be similar across country income-level groups, these strategies to address drop out may also be applicable regardless of the broader economic and health service structure in which the care is being provided.
J. Elisabeth Wells, PhD, Department of Public Health and General Practice, University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand;Mark Oakley Browne, FRANZCP, PhD, Discipline of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, The University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia;Sergio Aguilar-Gaxiola, MD, PhD, University of California, Davis, Center for Reducing Health Disparities, School of Medicine, Sacramento, California, USA;Ali Al-Hamzawi, MBChB, MD, FICMS, Al-Qadisia University College of Medicine, Diwania, Iraq;Jordi Alonso, MD, PhD, Health Services Research Unit, Institut Municipal d’Investigacio´ Me`dica (IMIM-Hospital del Mar), Barcelona, Spain, and CIBER en Epidemiologı´a y Salud Pu´blica (CIBERESP), Barcelona, Spain;Matthias C. Angermeyer, MD, Center for Public Mental Health, Go¨sing am Wagram, Austria;
Colleen Bouzan, MS, Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA;Ronny Bruffaerts, PhD, Universitair Psychiatrisch Centrum – Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (UPC-KUL), Leuven, Belgium;Brendan Bunting, PhD, Psychology Research Institute, University of Ulster, Londonderry, Northern Ireland, UK;Jose´ Miguel Caldas-de-Almeida, MD, PhD, Chronic Diseases Research Center (CEDOC) and Department of Mental Health, Faculdade de Cieˆncias Me´dicas, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal;Giovanni de Girolamo, MD, IRCCS Centro San Giovanni di Dio Fatebenefratelli, Brescia, Italy; Ron de Graaf, PhD, MSc, Trimbos Institute, Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction, Utrecht, The Netherlands;Silvia Florescu,MD, PhD, National School of Public Health Management and Professional Development, Bucharest, Romania;Akira Fukao, MD, Department of Public Health, Yamagata University Graduate School of Medical Science, Yamagata, Japan;Oye Gureje, MD, PhD, DSc, FRCPsych, WHO Collaborating Centre for Research and Training in Mental Health, Neurosciences, and Drug & Alcohol Abuse, Department of Psychiatry, University of Ibadan, University College Hospital, Ibadan, Nigeria;Hristo Ruskov Hinkov, MD, PhD, National Center for Public Health and Analyses, Sofia, Bulgaria;Chiyi Hu, MD, PhD, Shenzhen Institute of Mental Health and Shenzhen Kangning Hospital, Shenzhen, People’s Republic of China;Irving Hwang, MA, Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA;Elie G. Karam, MD, St George Hospital University Medical Center, Balamand University, Institute for Development, Research, Advocacy & Applied Care (IDRAAC), Medical Institute for Neuropsychological Disorders (MIND), Beirut, Lebanon;Stanislav Kostyuchenko, MD, Ukrainian Psychiatric Association, Kiev, Ukraine;Viviane Kovess-Masfety, MD, PhD, EA 4069 Universite´ Paris Descartes and EHESP School for Public Health Department of Epidemiology, Paris, France;Daphna Levinson, PhD, Research & Planning, Mental Health Services Ministry of Health, Jerusalem, Israel;Zhaorui Liu, MD, MPH, Institute of Mental Health, Peking University, Beijing, People’s Republic of China;Maria Elena Medina-Mora, PhD, National Institute of Psychiatry, Delegacion Tlalpan, Mexico City, Mexico;S. Haque Nizamie, MD, DPM, Central Institute of Psychiatry, Jharkhand, India;Jose´ Posada-Villa, MD, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Instituto Colombiano del Sistema Nervioso, Bogota´ DC, Colombia;Nancy A. Sampson, BA, Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA;Dan J. Stein, MD, PhD, University of Cape Town, Department of Psychiatry and Mental Health, J-Block, Groote Schuur Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa;Maria Carmen Viana, MD, PhD, Department of Social Medicine, Federal University of Espı´rito Santo (UFES), Vito´ria, Brazil;Ronald C. Kessler, PhD, Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Correspondence: J. Elisabeth Wells, Department of Public Health and General Practice, University of Otago, Christchurch PO Box 4345, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand. Email: elisabeth.wells@otago.ac.nz
First received 20 Apr 2012, final revision 26 Jul 2012, accepted 3 Oct 2012
Funding
The World Health Organization (WHO) World Mental Health (WMH) Survey Initiative is supported by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH; R01 MH070884), the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Pfizer Foundation, the US Public Health Service (R13-MH066849, R01-MH069864, and R01 DA016558), the Fogarty International Center (FIRCA R03-TW006481), the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), Eli Lilly and Company, Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, GlaxoSmithKline, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Each WMH country obtained funding for its own survey. The Sa˜o Paulo, Brazil Megacity Mental Health Survey is supported by the State of Sa˜o Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) Thematic Project Grant 03/00204-3. The Bulgarian Epidemiological Study of common mental disorders EPIBUL is supported by the Ministry of Health and the National Center for Public Health Protection. The Beijing, People’s Republic of China World Mental Health Survey Initiative is supported by the Pfizer Foundation. The Shenzhen, People’s Republic of China Mental Health Survey is supported by the Shenzhen Bureau of Health and the Shenzhen Bureau of Science, Technology, and Information. The Colombian National Study of Mental Health (NSMH) is supported by the Ministry of Social Protection. The ESEMeD project is funded by the European Commission (Contracts QLG5-1999-01042; SANCO 2004123 and EAHC 20081308), the Piedmont Region (Italy), Fondo de Investigacio´n Sanitaria, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Spain (FIS 00/0028), Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnologı´a, Spain (SAF 2000-158-CE), Departament de Salut, Generalitat de Catalunya, Spain, Instituto de Salud Carlos III (CIBER CB06/02/0046, RETICS RD06/0011 REM-TAP) and other local agencies and by an unrestricted educational grant from GlaxoSmithKline. The Epidemiological Study on Mental Disorders in Pondicherry, India, was funded jointly by Government of India and WHO. Implementation of the Iraq Mental Health Survey (IMHS) and data entry were carried out by the staff of the Iraqi MOH and MOP with direct support from the Iraqi IMHS team with funding from both the Japanese and European Funds through United Nations Development Group Iraq Trust Fund (UNDG ITF). The Israel National Health Survey is funded by the Ministry of Health with support from the Israel National Institute for Health Policy and Health Services Research and the National Insurance Institute of Israel. The World Mental Health Japan (WMHJ) Survey is supported by the Grant for Research on Psychiatric and Neurological Diseases and Mental Health (H13-SHOGAI-023, H14-TOKUBETSU-026, H16-KOKORO-013) from the Japan Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. The Lebanese National Mental Health Survey (LEBANON) is supported by the Lebanese Ministry of Public Health, the WHO (Lebanon), National Institute of Health/Fogarty
Wells et al
International Center (R03 TW006481-01), anonymous private donations to IDRAAC, Lebanon, and unrestricted grants from Janssen Cilag, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Hikma Pharm and Novartis. The Mexican National Comorbidity Survey (MNCS) is supported by The National Institute of Psychiatry Ramon de la Fuente (INPRFMDIES 4280) and by the National Council on Science and Technology (CONACyT-G30544- H), with supplemental support from PAHO. Te Rau Hinengaro: The New Zealand Mental Health Survey (NZMHS) is supported by the New Zealand Ministry of Health, Alcohol Advisory Council, and the Health Research Council. The Nigerian Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing (NSMHW) is supported by the WHO (Geneva), the WHO (Nigeria) and the Federal Ministry of Health, Abuja, Nigeria. The Northern Ireland Study of Mental Health was funded by the Health & Social Care Research & Development Division of the Public Health Agency. The Portuguese Mental Health Study was carried out by the Department of Mental Health, Faculty of Medical Sciences, NOVA University of Lisbon, with collaboration of the Portu-guese Catholic University, and was funded by Champalimaud Foundation, Gulbenkian Foundation, Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) and Ministry of Health. The Ro-mania WMH study projects ‘Policies in Mental Health Area’ and ‘National Study regarding Mental Health and Services Use’ were carried out by the National School of Public Health & Health Services Management (former National Institute for Research & Development in Health, present National School of Public Health Management & Professional Development, Bucharest), with technical support of Metro Media Transilvania, the National Institute of Statistics – National Centre for Training in Statistics, SC. Cheyenne Services SRL, Statistics Netherlands and were funded by Ministry of Public Health (former Ministry of Health) with supplemental support of Eli Lilly Romania SRL. The South Africa Stress and Health Study (SASH) is supported by the US NIMH (R01-MH059575) and National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA) with supplemental funding from the South African Department of Health and the University of Michigan. The Ukraine Comorbid Mental Disorders during Periods of Social Disruption (CMDPSD) study was funded by the US NIMH (RO1-MH61905). The US National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R) is supported by the NIMH (U01-MH60220) with supplemental support from the NIDA, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (grant 044708), and the John W. Alden Trust.
Acknowledgements
We thank the staff of the WMH Data Collection and Data Analysis Coordination Centres for assistance with instrumentation, fieldwork and consultation on data analysis. A complete list of all within-country and cross-national WMH publications can be found at http:// www.hcp.med.harvard.edu/wmh/.
References
1 Kessler RC, Haro JM, Heeringa SG, Pennell B-E, U¨stu¨n TB. The World Health Organization World Mental Health Survey Initiative.Epidemiol Psichiatr Soc 2006;15: 161–6.
2 Wang PS, Aguilar-Gaxiola S, Alonso J, Angermeyer MC, Borges G, Bromet EJ, et al. Use of mental health services for anxiety, mood, and substance disorders in 17 countries in the WHO World Mental Health Surveys.Lancet 2007;370: 841–50.
3 Demyttenaere K, Bruffaerts R, Posada-Villa J, Gasquet I, Kovess V, Lepine JP, et al. Prevalence, severity, and unmet need for treatment of mental disorders in the World Health Organization World Mental Health Surveys. JAMA2004;291: 2581–90.
4 Wang PS, Angermeyer M, Borges G, Bruffaerts R, Chiu WT, de Girolamo G, et al. Delay and failure in treatment seeking after first onset of mental disorders in the World Health Organization’s World Mental Health Survey Initiative.World Psychiatry2007;6: 177–85.
5 Wang J. Mental health treatment dropout and its correlates in a general population.Med Care2007;45: 224–9.
6 Wang PS, Gilman SE, Guardino M, Christiana JM, Morselli PL, Mickelson K, et al. Initiation of and adherence to treatment for mental disorders: examination of patient advocate group members in 11 countries.Med Care 2000;38: 926–36.
7 Edlund MJ, Wang PS, Berglund PA, Katz SJ, Lin E, Kessler RC. Dropping out of mental health treatment: patterns and predictors among epidemiological survey respondents in the United States and Ontario.Am J Psychiatry2002;
159: 845–51.
8 Olfson M, Mojtabai R, Sampson NA, Hwang I, Druss B, Wang PS, et al. Dropout from outpatient mental health care in the United States.Psychiatr Serv2009;60: 898–907.
9Kessler RC, U¨stu¨n B. The World Mental Health (WMH) Survey Initiative version of the World Health Organization (WHO) Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI).Int J Methods Psychiatr Res2004;13: 93–121.
10Andersen RM. Revisiting the behavioral model and access to medical care: does it matter?J Health Soc Behav1995;36: 1–10.
11Kessler RC, U¨stu¨n TB.The WHO World Mental Health Surveys. Global Perspectives on the Epidemiology of Mental Disorders.Cambridge University Press, 2008.
12American Psychiatric Association.Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th edn) (DSM-IV). APA, 1994.
13Kessler RC, Angermeyer M, Anthony JC, de Graaf R, Demyttenaere K, Gasquet I, et al. Lifetime prevalence and age-of-onset distributions of mental disorders in the World Health Organization’s World Mental Health Survey Initiative.World Psychiatry2007;6: 168–76.
14Westmacott R, Hunsley J. Reasons for terminating psychotherapy: a general population study.J Clin Psychol2010;66: 965–77.
15World Health Organization.Project Atlas: Resources for Mental Health.WHO, 2011 (http://www.who.int/mental_health/evidence/atlas/en/).
16Rhodes AE, Fung K. Self-reported use of mental health services versus administrative records: care to recall?Int J Methods Psychiatr Res2004;
13: 165–75.
17Wierzbicki M, Pekarik G. A meta-analysis of psychotherapy dropout.Prof Psychol Res Prac1993;24: 190–5.
18Beynon CM, McMinn AM, Marr AJ. Factors predicting drop out from, and retention in, specialist drug treatment services: a case control study in the North West of England.BMC Public Health2008;8: 149–59.
19Mitchell AJ, Selmes T. A comparative survey of missed initial and follow-up appointments to psychiatric specialties in the United Kingdom.Psychiatr Serv 2007;58: 868–71.
20Reneses B, Munoz E, Lopez-Ibor JJ. Factors predicting drop-out in community mental health centres.World Psychiatry2009;8: 173–7.
21Barrett MS, Chua WJ, Crits-Christoph P, Gibbons MB, Thompson D. Early withdrawal from mental health treatment: implications for psychotherapy practice.Psychotherapy2008;45: 247–67.
22Rossi A, Amaddeo F, Bisoffi G, Ruggeri M, Thornicroft G, Tansella M. Dropping out of care: inappropriate terminations of contact with community-based psychiatric services.Br J Psychiatry2002;181: 331–8.
23Ruggeri M, Salvi G, Bonetto C, Lasalvia A, Allevi L, Parabiaghi A, et al. Outcome of patients dropping out from community-based mental health care: a 6-year multiwave follow-up study.Acta Psychiatr Scand Suppl2007;
437: 42–52.
24Westmacott R, Hunsley J, Best M, Rumstein-McKean O, Schindler D. Client and therapist views of contextual factors related to termination from psychotherapy: a comparison between unilateral and mutual terminators. Psychother Res2010;20: 423–35.
25Johansson H, Eklund M. Helping alliance and early dropout from psychiatric out-patient care.Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epid2006;41: 140–7.
26Ogrodniczuk JS, Joyce AS, Piper WE. Strategies for reducing patient-initiated premature termination of psychotherapy.Harv Rev Psychiatry2005;13: 57–70.
27Miranda J, Azocar F, Organista KC, Dwyer E, Araene P. Treatment of depression among impoverished primary care patients from ethnic minority groups.Psychiatr Serv2003;54: 219–25.
28Kitcheman J, Adams CE, Pervaiz A, Kader I, Mohandas D, Brookes G. Does an encouraging letter encourage attendance at psychiatric out-patient clinics? The Leeds PROMPTS randomized study.Psychol Med2008;38: 717–23.
29Bull SA, Hu XH, Lee JY, Ming EE, Markson LE, Fireman B. Discontinuation of use and switching of antidepressants: influence of patient-physician communication.JAMA2002;288: 1403–9.
30Rohrer JE, Vaughan MS, Cadoret RJ, Carswell C, Patterson A, Zwick J. Effect of centralized intake on outcomes of substance abuse treatment.Psychiatr Serv1996;47: 1233–8.
1
Data supplement to: Wells JE et al. British Journal of Psychiatry, doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.112.113134
Table DS1
WMH sample characteristics by World Bank income categories
aCountry by
income
category
Survey
bSample
Characteristics
cField
Dates
Age
Range
Sample Size
Respons
e Rate
dPart I
Part II
Low and
Lower-middle
Colombia
NSMH
All urban areas of the country (approximately 73% of
the total national population)
2003 18-65
4426 2381 87.7
India -
Pondicherry
WMHI
Pondicherry region
2003-5
18+
2992
1373
98.8
Iraq IMHS
Nationally
representative.
2006-7
18+
4332
4332
95.2
Nigeria
NSMHW
21 of the 36 states in the country, representing 57% of
the national population. The surveys were conducted in
Yoruba, Igbo, Hausa and Efik languages.
2002-3 18+ 6752
2143 79.3
PRC
e–
Beijing/Sha
nghai
B-WMH
S-WMH
Beijing and Shanghai metropolitan areas.
2002-3
18+
5201
1628
74.7
PRC
e-
Shenzhen
Shenzhen
Shenzhen metropolitan area. Included temporary
residents as well as household residents.
2006-7 18+ 7132
2475 80.0
Ukraine CMDPSD
Nationally
representative. 2002
18+
4724
1719
78.3
Total Low
35559 16051
Upper-middle
Brazil - São
Paulo
São Paulo
Megacity
São Paulo metropolitan area.
2005-7
18+
5037
2942
81.3
Bulgaria NSHS
Nationally
representative.
2003-7
18+ 5318 2233 72.0
Lebanon LEBANON
Nationally
representative.
2002-3
18+ 2857 1031 70.0
Mexico
M-NCS
All urban areas of the country (approximately 75% of
the total national population).
2001-2 18-65 5782
2362 76.6
Romania RMHS Nationally
representative.
2005-6
18+ 2357 2357 70.9
South Africa
SASH
Nationally representative. 2003-4
18+
4315
4315
87.1
2
Middle
High
Belgium
ESEMeD
Nationally representative. The sample was selected from
a national register of Belgium residents.
2001-2 18+ 2419
1043 50.6
France ESEMeD
Nationally representative. The sample was selected from
a national list of households with listed telephone
numbers.
2001-2 18+ 2894
1436 45.9
Germany ESEMeD Nationally
representative. 2002-3
18+
3555
1323
57.8
Israel NHS Nationally
representative. 2002-4
21+
4859
4859
72.6
Italy
ESEMeD
Nationally representative. The sample was selected from
municipality resident registries.
2001-2 18+ 4712
1779 71.3
Japan
WMHJ2002-2006
Eleven metropolitan areas
2002-6 20+ 4129
1682 55.1
Netherlands
ESEMeD
Nationally representative. The sample was selected from
municipal postal registries.
2002-3 18+ 2372
1094 56.4
New
Zealand
fNZMHS Nationally
representative. 2003-4
18+
12790
7312
73.3
N. Ireland
NISHS
Nationally representative. 2004-7
18+
4340
1986
68.4
Portugal NMHS Nationally
representative. 2008-9
18+
3849
2060
57.3
Spain ESEMeD
Nationally
representative. 2001-2
18+
5473
2121
78.6
United
States
NCS-R Nationally
representative. 2002-3
18+
9282
5692
70.9
Total High
60674 32387
Total all
countries
121899 63678
aThe World Bank. (2008). Data and Statistics. Accessed May 12, 2009 at: http://go.worldbank.org/D7SN0B8YU0.
b
NSMH (The Colombian National Study of Mental Health); WMHI (World Mental Health India); IMHS (Iraq Mental Health Survey); NSMHW
(The Nigerian Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing); B-WMH (The Beijing World Mental Health Survey); S-WMH (The Shanghai World Mental
Health Survey); CMDPSD (Comorbid Mental Disorders during Periods of Social Disruption); NSHS (Bulgaria National Survey of Health and
Stress); LEBANON (Lebanese Evaluation of the Burden of Ailments and Needs of the Nation); M-NCS (The Mexico National Comorbidity
Survey); RMHS (Romania Mental Health Survey); SASH (South Africa Health Survey); ESEMeD (The European Study Of The Epidemiology Of
Mental Disorders); NHS (Israel National Health Survey); WMHJ2002-2006 (World Mental Health Japan Survey); NZMHS (New Zealand Mental
Health Survey); NISHS (Northern Ireland Study of Health and Stress); NMHS (Portugal National Mental Health Survey); NCS-R (The USA
National Comorbidity Survey Replication).
c
Most WMH surveys are based on stratified multistage clustered area probability household samples in which samples of areas equivalent to counties
or municipalities in the US were selected in the first stage followed by one or more subsequent stages of geographic sampling (e.g., towns within
counties, blocks within towns, households within blocks) to arrive at a sample of households, in each of which a listing of household members was
3
created and one or two people were selected from this listing to be interviewed. No substitution was allowed when the originally sampled household
resident could not be interviewed. These household samples were selected from Census area data in all countries other than France (where telephone
directories were used to select households) and the Netherlands (where postal registries were used to select households). Several WMH surveys
(Belgium, Germany, Italy) used municipal resident registries to select respondents without listing households. The Japanese sample is the only totally
un-clustered sample, with households randomly selected in each of the 11 metropolitan areas and one random respondent selected in each sample
household. 17 of the 25 surveys are based on nationally representative household samples.
d
The response rate is calculated as the ratio of the number of households in which an interview was completed to the number of households
originally sampled, excluding from the denominator households known not to be eligible either because of being vacant at the time of initial contact
or because the residents were unable to speak the designated languages of the survey.
The weighted average response rate is 72.0%.
e
People’s Republic of China.
f
New Zealand interviewed respondents 16+ but for the purposes of cross-national comparisons we limit the sample to those 18+.
Table DS2 Numbers in treatment and number of visits for each service provider sector for high, middle and low income countries, among WMH Survey respondents who had received mental health treatment in the past 12 months
In treatment Number of visits
High Income Countries Upper-Middle Income Countries Low/Lower- Middle Income Countries High Income Countries Upper-Middle Income Countries Low/Lower- Middle Income Countries
Service Providers na % (s.e.) na % (s.e.) na % (s.e.) Median IQRb Median IQRb Median IQRb
Psychiatrist 1451 22.8 (0.7) 393 20.5 (1.2) 170 19.7 (2.2) 2.9 (1.2-8.8) 2.8 (1.1-7.0) 1.9 (1.0-5.2) Other Mental Health 1664 29.1 (0.8) 310 16.7 (1.1) 123 13.7 (2.2) 4.6 (1.5-11.9) 2.2 (1.0-5.8) 1.0 (1.0-2.2)
General Medical 3782 61.2 (0.8) 966 56.8 (1.7) 399 45.9 (3.1) 1.5 (1.0-2.8) 2.1 (1.2-2.8) 1.4 (1.0-2.0) Human Services 684 12.1 (0.6) 268 16.9 (1.2) 139 18.3 (2.2) 2.3 (1.0-5.4) 2.4 (1.6-2.9) 2.0 (1.0-4.0)
CAM 729 12.8 (0.6) 266 17.0 (1.2) 131 15.1 (2.2) 4.2 (1.4-14.3) 1.6 (1.2-3.1) 1.7 (1.0-2.9) Anyc 5907 100.0 (0.0) 1738 100.0 (0.0) 837 100.0 (0.0) 2.4 (1.2-9.0) 2.5 (1.3-5.3) 1.6 (1.0-3.1)
a
Unweighted number of respondents who received treatment in the sector b
Interquartile range c
The median number of visits for any sector represents the median across all sectors, not within any one sector, among patients treated in one or more sectors
4
Table DS3a Premature termination of treatment for each sector among WMH Survey respondents in high, middle, low income countries who had received mental health treatment in the past 12 months
High Income countries Upper-Middle Income countries Low/Lower- Middle Income countries
na % (s.e.) na % (s.e.) na % (s.e.)
I. Among service providers
Psychiatrist 275 20.3 (1.5) 86 23.6 (3.1) 44 23.8 (5.2)
Other Mental Health 320 20.4 (1.2) 116 37.6 (3.3) 52 39.2 (8.4) General Medical 1407 35.4 (1.0) 488 52.5 (2.3) 220 52.5 (4.1)
Human Services 132 17.1 (1.7) 135 55.4 (4.6) 40 29.8 (5.9)
CAM 66 8.9 (1.3) 146 63.7 (3.5) 37 23.6 (5.9)
Anyb 1625 26.3 (0.7) 731 45.1 (1.7) 343 37.6 (2.7)
II. Significance tests 2 P-value 2 P-value 2 P-value
4 d.f. Statistical test across providers 232.9 <0.0001 44.2 <0.0001 15.8 0.003 a
Unweighted number of respondents who dropped out of treatment in the sector at time of interview b
5
Table DS3b Completion of treatment for each sector among WMH Survey respondents in high, middle, low income countries who had received mental health treatment in the past 12 months
High Income countries Upper-Middle Income countries Low/Lower- Middle Income countries
na % (s.e.) na % (s.e.) na % (s.e.)
I. Among service providers
Psychiatrist 264 19.1 (1.3) 82 22.4 (2.8) 68 42.1 (5.7)
Other Mental Health 433 28.5 (1.5) 62 23.2 (2.9) 27 23.0 (4.9)
General Medical 724 20.5 (1.0) 179 20.3 (1.7) 76 22.5 (3.3)
Human Services 185 30.3 (2.4) 38 12.0 (2.4) 26 16.7 (4.8)
CAM 98 14.3 (1.9) 26 7.8 (1.8) 17 15.9 (4.8)
Anyb 1038 20.0 (0.7) 323 19.5 (1.2) 180 24.2 (2.3)
II. Significance tests 2 P-value 2 P-value 2 P-value
4 d.f. Statistical test across providers . 47.6 <0.0001 . 35.1 <0.0001 . 19.1 0.001 a
Unweighted number of respondents who had completed treatment in the sector at time of interview b
6
Table DS3c WMH Survey respondents in high, middle, low income countries who had received mental health treatment in the past 12 months who were still in treatment at time of interview, for each sector
High Income countries Upper-Middle Income countries Low/Lower- Middle Income countries
na % (s.e.) na % (s.e.) na % (s.e.)
I. Among service providers
Psychiatrist 912 60.5 (1.6) 225 54.0 (3.3) 58 34.1 (5.9)
Other Mental Health 911 51.1 (1.4) 132 39.2 (3.6) 44 37.8 (6.7)
General Medical 1651 44.1 (1.1) 299 27.2 (2.0) 103 24.9 (3.6)
Human Services 367 52.6 (2.5) 95 32.6 (4.1) 73 53.5 (6.5)
CAM 565 76.8 (2.1) 94 28.4 (3.3) 77 60.5 (7.3)
Anyb 3244 53.7 (0.9) 684 35.4 (1.6) 314 38.2 (2.7)
II. Significance tests 2 P-value 2 P-value 2 P-value
4 d.f. Statistical test across providers . 172.9 <0.0001 . 29.2 <0.0001 . 22.1 0.0002 a
Unweighted number of respondents who were still in treatment in the sector at time of interview b
Patients treated in multiple sectors over the 12-month period who were still in treatment in any of those sectors at the time of interview were classified as still in treatment.
7
Table DS4 The cumulative probability of treatment drop out over the course of treatment for each sector (all countries combined)
Psychiatrist Other Mental Health General Medical Human Services CAM Any Provider
Number of visits (X) Proportion that dropped out by visit X Number of visits (X) Proportion that dropped out by visit X Number of visits (X) Proportion that dropped out by visit X Number of visits (X) Proportion that dropped out by visit X Number of visits (X) Proportion that dropped out by visit X Number of visits (X) Proportion that dropped out by visit X 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 2 0.069 2 0.090 2 0.098 2 0.074 2 0.051 2 0.065 3 0.165 3 0.162 3 0.421 3 0.143 3 0.255 3 0.281 4 0.214 4 0.199 4 0.538 4 0.372 4 0.278 4 0.336 5 0.230 5 0.220 5 0.556 5 0.389 5 0.286 5 0.348 6 0.243 6 0.238 6 0.572 6 0.410 6 0.308 6 0.372 7 0.256 7 0.255 7 0.579 7 0.418 7 0.314 7 0.389 8 0.260 8 0.260 8 0.579 8 0.429 8 0.322 8 0.394 9 0.275 9 0.271 9 0.584 9 0.429 9 0.324 9 0.405 10 0.279 10 0.273 10 0.584 10 0.429 10 0.324 10 0.407 11 0.288 11 0.295 11 0.588 11 0.434 11 0.333 11 0.414 12 0.291 12 0.296 12 0.591 12 0.434 12 0.333 12 0.415 13 0.306 13 0.308 13 0.605 13 0.475 13 0.336 13 0.423 14 0.306 14 0.309 14 0.605 14 0.475 14 0.336 14 0.425 15 0.311 15 0.310 15 0.605 15 0.480 15 0.337 15 0.428 16 0.315 16 0.310 16 0.605 16 0.483 16 0.341 16 0.429 17 0.320 17 0.321 17 0.605 17 0.483 17 0.341 17 0.431 18 0.320 18 0.321 18 0.605 18 0.483 18 0.341 18 0.433 19 0.320 19 0.323 19 0.605 19 0.483 19 0.341 19 0.433 20 0.320 20 0.325 20 0.605 20 0.483 20 0.341 20 0.433 OR 0.0 0.2 1.0 0.6 0.5 95%CI (0.0, 0.0) (0.2, 0.2) - (0.5, 0.9) (0.4, 0.7) Testa 2(4) = 816.1, P<0.0001 a
Test across sectors controlling for sector by visit interactions, using stacked data from 5 person-visits files: psychiatry, other mental, general medical, human services, CAM. Identifier dummy variables created for each person-visit file were used as the predictors, along with the number of visits.
8
Table DS5 Predictors of treatment drop out among WMH Survey respondents who had received mental health treatment in the past 12 months (all countries)a
Across all sectors (n=8482) OR (95% CI) 2 d.f. p-value Number of visits in
1-2 17.7
3+ 1.0 1177.4 1 <0.0001
Prior mental health
Yes 0.7 (0.6,0.8) 18.8 1 <0.0001 Number of providers 1 or 2 1.0 3 or 4 0.2 (0.1,0.3) 68.6 1 <0.0001 Service provider Psychiatrist 0.0 (0.0,0.1) Other Mental Health 0.2 (0.2,0.3)
General Medical 1.0 648.7 4 <0.0001 Human Services 0.7 (0.5,0.9)
CAM 0.6 (0.4,0.8)
Insurance
Yes (versus No) 1.1 (0.9,1.5) 1.1 1 0.29 Mental Disorders 7.4 4 0.12 Any Mood 1.1 (0.9,1.3) Any Anxiety 1.1 (0.9,1.3) Any Substance 1.4 (1.1,1.9) Any Impulse 1.1 (0.7,1.5) Number of disorders Only 1 1.0 2.2 1 0.14 2 or more 0.8 (0.6,1.1) Age 18-34 1.0 (0.8,1.4) 35-49 1.0 (0.8,1.4) 50-64 1.0 (0.8,1.3) 65+ 1.0 0.2 3 0.97 Gender Male (versus 1.0 (0.9,1.2) 0.2 1 0.68 Marital status Married/Cohabitated 1.0 1.9 2 0.40 Separated/Widowed/ 1.1 (0.9,1.4) Never Married 1.0 (0.8,1.2) Education No Education 0.9 (0.5,1.6) Some Primary 1.1 (0.8,1.6) Primary finished 1.1 (0.8,1.6) Some secondary 1.2 (0.9,1.6) Secondary finished 1.2 (0.9,1.5) Some college 1.0 (0.8,1.4) College finished or 1.0 4.2 6 0.66 Household income
9
Low 1.0 (0.8,1.3) Average-low 1.0 (0.8,1.3) Average-high 1.0 (0.8,1.3) High 1.0 0.2 3 0.98 aA multivariable model is used based on a discrete time survival framework with a person-visit file. Dummy variables for countries were also included in the model
10
Table DS6 Predictors of treatment drop out in each sector among WMH Survey respondents who had received mental health treatment in the past 12 months (all countries)a
Type of provider Psychiatrist (n=2014) Other Mental Health Professions (n=2097) General Medical (n=5147) Human Services (n=1091) CAM (n=1126) Significance across providers OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI) 2 [d.f.]
(P-value)
Number of visits in past 12 months
1-2 3.7 (2.8,5.0) 3.8 (2.9,4.9) 3.2 (2.6,4.0) 0.6 (0.3,0.9) 3.1 (1.8,5.3) 126.0 [4] (<0.0001)
3+ 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
2
(P-value)c 73.7 (<0.0001) 107.7 (<0.0001) 109.6 (<0.0001) 5.0 (0.025) 16.8 (<0.0001)
Prior mental health treatment (ever) 0.6 (0.4,0.8) 0.6 (0.5,0.8) 0.7 (0.6,0.8) 0.7 (0.5,1.1) 0.8 (0.5,1.2) 11.7 [4] (0.020) 2 (P-value)c 9.3 (0.002) 9.3 (0.002) 30.2 (<0.0001) 2.8 (0.10) 1.5 (0.22) Number of providers 1 or 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 28.2 [4] (<0.0001) 3 or 4 0.6 (0.4,0.9) 0.8 (0.6,1.1) 0.4 (0.3,0.5) 1.0 (0.7,1.4) 0.9 (0.7,1.2) 2 (P-value) 7.9 (0.005) 1.6 (0.20) 50.4 (<0.0001) 0.0 (0.84) 0.4 (0.55) Insurance Yes 0.7 (0.5,1.1) 1.0 (0.6,1.6) 1.1 (0.9,1.2) 1.1 (0.7,1.6) 1.0 (0.7,1.4) 1.4 [4] (0.85) 2 (P-value)c 2.6 (0.10) 0.0 (0.96) 0.0 (0.86) 0.1 (0.72) 0.0 (0.98) Mental Disorders Any Mood 0.9 (0.7,1.3) 0.9 (0.7,1.3) 0.9 (0.8,1.1) 1.6 (1.0,2.6) 1.0 (0.6,1.8) 17.1 [16] (0.38) Any Anxiety 1.0 (0.6,1.5) 1.1 (0.8,1.5) 1.0 (0.8,1.2) 1.3 (0.8,2.0) 1.1 (0.7,1.8) Any Substance 1.2 (0.8,1.8) 1.3 (1.0,1.8) 1.1 (0.9,1.4) 1.8 (1.1,3.1) 1.2 (0.7,2.0) Any Impulse 0.9 (0.5,1.6) 0.7 (0.4,1.2) 1.0 (0.8,1.4) 1.6 (0.8,3.3) 0.6 (0.3,1.3) 2 (P-value)c 1.0 (0.91) 6.4 (0.17) 3.2 (0.52) 6.7 (0.15) 3.8 (0.44) Number of disorders Only 1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 16.4 [4] (0.003) 2 or more 0.8 (0.5,1.5) 0.8 (0.5,1.4) 1.1 (0.8,1.4) 0.3 (0.2,0.6) 1.3 (0.6,3.0) 2 (P-value) 0.4 (0.54) 0.5 (0.48) 0.4 (0.51) 10.2 (0.001) 0.4 (0.53) Age 18-34 0.7 (0.4,1.2) 1.3 (0.6,2.9) 1.1 (0.9,1.4) 0.6 (0.2,1.6) 1.3 (0.7,2.4) 8.2 [12]
11
35-49 0.6 (0.4,0.9) 1.2 (0.6,2.7) 1.0 (0.8,1.3) 0.7 (0.3,1.7) 1.0 (0.5,2.1) (0.69) 50-64 0.6 (0.4,1.0) 1.0 (0.4,2.1) 0.9 (0.7,1.1) 0.8 (0.3,2.1) 1.0 (0.5,2.0) 65+ 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2 (P-value)c 5.7 (0.13) 2.2 (0.53) 5.6 (0.14) 1.9 (0.60) 2.1 (0.56) Gender Male 0.9 (0.7,1.3) 0.8 (0.6,1.0) 1.1 (1.0,1.3) 1.0 (0.7,1.4) 1.2 (0.9,1.6) 7.3 [4] (0.12) Female 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2 (P-value)c 0.2 (0.69) 2.7 (0.10) 2.4 (0.12) 0.0 (0.95) 1.7 (0.19) Marital status Married/Cohabitated 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 14.2 [8] (0.12) Separated/Widowed/Divorced 0.9 (0.6,1.4) 1.0 (0.7,1.4) 1.0 (0.9,1.3) 0.8 (0.4,1.3) 1.1 (0.7,1.8) Never Married 0.8 (0.5,1.1) 0.9 (0.7,1.3) 1.0 (0.8,1.2) 0.9 (0.6,1.3) 0.9 (0.6,1.2) 2 (P-value)c 1.6 (0.45) 0.2 (0.88) 1.7 (0.42) 1.1 (0.57) 1.9 (0.39) Education No Education 0.6 (0.1,2.7) ---b 0.8 (0.5,1.2) 0.5 (0.1,1.7) ---b 21.7 [24] (0.20) Some Primary 0.9 (0.5,1.5) 2.2 (1.3,3.8) 1.0 (0.8,1.3) 0.9 (0.4,2.1) 0.9 (0.5,1.9) Primary finished 1.0 (0.6,1.8) 1.4 (0.7,2.7) 0.9 (0.6,1.2) 0.8 (0.3,1.8) 0.8 (0.4,1.5) Some secondary 1.1 (0.7,1.7) 1.5 (1.0,2.3) 1.1 (0.8,1.3) 1.0 (0.5,2.1) 0.8 (0.4,1.5) Secondary finished 1.0 (0.6,1.6) 1.5 (1.0,2.2) 1.0 (0.8,1.2) 1.8 (0.9,3.6) 0.9 (0.5,1.8) Some college 1.4 (0.9,2.2) 1.6 (1.0,2.5) 0.9 (0.7,1.2) 1.1 (0.5,2.3) 1.0 (0.5,1.8)College finished or more 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
2 (P-value)c 3.5 (0.74) 11.5 (0.07) 4.5 (0.61) 10.1 (0.12) 3.3 (0.77) Household income low 1.1 (0.7,1.7) 0.9 (0.6,1.3) 0.9 (0.7,1.0) 1.8 (1.1,2.9) 1.3 (0.9,1.8) 21.5 [12] (0.010) average-low 1.0 (0.7,1.6) 1.0 (0.7,1.4) 1.0 (0.8,1.2) 1.9 (1.1,3.1) 1.2 (0.8,1.9) average-high 1.0 (0.6,1.4) 1.1 (0.8,1.6) 1.0 (0.8,1.2) 1.9 (1.1,3.3) 1.1 (0.7,1.8) high 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2 (P-value)c 0.7 (0.86) 1.1 (0.78) 5.3 (0.15) 8.1 (0.045) 1.7 (0.64) a
Models are multivariable (all predictors in each column were entered at once) and based on a survival framework (with person-visit file). Each column represents a separate multiv
