Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-017-1475-9

ORIGINAL PAPER

Twelve-month prevalence rates of mental disorders and service use

in the Argentinean Study of Mental Health Epidemiology
Juan Carlos Stagnaro1 · Alfredo H. Cía2 · Sergio Aguilar Gaxiola3 · Néstor Vázquez4 · Sebastián Sustas4 ·
Corina Benjet5 · Ronald C. Kessler6

Received: 4 September 2017 / Accepted: 17 December 2017

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract
Purpose  Community surveys of mental disorders and service use are important for public health policy and planning. There
is a dearth of information for Latin America. This is the first representative community survey in the Argentinean popula-
tion. The purpose is to estimate the 12-month prevalence and severity of mental disorders, socio-demographic correlates
and service use in a general population survey of adults from urban areas of Argentina.
Methods  The World Mental Health Composite International Diagnostic Interview was administered to 3927 individuals
aged 18 years and older participating in a multistage clustered area probability household survey. The response rate was 77%.
Results  The 12-month prevalence of any disorder was 14.8%, and a quarter of those disorders were classified as severe.
Younger participants and those with lower education had greater odds of any disorder and most classes of disorder. 11.6%
of the total population received treatment in the prior 12 months and only 30.2% of those with a severe disorder. Women
and those never married were more likely to receive or seek treatment, whereas those with low and low-average education
were less likely.
Conclusion  Most individuals with a mental disorder in the past year, even those with a severe disorder, have not received
treatment. Because low education is a barrier to treatment, initiatives aimed at mental health education might help timely
detection and treatment of these disorders in Argentina.

Keywords  Epidemiology · Psychiatric disorders · Argentina · Service use · Treatment

Introduction

General population surveys from the World Mental Health

* Juan Carlos Stagnaro Surveys Initiative across the globe estimate that 4–26% of
jcstagnaro@gmail.com the adult population experience a mental disorder in any
1
Department of Psychiatry and Mental Health, School given year and only 1–15% of the total population receive
of Medicine, University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, any treatment in the same time period [1]. As would be
Argentina expected, service use is greater for those with more severe
2
Anxiety Clinic and Research Center, Buenos Aires, disorders, and yet the mental health treatment gap contin-
Argentina ues to be a public health challenge even among those cases
3
Center for Reducing Health Disparities, University with the greatest severity [1]. Such wide variations in cross
of California, Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, CA, national estimates require an understanding of treatment
USA needs and service use in differing regions with unique pub-
4
Department of Public Health, School of Medicine, University lic health policies and resources as well as cultural attitudes
of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina toward mental disorders and help seeking. In Latin America,
5
Department of Epidemiology and Psychosocial Research, four countries from the World Mental Health Surveys have
National Institute of Psychiatry Ramón de la Fuente Muñiz, provided 12-month prevalence estimates of mental disor-
Mexico City, Mexico
ders, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico and Peru [2–5]. These coun-
6
Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, tries present a more narrow range of 12-month prevalence
Boston, USA

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

estimates from 12% for Mexico to 26% for Brazil. The treat-
ment gap is significant in Latin America as only 5–14% of
the total population in these countries received treatment and
only a quarter to a third of severe cases of mental disorder
received treatment.
Until now, no community 12-month prevalence and ser-
vice use estimates for common mental disorders in Argen-
tina have been available for public health planning. These
estimates are important for public health policy and plan-
ning, because mental disorders have been shown to account
for an important proportion of the global burden of disease
and to be costly both to the individual and society [6–8].
Argentina is the second largest country in Latin America
with the highest Human Development Index of the region
[9] and the greatest number of psychologists per capita in the
world (198 psychologists per 1000,000 inhabitants in Argen-
tina compared to 57/100,000 in Finland, 30/100,000 in the
USA, 11/100,000 in Colombia or 2/100,000 in Mexico) [10,
11]. The large number of psychologists may be due to a long
and fervent tradition of psychoanalysis in Argentina which
has permeated the general culture. Despite many psycholo-
gists in the country, there is a dearth of official statistics
on mental health services, resources and expenditures [10].
Mental health is treated within the three healthcare sectors
of the country, the public sector (which covers 38% of the
population and consists of public hospitals and primary
healthcare centers), the private sector, and the social secu-
rity sector called Obras Sociales with minimal coordination
between them [12].
Therefore because of the lack of information on the prev-
alence of mental disorders and use of services to treat them
in Argentina, and the many similarities (language, culture),
but also striking differences (economic development, num-
ber of psychologists), between Argentina and other Latin
American countries for which there are data, the aim of this
article is to estimate the 12-month prevalence and severity of
mental disorders, socio-demographic correlates and service
use to address these disorders in a general population survey
of adults from urban areas of Argentina; these data fill a gap
for epidemiologic information for this region of the world.
Methods
Sample and procedures
The Argentinean Study of Mental Health Epidemiology is
a representative household survey that used a multistage
probability sampling design to represent the population aged
18 years and older with a fixed residence living in one of
the eight largest metropolitan areas of the country (Buenos
Aires, Córdoba, Corrientes-Resistencia, Mendoza, Neuquén,
Rosario, Salta and Tucumán), covering roughly 50.1% of the
13
Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology
adult inhabitants in the country. Data collection was con-
ducted between February and June 2015. 5,082 individu-
als were randomly selected with the aforementioned eight
geographic regions making up the first-stage sampling units,
census areas within each geographic region comprising the
second-stage sampling units and five to seven randomly
selected households within each census area comprising the
third-stage sampling unit. The fourth and final sampling unit
was one randomly selected per household.
The research protocol and procedures were approved
by the Ethics Committee of the University of Buenos
Aires Medical School and have therefore been performed
in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the
1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments and
are consistent with the procedures followed in the WMH
Surveys [13]. After reading the study objectives to the par-
ticipants and informing them that their participation was
voluntary and confidential, the interviewer answered all
questions before seeking written informed consent. All inter-
views were conducted face to face using computer-assisted
personal interviewing (CAPI) methods by trained lay inter-
viewers in the selected respondents´ homes. Interview length
was approximately 2 h.
As in earlier WMH surveys, the survey was adminis-
tered in two parts [14]. Part I, which was administered to all
respondents, included assessments of core mental disorders,
while Part II was administered to a probability subsample of
2116 Part I respondents consisting of all those with a Part I
mental disorder and a randomly selected subsample of other
Part I respondents. Part II focused on correlates of disorders
and disorders of secondary interest. The Part II sample was
weighted to adjust for the undersampling of Part I non-cases
so that prevalence estimates in the weighted Part II sample
were equivalent to those in the Part I sample.
Instrument
Disorder assessment
Mental disorders experienced in the last 12 months were
evaluated with the World Mental Health Composite Inter-
national Diagnostic Interview (WMH-CIDI) [15], a fully
structured diagnostic interview previously used in the
World Mental Health Surveys Initiative, including the
Spanish-speaking participating Latin American countries.
Diagnoses made with the WMH-CIDI have shown accept-
able to good concordance with clinician diagnoses [16].
Disorders were assessed using the diagnostic criteria of
the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,
Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) [17]. Disorders were grouped as
follows: mood disorders (i.e., major depressive disorder,
bipolar I and II disorder and dysthymia), anxiety disorders
(i.e., panic disorder, agoraphobia without panic disorder,
Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology
social phobia, specific phobia, separation anxiety disorder,
obsessive–compulsive disorder, generalized anxiety disor-
der and post-traumatic stress disorder), substance use dis-
orders (i.e., alcohol and drug abuse and dependence) and
disruptive behavior disorders (i.e., oppositional-defiant
disorder, conduct disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder and intermittent explosive disorder).
Disorder severity
Disorders were classified as mild, moderate or severe,
according to the criteria previously implemented in the
World Mental Health Surveys [1]. For a mental disorder
to be considered severe, it had to meet one of the follow-
ing criteria: (1) the presence of a bipolar I disorder, (2)
substance dependence with a physiological dependence
syndrome, (3) a suicide attempt in conjunction with any
other mental disorder, or (4) reporting of at least two areas
with severe impairment as determined by a score of 7 or
higher on the Sheehan Disability Scales [18]. Respondents
not ascertained as having a severe disorder were classified
as moderate if they reported moderate impairment in any
domain (i.e., a score of 4 or higher on any Sheehan Dis-
ability Scale), or if the respondent had substance depend-
ence without physiological dependence syndrome. All
other disorders studied were classified as mild.
Service use
The WMH-CIDI survey assessed service use by first deter-
mining if respondents sought attention for emotional,
nervous, mental, or substance use problems in the prior
12 months from a long list of professionals. The type of
service provider was classified into healthcare sector and
non-healthcare sector professionals. The healthcare sector
was further classified into mental health professionals and
general medical professionals. Mental health professionals
consisted of psychiatrists and other mental health profes-
sionals such as psychologists, counselors, psychothera-
pists, mental health nurses and social workers in a mental
health specialty setting. General medical professionals
consisted of family physicians, general practitioners and
other medical doctors, such as cardiologists, or gynecolo-
gists (for women) and urologists (for men), nurses, occu-
pational therapists, or other healthcare professionals. The
non-healthcare sector consisted of human services and
complementary alternative medicine such as religious or
spiritual advisors, Internet use, self-help groups and any
other healers or alternative therapy like curanderos, a chi-
ropractor or a spiritualist.
Socio‑demographic correlates
The WMH-CIDI evaluated the following socio-demographic
correlates: sex, age, income (classified as low, low-average,
high-average and high), marital status (classified as married
or cohabitating, previously married (separated/divorced/wid-
owed) and never married) and education (classified as low,
low-average, high-average and high).
Data analysis
Data were weighted to adjust for differential probabilities
of selection within and between households chosen and to
match sampling distributions to population distributions.
Part II samples were additionally weighted for the under-
sampling of Part  I respondents without core disorders.
As a result of this complex sample design and subsequent
weighting, estimates of standard errors of proportions were
obtained by the Taylor Series Linearization Method [19]
using SUDAAN release 8.0.1 for Windows [20]. Prevalence
and service use in the prior 12 months were estimated as the
proportion of respondents who had a disorder and consulted
a professional during that period of time. Standard errors of
estimates were obtained using the Jackknife Repeated Repli-
cation (JRR) [21] method implemented in a SAS macro [22].
Logistic regression equations were conducted to estimate the
socio-demographic correlates of disorder and service use.
Results
The response rate was 77% for a total sample of 3,997
participants. The most common reasons for non-response
included being absent or not at home when interviewers vis-
ited (10.7%) and refusal to participate (9.3%).
Prevalence and severity of mental disorders
The 12-month prevalence of any mental disorder was 14.8%,
with 10.7% having exactly one disorder, 2.4% two disorders
and 1.6% three or more disorders. The 12-month prevalence
of each diagnostic category and each individual disorder is
shown in Table 1. The most common diagnostic category
was anxiety disorders (9.4%), followed by mood disorders
(5.7%) and substance use disorders (2.4%), and the least
common was disruptive behavior disorders (0.5%). The most
common individual disorder was specific phobia (4.8%), fol-
lowed by major depressive disorder (3.8%), obsessive–com-
pulsive disorder (2.5%) and bipolar disorder (2.0%). The
12-month prevalence of a severe disorder was 3.7%.
The proportion of mild, moderate and severe disorders by
type of disorder is presented in Table 2. Twenty-five percent
of all disorders were classified as severe, 35.9% as moderate
13
 Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology

Table 1  Twelve-month prevalence of DSM-IV disorders with a greater number of disorders had a higher proportion
12-month prevalence
of severe disorders.

% SE
Disorder severity and service utilization
Anxiety disorders
 Panic disorder 0.8 0.2 The prevalence of any treatment and treatment from differ-
 Generalized anxiety disorder 1.5 0.2 ent sectors and by disorder severity is shown in Table 3. Of
 Social phobia 1.3 0.2 the total population, 11.6% received any treatment in the
 Specific phobia 4.8 0.3 prior 12 months, primarily in the healthcare sector (10.9%),
 Agoraphobia without panic 0.3 0.1 and within this sector, mostly by mental health professionals
 Post-traumatic stress disorder 1.1 0.2 (8.0%). Only 1.7% of the total population received treat-
 Adult separation anxiety disorder 0.6 0.1 ment in the non-healthcare sector. Those with mild disorders
 Obsessive–compulsive disorder 2.5 0.8 received less treatment (22.1%) than those with moderate
 Any anxiety disorder 9.4 0.5 (32.5%) or severe disorders (30.2%). A small number of
Mood disorders those not meeting the 12-month DSM-IV criteria for any
 Dysthymia 0.4 0.1 disorder also received some treatment (8.7%).
 Major depressive disorder 3.8 0.4
 Bipolar disorder (I and II) 2.0 0.2 Socio‑demographic correlates of 12‑month
 Any mood disorder 5.7 0.6 disorders
Disruptive behavior disorders
 Oppositional-defiant disorder 0.0 0.0 Table 4 presents the socio-demographic correlates (i.e., sex,
 Conduct disorder 0.1 0.1 age, income, marital status and education) of meeting cri-
 Attention deficit disorder 0.4 0.1 teria for any 12-month disorder and each class of disorder
 Intermittent explosive disorder 0.1 0.1 (i.e., mood, anxiety, disruptive and substance disorders).
 Any disruptive behavior disorder 0.5 0.1 While sex was not associated with meeting criteria for any
Substance disorders disorder, women had almost twice the odds of an anxiety
 Alcohol abuse 1.5 0.2 disorder (OR = 1.98; 95% CI = 1.32–3.0) and reduced odds
 Alcohol dependence 0.3 0.1 of a disruptive behavior (OR = 0.39; 95% CI = 0.22–0.68)
 Drug abuse 1.0 0.2 and substance use disorder (OR = 0.19; 95% CI = 0.10–0.36).
 Drug dependence 0.4 0.1 Younger age was associated with any disorder and to each
 Any substance use disorder 2.4 0.3 class of disorder with ORs ranging from 1.9 for the odds of
Any disorder an anxiety disorder among the youngest group aged 18–34 to
 Any 14.8 0.9 a high of 34.1 for the odds of a disruptive behavior disorder
 0 disorders 85.2 0.9 among the youngest group. Low and low-average educa-
 1 disorder 10.7 0.8 tion was associated with greater odds of any disorder, any
 2 disorders 2.4 0.3 mood and any anxiety disorder with ORs ranging from 1.6
 3+ disorders 1.6 0.3 for the odds of any disorder among those with low-average
Severity education to 3.1 for the odds of any mood disorder among
 Severe 3.7 0.4 those with low education. Income and marital status was not
 Moderate 5.3 0.5 associated with 12-month disorders.
 Mild 5.8 0.6
Correlates of 12‑month service use
Part I total sample size = 3927; Part II total sample size = 2116

We show in Table 5 the socio-demographic correlates of

and 39.1% as mild. Mood disorders had the greatest propor-
tion of severe disorders (38.6%), followed by substance use
disorders (35.8%) and disruptive behavior disorders (28.3%),
and with the lowest proportion of severe disorders, the anxi-
ety disorders (22.9%). Individual disorders with the high-
est severity were drug dependence and oppositional-defiant
disorder (100%), followed by alcohol dependence (65.7%),
bipolar disorder (55.7%), drug abuse (50.2%), post-traumatic
stress disorder (41.9%) and social phobia (41.3%). Those
the past 12-month treatment in the total population. Women
were more likely than men to receive/seek any treatment
(OR = 1.72; 95% CI = 1.18–2.51) as were the never mar-
ried more likely than the married or cohabitating to receive/
seek any treatment (OR = 1.64; 95% CI = 1.05–2.56). Those
with high-average income were less likely than those with
high income to receive/seek any treatment (OR = 0.58; 95%
CI = 0.36–0.92). Similarly, respondents with low and low-
average education levels were less likely to receive/seek

13
Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology

Table 2  Proportion of mild, Severity

moderate and severe disorders
by individual disorder and Mild Moderate Severe
disorder class
% SE % SE % SE

Anxiety disorders
 Panic disorder 29.4 6.6 44.1 9.2 26.5 11.2
 Generalized anxiety disorder 39.3 7.8 38.5 7.3 22.2 5.7
 Social phobia 24.7 6.7 34.0 8.3 41.3 9.3
 Specific phobia 30.2 4.1 36.2 4.4 25.8 5.2
 Agoraphobia without panic 17.6 10.2 52.5 13.0 29.8 14.2
 Post-traumatic stress disorder 21.0 8.5 37.2 6.5 41.9 12.1
 Adult separation anxiety 22.3 9.8 34.5 10.5 35.3 9.3
 Obsessive–compulsive disorder 64.1 10.2 12.7 7.0 23.1 9.9
 Any anxiety disorder 40.3 4.8 36.8 4.1 22.9 3.4
Mood disorders
 Dysthymia 26.8 12.8 37.8 12.7 35.4 14.4
 Major depressive disorder 16.3 3.0 53.5 4.9 30.2 5.0
 Bipolar disorder (I and II) 9.1 3.4 35.2 6.2 55.7 5.7
 Any mood disorder 14.5 2.3 46.9 3.5 38.6 3.7
Disruptive behavior disorders
 Oppositional-defiant disorder 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0
 Conduct disorder 83.5 19.5 0.0 0.0 16.5 19.5
 Attention deficit disorder 58.8 11.4 9.8 5.1 31.4 8.1
 Intermittent explosive disorder 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
 Any disruptive behavior disorder 64.0 10.1 7.7 4.0 28.3 8.1
Substance disorders
 Alcohol abuse 49.0 10.9 18.2 5.3 32.8 10.5
 Alcohol dependence 0.0 0.0 34.3 19.2 65.7 19.2
 Drug abuse 35.1 16.5 14.7 7.2 50.2 17.8
 Drug dependence 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0
 Any substance use disorder 45.8 10.4 18.4 4.6 35.8 10.4
Any disorder
 Any 39.1 3.0 35.9 2.8 25.1 2.8
 0 disorders 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
 1 disorder 49.7 3.8 34.6 2.8 15.7 2.4
 2 disorders 14.7 3.4 45.2 6.3 40.1 6.8
 3+ disorders 4.3 2.2 30.4 6.7 65.4 7.2

Part I total sample size = 3927; Part II total sample size = 2116

Table 3  Prevalence of treatment Treatment Severe Moderate Mild None All

by disorder severity and
treatment sector % SE % SE % SE % SE % SE

Healthcare 27.8 3.6 31.3 4.8 21.0 5.1 8.2 0.8 10.9 0.8
 General medical 10.8 1.9 10.5 2.2 12.3 3.4 2.4 0.4 3.8 0.4
 Mental health 21.5 4.0 23.5 4.0 11.3 4.1 6.2 0.7 8.0 0.7
Non-healthcare 4.2 1.7 2.2 1.3 3.7 2.4 1.4 0.4 1.7 0.4
Any treatment 30.2 3.7 32.5 4.8 22.1 5.2 8.7 0.8 11.6 0.9
No treatment 69.8 3.7 67.5 4.8 77.9 5.2 91.3 0.8 88.4 0.9

Non-healthcare includes human services and complementary alternative medicine

Evaluated only on Part II sample; total Part II sample size, n = 2116

13
 Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology

Table 4  Socio-demographic correlates of any and each class of disorder in the prior 12 months
Any disorder Any mood disorder Any anxiety disorder Any disruptive disorder Any substance dis-
order
OR 95% CI OR 95% CI OR 95% CI OR 95% CI OR 95% CI

Sex
 Females 1.25 0.91 1.72 1.45 0.96 2.20 1.98 1.32 2.98 0.39 0.22 0.68 0.19 0.10 0.36
 Males 1.00 – – 1.00 – – 1.00 – – 1.00 – – 1.00 – –
 χ2/DF/Prob 2.11 1.00 0.15 3.40 1.00 0.07 11.78 1.00 0.01 11.71 1.00 0.01 29.15 1.00 0.01
Age
 18–34 3.31 2.05 5.35 3.70 1.81 7.56 1.93 1.16 3.23 34.11 5.20 224.01 7.01 2.45 20.10
 35–49 2.62 1.73 3.97 3.20 1.62 6.32 2.32 1.45 3.71 10.03 0.89 113.23 2.54 1.04 6.20
 50–64 2.32 1.13 4.74 1.85 0.86 4.00 2.35 1.05 5.26 2.96 0.15 59.06 1.00 – –
 65+ 1.00 – – 1.00 – – 1.00 – – 1.00 – – – – –
 χ2/DF/Prob 40.96 3.00 0.01 24.03 3.00 0.01 13.48 3.00 0.01 31.03 3.00 0.00 14.40 2.00 0.01
Income
 Low 1.40 0.94 2.07 1.28 0.75 2.19 1.47 0.92 2.33 0.68 0.09 5.16 2.36 0.74 7.49
 Low average 0.99 0.66 1.49 0.75 0.44 1.28 1.04 0.52 2.11 1.28 0.10 17.42 2.36 0.75 7.42
 High average 0.70 0.48 1.04 0.70 0.39 1.24 0.73 0.43 1.22 0.36 0.03 4.19 1.45 0.42 4.95
 High 1.00 – 1.00 – – 1.00 – – 1.00 – – 1.00 – –
 χ2/DF/prob 14.05 3.00 0.01 11.72 3.00 0.01 9.81 3.00 0.02 6.14 3.00 0.11 3.31 3.00 0.35
Marital status
 Married/ 1.00 – – 1.00 – – 1.00 – – 1.00 – – 1.00 – –
cohabiting
 Sep/wid/ 1.38 0.97 1.96 1.53 1.00 2.36 1.07 0.73 1.57 1.94 0.50 7.55 3.26 0.96 11.06
divorced
 Never married 1.26 0.93 1.71 1.15 0.74 1.78 1.27 0.84 1.93 0.56 0.15 2.04 1.36 0.60 3.29
 χ2/DF/prob 5.10 2.00 0.08 4.32 2.00 0.12 1.42 2.00 0.49 2.12 2.00 0.35 3.99 2.00 0.14
Education
 Low 2.06 1.36 3.12 1.89 1.19 3.01 2.15 1.35 3.41 5.04 0.59 43.40 1.55 0.56 4.30
 Low average 1.61 1.01 2.57 1.23 0.70 2.15 2.05 1.11 3.80 3.03 0.13 71.11 0.70 0.19 2.54
 High average 1.37 0.97 1.93 1.21 0.68 2.14 1.48 0.92 2.38 2.87 0.84 9.84 0.65 0.29 1.45
 High 1.00 – – 1.00 – – 1.00 – – 1.00 – – 1.00 – –
 χ2/DF/prob 13.80 3.00 0.01 10.19 3.00 0.02 12.56 3.00 0.01 6.59 3.00 0.09 3.90 3.00 0.27
Overall
 χ2/DF/Prob 976.82 13.00 0.01 1298.0 13.00 0.01 2866.8 13.00 0.01 10,030 13.00 0.01 737.07 12.00 0.01

Evaluated only on Part II sample; sample size for Part II is 2116

*To make the logistic model more stable, the age categories 50–64 and 65 + were collapsed for any substance disorder such that the reference
category was 50 and more

treatment (OR = 0.50; 95% CI = 0.28–0.92 and OR = 0.50;
95% CI = 0.30–0.85, respectively).
Discussion
Nearly one in seven (14.8% of) Argentinean adults in urban
areas have experienced a mental disorder in the year prior
to the Argentinean Study of Mental Health Epidemiology
and a quarter of those disorders may be considered severe.
This is slightly lower than the 17.6% pooled 12-month preva-
lence of common mental disorders in a meta-analysis of 174
mental health surveys across 63 countries, but within the
interquartile range of 12.3% − 24.3% [23]. Unfortunately,
the greatest majority of those with disorder did not receive
any treatment; only 22.1% of those with a mild disorder and
30.2% of those with severe disorders received treatment and
mostly in the healthcare sector by mental health profession-
als. While moderate and severe disorders were more likely to
receive treatment than mild disorders, suggesting rationality
of service allocation, this also shows the need for improving
timely detection such that disorders are treated when they are
mild to prevent greater severity or complications of disor-
ders over time [24, 25]. Of those that did not meet criteria

13
Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology

Table 5  Socio-demographic correlates of 12-month treatment among Like Mexico and Colombia, and unlike many other parts
the total population of the world, mental disorders in Argentina were treated
Any Treatment more by mental health specialists than in general medical
practice [3, 4, 28]. This supports an emerging pattern for
OR 95% CI
Latin American countries and is at odds with the World
Sex Health Organization recommendation to treat most mental
 Females 1.72 1.18 2.51 disorders in primary care, thus giving access to a greater
 Males 1.00 – – number of people and for primary care to be a gatekeeper
 χ2/DF/prob 8.67 1.00 0.01 to more specialized services for more severe cases [29]. In
Age Argentina, though the gatekeeper approach is incorporated
 18–34 0.54 0.26 1.11 into stated public health policy, it is inconsistently imple-
 35–49 0.88 0.52 1.49 mented [12]. Very few people sought attention in the non-
 50–64 1.12 0.50 2.51 healthcare sector in Argentina.
 65+ 1.00 – – The twelve-month prevalence estimates for any mental
 χ2/DF/Prob 7.36 3.00 0.06 disorder and each class of disorder in Argentina were con-
Income sistent with the other Latin American countries. For exam-
 Low 0.63 0.40 1.01 ple, nearly 15% of Argentineans experienced any disorder,
 Low average 0.60 0.35 1.05 similar to 13.5% of Peruvians and 12.2% of Mexicans and
 High average 0.58 0.36 0.92 lower than 26% of Brazilians and 20% of Colombians [2–5].
 High 1.00 – – The diagnostic category for which Argentina differed most
 χ2/DF/prob 6.93 3.00 0.07 from the other Latin American countries was the disrup-
Marital status tive behavior disorders which were present in only 0.5% of
 Sep/widowed/divorced 1.02 0.61 1.69 Argentineans versus 1.6% of Mexicans, 3.5% of Peruvians,
 Never married 1.64 1.05 2.56 4.2% of Brazilians and 4.4% of Colombians [2–5].
 Married/cohabiting 1.00 – – We found that younger and less educated individuals had
 χ2/DF/prob 6.07 2.00 0.05 a higher prevalence of disorders. Low education may be
Education associated with disorders, in that early-onset disorders have
 Low 0.50 0.28 0.92 been shown to impact school dropout [30–32]. Women were
 Low average 0.50 0.30 0.85 found to have a higher prevalence of anxiety disorders and a
 High average 0.76 0.49 1.18 lower prevalence of substance use and disruptive behavior
 High 1.00 – – disorders compared to men as has been reported previously
 χ2/DF/prob 15.11 3.00 0.01 [33, 34].
Overall Not all correlates of disorder are correlates of treatment
 χ2/DF/prob 1043.9 13.00 0.01 use. The Behavioral Model of Health Services Use posits
Evaluated only on Part II sample; sample size for Part II is 2116
that treatment use is determined by predisposition to use
services (which can be demographic, social and beliefs),
factors which enable or impede service use (such as health
for any disorder, a small number (8.7%) also received treat- policy, financing and organization) and need for care [35].
ment. Whether this represents a misallocation of treatment We focused on individual predisposing demographic factors
resources or can be explained by subthreshold cases receiving and found women and those who have never been married
early attention or those who no longer meet criteria receiving more likely to have sought or received treatment and those
follow-up care cannot be determined from this study. Due to with low or low-average education less likely to have sought
the large number of psychologists in the country, and particu- or received treatment. These are consistent with results
larly psychoanalytic psychologists, this group might represent found in a report of 17 WMH countries, in which women
individuals in psychoanalysis for the purpose of self-actualiza- were found to use services more than men in 10 countries
tion [26]. In a prior study of 23 WMH countries, it was found (with no gender differences in the remaining), greater educa-
that of those receiving 12-month treatment, 52% met past year tion was related to greater service use in 3 countries, being
criteria for a mental disorder, an additional 18% for a lifetime married was associated with greater use in 5 countries and
disorder (but not in the prior 12 months) and an additional income was positively related to service use in 3 countries
13% had other indicators of need such as multiple subthresh- and negatively in 1 [28]. Sex differences in service utili-
old disorders, recent stressors or suicidal behaviors, leaving zation for mental disorders have been well documented in
almost 16% in treatment with no discernable need [27]. other studies as well [36–38]. It has been suggested that
women seek treatment more because they may be more

13

likely to identify mental health symptoms or perceive less
stigma related to mental disorders or treatment [28]. Results
from other studies on marital status are less consistent. In
a systematic review of help-seeking behavior among indi-
viduals with major depression out of 15 studies, 4 found that
being married was negatively associated with help seeking
and 1 study the opposite [39]. Though speculative, those
who have never been married may be more likely to seek
treatment because of a lack of social support which foments
outside help seeking. That low education, but not income,
is related to lower likelihood of treatment in Argentina may
be due to lack of information regarding mental disorders
or negative attitudes toward treatment rather than a lack of
financial resources. Given that low education is related to
both a greater prevalence of disorder and simultaneously less
treatment suggests greater health disparities in this group.
This study only addressed receiving treatment, but whether
the treatment received is evidence-based treatment or mini-
mally adequate requires further study.
These findings should be considered in light of the limi-
tations of the study. Because this survey is representative
only of the largest urban metropolitan areas, the results can-
not be generalized to individuals in rural or other areas of
Argentina. Participants were limited to those with a per-
manent residence, and therefore the prevalence may be
underestimated by the exclusion of homeless, hospitalized
or institutionalized individuals. Finally, the cross-sectional
design of the study precludes inferences regarding causality
or directionality of the socio-demographic correlates and
their association with disorders and treatment.
Despite these limitations, we report the first representative
estimates of 12-month mental disorder and treatment use in
the general adult population of urban Argentina with the same
methodology as the World Mental Health Surveys, thus allow-
ing for comparisons with other countries within and outside
of Latin America as well as providing data for local public
health planning and policies. These data suggest an impor-
tant treatment gap in the population; a greater use of treat-
ment in specialized care rather than primary care indicates
the need for greater training of general medical practitioners
in the detection and care of common mild disorders; greater
disparities for those with low levels of education suggest that
initiatives aimed at mental health literacy might help timely
detection and treatment of these disorders in Argentina.
Acknowledgements  The Argentinean Study of Mental Health Epide-
miology was funded by the Ministerio de Salud de la Nación (Argen-
tinean Ministry of Health) (Grant number 2002–17270/13–5). This sur-
vey was carried out in conjunction with the World Health Organization
World Mental Health (WMH) Survey Initiative. We thank the WMH
staff for assistance with instrumentation and fieldwork.
13
Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology
Compliance with ethical standards 
Conflict of interest  In the past 3 years, Dr. Kessler received support for
his epidemiological studies from Sanofi Aventis; was a consultant for
Johnson & Johnson Wellness and Prevention, Sage Pharmaceuticals,
Shire, Takeda; and served on an advisory board for the Johnson &
Johnson Services Inc. Lake Nona Life Project. Kessler is a co-owner
of DataStat, Inc., a market research firm that carries out healthcare
research. On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that
none of the other authors have conflicts of interest.
References
1. Demyttenaere K, Bruffaerts R, Posada-Villa J et al (2004) Preva-
lence, severity, and unmet needs for treatment of mental disorders
in the World Health Organization World Mental Health Survey.
JAMA 291(21):2581–2590
2. Andrade LH, Wang YP, Andreoni S et al (2012) Mental disorders
in megacities: findings from the São Paulo megacity mental health
survey, Brazil. PLoS One 7(2):e31879
3. Posada-Villa J, Rodriguez M, Duque P et al (2008) Mental disor-
ders in Colombia: results from the World Mental Health Survey.
In: Kessler RC, Ustun TB (eds) The WHO World Mental Health
Surveys: global perspectives on the epidemiology of mental dis-
orders. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 131–143
4. Medina-Mora ME, Borges G, Lara C, Benjet C, Blanco J, Fleiz C,
Villatoro J, Rojas E, Zambrano J (2005) Prevalence, service use,
and demographic correlates of 12-month DSM-IV psychiatric dis-
orders in Mexico: results from the Mexican National Comorbidity
Survey. Psychol Med 35(12):1773–1784
5. Piazza M, Fiestas F (2014) Prevalencia anual de trastornos y uso
de servicios de salud mental en el Perú: resultados del estudio
mundial de salud mental, 2005. Rev Peru Med Exp Salud Pública
31(1):30–38
6. Global Burden of Disease Study 2013 Collaborators (2015)
Global, regional and national incidence, prevalence, and years
lived with disability for 301 acute and chronic conditions and
injuries for 188 countries, 1990–2013: a systematic analy-
sis for the global burden of disease study 2013. The Lancet
386(9995):743–800
7. Alonso J, Petukhova M, Vilagut G et  al (2011) Days out of
role due to common physical and mental conditions: results
from the WHO World Mental Health surveys. Mol Psychiatry
(16):1234–1246
8. Schofield D, Shrestha RN, Percival R, Passey ME, Callander EJ,
Kelly SJ (2011) The personal and national costs of mental health
conditions: impacts on income, taxes, government support pay-
ments. BMC Psychiatry 11:72
9. United National Development Programme (UNDP) (2013) Human
development report 2013: the rise of the south: human progress
in a diverse world. http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/Country-
Profiles/ARG.pdf. Accessed Mar 2017
10. World Health Organization (2014) Mental health atlas 2014.
World Health Organization, Geneva
11. Modesto MA, Klinar D (2016) Los psicólogos/as en Argentina.
Relevamiento Cuantitativo 2015 [Psychologists in Argentina.
Quantitative review]. Poster presented in the IV Congreso Inter-
nacional de Investigación y Práctica Profesional en Psicología;
XIX Jornada de Investigación; 8° Encuentro de Investigadores de
Psicología del MERCOSUR. Buenos Aires
12. Ase I, Burijovich J (2009) La estrategia de Atención Primaria de la
Salud:¿progresividad o regresividad en el derecho a la salud? [The
Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology
primary health care strategy: progressiveness or retrogressivness
in the health rights?] Salud colectiva 5(1):27–47
13. Pennell BE, Mneimneh ZN, Bowers A et al (2008) Implementa-
tion of the World Mental Health Surveys. In: Kessler RC, Üstün
TB (eds) The WHO World Mental Health Surveys: global per-
spectives on the epidemiology of mental disorders. Cambridge
University Press, New York, pp 33–57
14. Heeringa SG, Wells EJ, Hubbard F et al (2008) Sample designs
and sampling procedures. In: Kessler RC, Üstün TB (eds) The
WHO World Mental Health Surveys: global perspectives on the
epidemiology of mental disorders. Cambridge University Press,
New York, pp 14–32
15. Kessler RC, Üstün TB (2004) The World Mental Health (WMH)
Survey initiative. Version of the World Health Organization
(WHO) composite international diagnostic interview (CIDI). Int
J Methods Psychiatr Res 13(2):93–121
16. Haro JM, Arbabzadeh-Bouchez S, Brugha TS et al (2006) Con-
cordance of the composite international diagnostic interview ver-
sion 3.0 (CIDI 3.0) with standardized clinical assessments in the
WHO World Mental Health Surveys. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res
15:167–180
17. American Psychiatric Association (1994) Diagnostic and statis-
tical manual of mental disorders, 4 edn. American Psychiatric
Association, Washington, DC
18. Sheehan DV, Harnett-Sheehan K, Raj BA (1996) The measure-
ment of disability. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 11(S3):89–95
19. Wolter KM (1985) Introduction to Variance Estimation. Springer,
New York
20. Research Triangle Institute (2002) SUDAAN: Professional Soft-
ware for Survey Data Analysis [computer program]. Version 8.0.1.
Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC
21. Kish L, Frankel MR. Inferences from complex samples. J R Stat
Soc Ser A:361–337
22. SAS Institute Inc (2001) SAS/STAT Software: changes and
enhancements, release 8.2. SAS Institute Inc, Cary
23. Steel Z, Marnane C, Iranpour C et al (2014) The global prevalence
of common mental disorders: a systematic review and meta-anal-
ysis 1980–2013. Int J Epidemiol 43(2):476–493
24. Goi PR, Vianna-Sulzbah M, Silveira L et al (2015) Treatment
delay is associated with more episodes and more severe illness
staging progression in patients with bipolar disorder. Psychiatry
Res 227(2–3):372–373
25. Post RM, Weiss SR (1998) Sensitization and kindling phenomena
in mood, anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorders: the role of
serotonergic mechanisms in illness progression. Biol Psychiatry
44(3):193–206
26. Bonnin JE (2014) Treating without diagnosis: psychoanalysis in
medical settings in Argentina. Commun Med 11(1):15–26
27. Bruffaerts R, Posada-Villa J, Al-Hamzawi AO et al (2015) Propor-
tion of patients without mental disorders being treated in mental
health services worldwide. Br J Psychiatry 206(2):101–109
28. Wang PS, Aguilar-Gaxiola S, Alonso J et al (2007) Worldwide
use of mental health services for anxiety, mood, and substance
disorders: Results from 17 countries in the WHO World Mental
Health (WMH) Surveys. The Lancet 370(9590):841–850
29. World Health Organization (2001) The world mental health report
2001. Mental health: new understanding, new hope. World Health
Organization, Geneva
30. Borges G, Medina-Mora ME, Benjet C, Lee S, Lane M, Breslau J
(2011) Influence of mental disorders on school dropout in Mexico.
Rev Panam Salud Publica 30(5):477–483
31. Esch P, Bocquet V, Pull C, Couffignal S, Lehnert T, Graas M,
Fond-Harmant L, Ansseau M (2014) The downward spiral of
mental disorders and educational attainment: a systematic review
on early school leaving. BMC Psychiatry 14:237
32. Lee S, Tsang A, Breslau J et al (2009) Mental disorders and termi-
nation of education in high-income and low- and middle-income
countries: epidemiological study. Br J Psychiatry 194(5):411–417
33. Baxter AJ, Scott KM, Vos T, Whiteford HA (2013) Global preva-
lence of anxiety disorders: a systematic review and meta-regres-
sion. Psychol Med 43(5):897–910
34. Boyd A, van de Velde S, Vilagut G, de Graf R, O´Neill S, Florescu
S, Alonso J, Kovess-Masfety V, EU-WMH Investigators (2015)
Gender differences in mental disorders and suicidality in Europe:
results from a large cross-sectional population-based study. J
AffectDisord 173:245–254
35. Andersen RM (2008) National Health surveys and the behavioral
model of health services use. Med Care 46(7):647–653
36. Harris MG, Baxter AJ, Reavley N et al (2016) Gender-related pat-
terns and determinants of recent help-seeking for past-year affec-
tive, anxiety and substance use disorders: findings from a national
epidemiological survey. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci 25(6):548–561
37. Kovess-Masfety V, Boyd A, van de Velde S et al (2014) Are there
gender differences in service use for mental disorders across coun-
tries in the European Union? Results from the EU. World Mental
Health survey. J Epidemiol Community Health 68(7):649–656
38. Fleury MJ, Grenier G, Bamvita JM, Perreault M, Kestens Y, Caron
J (2012) Comprehensive determinants of health service utilisa-
tion for mental health reasons in a Canadian catchment area. Int J
Equity Health 11:20
39. Magaard JL, Seerlalan T, Schulz H, Brutt AL (2017) Factors asso-
ciated with help-seeking behavior among individuals with major
depression: a systematic review. Plos One 12(5):e0176730
13