Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
OBJECTIVE: Prevalence rates for dissociative disorders among psychiatric in-patients vary widely. The aim of this meta-analysis is to offer an explanation for these differences. METHOD: Prevalence studies using a clinical diagnostic interview among psychiatric in-patients were included. Hypotheses concerning the impact of blind versus not blind designs, choice of diagnostic instrument and continental background were tested. RESULTS: Nine studies met the inclusion criteria. In blind studies the prevalence rate for dissociative disorders was significantly lower (but not for DID). Studies using the SCID-D (compared to the DDIS) and European studies had significantly lower prevalence rates for both dissociative disorders as well as for DID. CONCLUSION: The choice of diagnostic instrument and cultural differences in interpretation of symptoms are major explanations for differences in prevalence of dissociative disorders and DID. Comparative, blind research using both DDIS and SCID-D in the assessment of dissociative disorders is advised.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Friedl et al. (2000) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: