Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Statements about prevalence, of the type 'x% of the general population are mentally ill', imply a concept of prevalence that is difficult to define operationally. It requires the specification of a cut-off point, a level of severity from which the presence of an illness can be inferred, and this is largely arbitrary. A more generally useful type of statement compares the frequency distribution of severity for declared cases with that for the rest of the population. This avoids the need for a defined cut-off point. We are still left with the problem of defining a dimension of severity and a declared case, but these should follow easily from a clear statement of the purpose of any specific inquiry. The argument is illustrated from the results of a study of self-referrals to general practitioners.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ingham et al. (1976) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: