Evidence Hub

Nature and prevalence of combinations of mental disorders and their association with excess mortality in a population‐based cohort study

O. Plana-Ripoll, K. Musliner, S. Dalsgaard, N. Momen, N. Weye, M. Christensen, E. Agerbo, K. Iburg et al.

World Psychiatry, 2020

546,090 participants · 135 citations

Abstract

The nature and prevalence of combinations of mental disorders and their associations with premature mortality have never been reported in a comprehensive way. We describe the most common combinations of mental disorders and estimate excess mortality associated with these combinations. We designed a population‐based cohort study including all 7,505,576 persons living in Denmark at some point between January 1, 1995 and December 31, 2016. Information on mental disorders and mortality was obtained from national registers. A total of 546,090 individuals (10.5%) living in Denmark on January 1, 1995 were diagnosed with at least one mental disorder during the 22‐year follow‐up period. The overall crude rate of diagnosis of mental disorders was 9.28 (95% CI: 9.26‐9.30) per 1,000 person‐years. The rate of diagnosis of additional mental disorders was 70.01 (95% CI: 69.80‐70.26) per 1,000 person‐years for individuals with one disorder already diagnosed. At the end of follow‐up, two out of five individuals with mental disorders were diagnosed with two or more disorder types. The most prevalent were neurotic/stress‐related/somatoform disorders (ICD‐10 F40‐F48) and mood disorders (ICD‐10 F30‐F39), which – alone or in combination with other disorders – were present in 64.8% of individuals diagnosed with any mental disorder. Mortality rates were higher for people with mental disorders compared to those without mental disorders. The highest mortality rate ratio was 5.97 (95% CI: 5.52‐6.45)…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 546,090 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free