Changes in the prevalence of major depression and comorbid substance use disorders in the United States between 1991-1992 and 2001-2002
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The authors examined changes in the prevalence of major depression in the United States between 1991-1992 and 2001-2002 and sought to determine whether changes in depression rates were associated with changes in rates of comorbid substance use disorder. METHOD: Data were drawn from two large (Ns exceeding 42,000) cross-sectional surveys of representative samples of the U.S. population conducted 10 years apart. Both surveys used face-to-face interviews, the same diagnostic criteria, and consistent assessment instruments. Rates of past-year major depressive episode in the total samples and among subjects with and without co-occurring substance use disorders in major demographic groups were compared. RESULTS: From 1991-1992 to 2001-2002, the prevalence of major depression among U.S. adults increased from 3.33% to 7.06%. Increases were statistically significant for whites, blacks, and Hispanics and for all age groups. For Hispanic men overall and Hispanic women 18-29 years of age, rates increased but not significantly. The hypothesis that increases in the rates of depression could be explained by concomitant increases in co-occurring substance use disorders was supported only for black men 18-29 years of age. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of major depression rose markedly over the past decade in the United States, and increases were noted for most sociodemographic subgroups of the population. If the prevalence continues to increase at the rate it did during the past decade, the demand for services will increase dramatically in the coming years.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Increased prevalence of disrupted circadian rhythms strongly correlates with the increased incidence of mood disorders.
“increased prevalence of disrupted circadian rhythms strongly correlates with the increased incidence of mood disorders9,24–26.”
From Circadian rhythm disruption and mental health (2020) · cites this paper as [26]
The study's prevalence estimate was in line with epidemiological studies from the same periods.
“The prevalence of adult major depression estimated in our study was between 6.1 and 10.4% from 1996 to 2015, which was in line with the epidemiological studies from the same periods (20–23).”
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 32 · Cited by 445
- Authors
- Compton, W. M., Conway, K. P., Stinson, F. S., & Grant, B. F.
- Affiliations
- National Institutes of Health (US)
- Venue
- American Journal of Psychiatry
- Published
- 2006-12
- Volume
- 163
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 2141-2147
- ISSN
- 0002-953X (ISSN-L)
- 1535-7228
- OpenAlex
- W2083453232
- Cited by
- 445
- References
- 32
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 32 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 29 · 2013: 33 · 2012: 28
- FWCI
- 24.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
- Keywords
- major depressive disorder, substance use disorders, comorbidities, prevalence trends, temporal trends, sociodemographic differences, racial and ethnic differences, age differences, Hispanic adults, Black men, mental health demand
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Cross-Sectional Studies, Major Depressive Disorder, Depressive Disorder, Major, Ethnicity, Female, Health Services Accessibility, Humans, Male, United States, Comorbidity, Prevalence, Diagnosis, Dual (Psychiatry), Substance-Related Disorders
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review