Cited by 283Mental Health Treatment and AccessAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development

Epidemiology of anxiety disorders: from surveys to nosology and back.

Open access
Stein, Dan J., Scott, Kate M., de Jonge, Peter, Kessler, Ronald C.·2017·Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience

Abstract

On the basis of epidemiological survey findings, anxiety disorders are the most prevalent mental disorders around the world and are associated with significant comorbidity and morbidity. Such surveys rely on advances in psychiatric nosology and may also contribute usefully to revisions of the nosology. There are a number of questions at the intersection of psychiatric epidemiology and nosology. This review addresses the following: What is the prevalence of anxiety disorders and how do we best explain cross-national differences in prevalence estimates? What are the optimal diagnostic criteria for anxiety disorders, and how can epidemiological data shed light on this question? What are the comorbidities of anxiety disorders, and how do we best understand the high comorbidities seen in these conditions? What is the current treatment gap for anxiety disorders, and what are the implications of current understandings of psychiatric epidemiology and nosology for policy-making relevant to anxiety disorders? Here, we emphasize that anxiety disorders are the most prevalent of the psychiatric conditions, and that rather than merely contrasting cross-national prevalence in anxiety disorders, it is more productive to delineate cross-national themes that emerge about the epidemiology of these conditions. We discuss that optimizing diagnostic criteria for anxiety disorders is an iterative process to which epidemiological data can make a crucial contribution. Additionally, high comorbidity in anxiety disorders is not merely artefactual; it provides key opportunities to explore pathways to mental disorders and to intervene accordingly. Finally, work on the epidemiology and nosology of anxiety disorders has provided a number of important targets for mental health policy and for future integrative work to move between bench and bedside, as well as between clinic and community.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.31887/dcns.2017.19.2/dstein

Cites

68 of 68 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Anxiety disorders are the most common psychiatric disorders, with a current worldwide prevalence of 7.3%.

    “Anxiety disorders (e.g., generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder, social phobia) are the most common psychiatric disorders, with a current worldwide prevalence of 7.3% (1, 2).”

    From Decreases in State and Trait Anxiety Post-psilocybin: A Naturalistic, Observational Study Among Retreat Attendees (2022) · cites this paper as [2]

    The “Prevalence of anxiety disorders” section says anxiety disorders are the most prevalent class of psychiatric conditions and gives a current global prevalence estimate of 7.3%. However, it presents that figure as a suggested estimate, emphasizes considerable uncertainty, and gives a range of 4.8% to 10.9%; the citing sentence states 7.3% without that qualification. Page numbers were not supplied. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stein, D. J., Scott, K. M., de Jonge, P., & Kessler, R. C.
Affiliations
  • University of Cape Town (ZA)
  • University of Otago (NZ)
  • University of Groningen, the Netherlands
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Stein, Dan J.
Venue
Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience
Published
2017-06-30
Volume
19
Issue
2
Pages
127-136
ISSN
  • 1294-8322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1958-5969
OpenAlex
W2758572380
Cited by
283
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 44 · 2023: 54 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 46 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 1
FWCI
19.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Sanofi
  • Servier
  • H. Lundbeck A/S
  • Sun Pharma
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Keywords
anxiety disorders, prevalence, cross-national differences, psychiatric classification, diagnostic criteria, comorbidities, treatment gap, mental health policy, psychiatric epidemiology
MeSH terms
Anxiety Disorders, Humans, Surveys and Questionnaires, Comorbidity, Prevalence, Internationality

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