Psychiatry has been, among medical disciplines, the one showing the highest conflict between a «positivist» model and the «hermeneutic» tradition. In particular, in recent years several authors have suggested that both the scientific method and a scientific mentality should be introduced in psychiatric practice and research. They claim that criteria like a strong correlation among clearly defined signs and symptoms, a high predictive value towards the outcome and therapeutical response, and a clearly defined relationship between the symptoms and etiology are necessary to accept a diagnositc entity. Since in the case of e.g. schizofrenia such requirements are not met, some authors even suggest that the concept of schizofrenia should be abandoned. The present paper aims to show that such problems are not unique to mental disease, but are common to several branches of medicine. For example, the definition and classification of cancer follow a «polythetic» criterion which is similar to the concept of «family resemblances». Also, diagnostic reproducibility is often low in other medical disciplines. The paper examines how such methodological problems could be dealt with using the tools of epidemiology.

Objectives - To present the results obtained from a cross-sectional evaluation of a sample of primary care attenders selected in Verona in the framework of the World Health Organization International Multicentre Study on Psychological Problems in Primary Care Settings. Methods - Among consecutive attenders at 16 primary care clinics in Verona during the period April 1991/February 1992, a random sample, stratified on the basis of GHQ-12 scores, was selected for a thorough evaluation of psychological status, physical status and disability in occupational and other daily activities. All patients with psychopathological symptoms at baseline assessment and a 20% random sample of those without psychopathological symptoms were interviewed again after 3 and 12 months (data not presented here). Results - Overall, 1,656 subjects were approached at the primary care clinics and 1,625 met inclusion criteria. The screening procedure was completed by 1,558 subjects and the second-stage evaluation by 250. Psychiatric disorders according to ICD-10 criteria were diagnosed in 12.4% of consecutive primary care attenders; of these, about one-third (4.5% of consecutive primary care attenders) satisfied ICD-10 diagnostic criteria for two or more disorders. Current Depressive Episode (4.7%) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder (3.7%) were the most common diagnoses. In addition, 11.2% of consecutive primary care attenders had ‘sub-threshold’ psychiatric disorders (i.e., they suffered from symptoms in at least two different areas among those listed in ICD-10, but they did not satisfy diagnostic criteria for well-defined disorders). Psychiatric disorders were more common among females and those aged 24-44 years. Only 20.6% of the subjects with psychiatric disorders contacted the general practitioner for their psychological symptoms, 5.7% complained of symptoms which might have had a psychological origin, whereas in about 70% of the cases the psychiatric disorder was concealed behind the presentation of somatic symptoms, pains in various parts of the body or chronic physical illness. Sixty-two percent of the subjects with psychiatric disorders rated their health status as fair or poor, as compared to 52.0% of those with chronic physical illness and 31.3% of those without such disorders. According to the general practitioner, 40.1% of the subjects with psychiatric disorders and 45.3% of those with chronic physical illness had a fair or poor health status, compared to 14.4% of those without such disorders. Disability in occupational and other daily activities was reported by 52.5% of the subjects with psychiatric disorders (in 40.1% of the cases disability was moderate or severe), 44.4% of those with chronic physical illness (in 26.8% of the cases disability was moderate or severe), and 15.0% of the subjects without such disorders (in 9.1% of the cases disability was moderate or severe). According to the interviewer, disability was identified in 48.4% of the subjects with psychiatric disorders, 39.0% of those with chronic physical illness, and 27.6% of the subjects without such disorders. Sixty per cent of the subjects with psychiatric disorders suffered from concurrent chronic physical illness; these subjects had a poorer health status and higher disability levels than those with psychiatric disorders only. Conclusions - Psychiatric disorders among primary care attenders are frequent and represents a major public health problem, since they entail severe functional limitations for the patients and high costs for the society. Thus, appropriate programs for their recognition and treatment are needed.

Aims -. To review the factors which are relevant for a correct evaluation of the costs of antidepressant drug treatment and to report the results of the studies on the efficacy, tollerability and costs of the most utilized antidepressants (tricyclics and SSRI). Methods - We reviewed the international literature concerning both with comparative studies on efficacy, tollerability and safety of tricyclics and SSRI and with studies of pharmacoeconomics that have focused on the costs of depression and of different antidepressant treatments. Results - Depression involves high costs, especially if indirect costs are considered. Comparative studies indicate a substantial equivalence of efficacy between tricyclics and SSRI, but a better tolerability of the latters. The few studies of pharmacoeconomics that have evaluated different antidepressant drugs indicate that a treatment with SSRI involves lower costs as compared with tricyclics. These results are due to the higher indirect costs (compliance, drop-out for side-effects, work loss, etc.) of tricyclics. Conclusions - A correct economic evaluation of an antidepressant drug treatment should consider both direct and indirect costs. Available studies indicate that SSRI involves lower costs as compared with tricyclics; however in order to confirm these results more studies of pharmacoeconomics are needed with experimental designes (longitudinal studies) taking into account the outcome of patients treated in routine clinical practice.