What are clusters of symptoms that are considered recognizable diseases only within specific cultures?

Journal Article

Brandon A Kohrt,

1Duke Global Health Institute, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Durham, NC, USA, 2Department of Psychology, Fordham University, New York, USA, 3Department of Anthropology, Department of Epidemiology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA, 4Department of Mental Health, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA, 5Department of Psychology, Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur, Nepal, 6Butabika National Referral Mental and Teaching Hospital, Kampala, Uganda, 7AISSR, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands and 8Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

*Corresponding author. Duke Global Health Institute, Trent Hall #213, 310 Trent Drive, Duke University, Durham, NC 27710, USA. E-mail:

Search for other works by this author on:

Andrew Rasmussen,

1Duke Global Health Institute, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Durham, NC, USA, 2Department of Psychology, Fordham University, New York, USA, 3Department of Anthropology, Department of Epidemiology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA, 4Department of Mental Health, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA, 5Department of Psychology, Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur, Nepal, 6Butabika National Referral Mental and Teaching Hospital, Kampala, Uganda, 7AISSR, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands and 8Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

Search for other works by this author on:

Bonnie N Kaiser,

1Duke Global Health Institute, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Durham, NC, USA, 2Department of Psychology, Fordham University, New York, USA, 3Department of Anthropology, Department of Epidemiology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA, 4Department of Mental Health, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA, 5Department of Psychology, Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur, Nepal, 6Butabika National Referral Mental and Teaching Hospital, Kampala, Uganda, 7AISSR, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands and 8Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

Search for other works by this author on:

Emily E Haroz,

1Duke Global Health Institute, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Durham, NC, USA, 2Department of Psychology, Fordham University, New York, USA, 3Department of Anthropology, Department of Epidemiology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA, 4Department of Mental Health, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA, 5Department of Psychology, Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur, Nepal, 6Butabika National Referral Mental and Teaching Hospital, Kampala, Uganda, 7AISSR, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands and 8Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

Search for other works by this author on:

Sujen M Maharjan,

1Duke Global Health Institute, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Durham, NC, USA, 2Department of Psychology, Fordham University, New York, USA, 3Department of Anthropology, Department of Epidemiology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA, 4Department of Mental Health, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA, 5Department of Psychology, Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur, Nepal, 6Butabika National Referral Mental and Teaching Hospital, Kampala, Uganda, 7AISSR, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands and 8Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

Search for other works by this author on:

Byamah B Mutamba,

1Duke Global Health Institute, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Durham, NC, USA, 2Department of Psychology, Fordham University, New York, USA, 3Department of Anthropology, Department of Epidemiology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA, 4Department of Mental Health, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA, 5Department of Psychology, Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur, Nepal, 6Butabika National Referral Mental and Teaching Hospital, Kampala, Uganda, 7AISSR, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands and 8Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

Search for other works by this author on:

Joop TVM de Jong,

1Duke Global Health Institute, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Durham, NC, USA, 2Department of Psychology, Fordham University, New York, USA, 3Department of Anthropology, Department of Epidemiology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA, 4Department of Mental Health, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA, 5Department of Psychology, Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur, Nepal, 6Butabika National Referral Mental and Teaching Hospital, Kampala, Uganda, 7AISSR, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands and 8Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

Search for other works by this author on:

Devon E Hinton

1Duke Global Health Institute, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Durham, NC, USA, 2Department of Psychology, Fordham University, New York, USA, 3Department of Anthropology, Department of Epidemiology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA, 4Department of Mental Health, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA, 5Department of Psychology, Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur, Nepal, 6Butabika National Referral Mental and Teaching Hospital, Kampala, Uganda, 7AISSR, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands and 8Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

Search for other works by this author on:

Accepted:

04 October 2013

Published:

22 December 2013

  • What are clusters of symptoms that are considered recognizable diseases only within specific cultures?
    PDF
  • Split View
    • Article contents
    • Figures & tables
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Supplementary Data
  • Cite

    Cite

    Brandon A Kohrt, Andrew Rasmussen, Bonnie N Kaiser, Emily E Haroz, Sujen M Maharjan, Byamah B Mutamba, Joop TVM de Jong, Devon E Hinton, Cultural concepts of distress and psychiatric disorders: literature review and research recommendations for global mental health epidemiology, International Journal of Epidemiology, Volume 43, Issue 2, April 2014, Pages 365–406, https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyt227

    Close

    • Email
    • Twitter
    • Facebook
    • More

Close

Navbar Search Filter Microsite Search Term Search

Abstract

Background Burgeoning global mental health endeavors have renewed debates about cultural applicability of psychiatric categories. This study’s goal is to review strengths and limitations of literature comparing psychiatric categories with cultural concepts of distress (CCD) such as cultural syndromes, culture-bound syndromes, and idioms of distress.

Methods The Systematic Assessment of Quality in Observational Research (SAQOR) was adapted based on cultural psychiatry principles to develop a Cultural Psychiatry Epidemiology version (SAQOR-CPE), which was used to rate quality of quantitative studies comparing CCD and psychiatric categories. A meta-analysis was performed for each psychiatric category.

Results Forty-five studies met inclusion criteria, with 18 782 unique participants. Primary objectives of the studies included comparing CCD and psychiatric disorders (51%), assessing risk factors for CCD (18%) and instrument validation (16%). Only 27% of studies met SAQOR-CPE criteria for medium quality, with the remainder low or very low quality. Only 29% of studies employed representative samples, 53% used validated outcome measures, 44% included function assessments and 44% controlled for confounding. Meta-analyses for anxiety, depression, PTSD and somatization revealed high heterogeneity (I2 > 75%). Only general psychological distress had low heterogeneity (I2 = 8%) with a summary effect odds ratio of 5.39 (95% CI 4.71-6.17). Associations between CCD and psychiatric disorders were influenced by methodological issues, such as validation designs (β = 16.27, 95%CI 12.75-19.79) and use of CCD multi-item checklists (β = 6.10, 95%CI 1.89-10.31). Higher quality studies demonstrated weaker associations of CCD and psychiatric disorders.

Conclusions Cultural concepts of distress are not inherently unamenable to epidemiological study. However, poor study quality impedes conceptual advancement and service application. With improved study design and reporting using guidelines such as the SAQOR-CPE, CCD research can enhance detection of mental health problems, reduce cultural biases in diagnostic criteria and increase cultural salience of intervention trial outcomes.

Introduction

In 1904 Emile Kraepelin initiated the field of comparative psychiatry (vergleichende Psychiatrie) through investigation of dementia praecox in Java, and he later documented psychiatric presentations among Native Americans, African Americans and Latin Americans.1 A century later, active debate continues regarding the role of culture in mental disorders and the cross-cultural applicability of biomedical psychiatric diagnoses.2 Methodological limitations in cross-cultural psychiatric epidemiology have been cited as a primary reason why cultural differences have not translated into re-evaluating psychiatric concepts and treatment practices.3,4 For example, cultural differences in schizophrenia outcomes, which have been identified in three successive studies,5–10 have done little to alter conceptualizations or treatment of the disorder, and this is in part due to methodological problems in the cross-national studies.3,11–13 These studies, along with World Health Organization (WHO) World Mental Health Surveys,14 are typified by application of Western culturally developed biomedical psychiatric diagnoses that lack inclusion of cultural concepts of distress (CCD). To date there have not been large-scale cross-national global mental health epidemiology studies incorporating CCD. To address this gap in the research, a review of the literature on CCD was undertaken to examine the types of studies conducted, the methodological approaches and the association of CCD with psychiatric disorders. The goal is to identify best practices in cross-cultural psychiatric epidemiology to improve research on CCD and encourage application to mental health services.

The term ‘cultural concept of distress’ is a new addition to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) series with the publication of DSM-5: ‘Cultural Concepts of Distress refers to ways that cultural groups experience, understand, and communicate suffering, behavioral problems, or troubling thoughts and emotions’.15 The term is a recent advance in the history of attempts to categorize psychological distress with demonstrable cultural influence that lacks one-to-one unity with biomedical psychiatric diagnoses (see Box 1 for exemplar CCD.) The attempt to label CCD dates back to Pow Meng Yap’s research in Hong Kong in the 1950–60s.16 Yap employed the term ‘culture-bound depersonalization syndrome’ to describe koro, a ‘state of acute anxiety with partial depersonalization’ associated with fear of the penis retracting into the body. The term ‘culture-bound syndrome’ has been used in cross-cultural psychiatry since and was included in the DSM-IV.17

Box 1. Examples of Cultural Concepts of Distress (CCD)

Nervios-related conditions—In the Americas, nervios (nerves)-related conditions among Latino populations are the most commonly described CCD.126 Nervios starts with ‘a persistent idea that ‘is stuck to one's mind’ (‘idea pegada a la mente’), and these ‘particular idea[s] … invade the mind and accumulate … Affected individuals think so much about the ideas that the ideas ‘get stuck' to the brain’.94 Among Mexicans with nervios, 40% endorsed having an idea stuck to their mind. In nervios, feelings of humiliation lead to the slow deterioration of one’s mind, nerves and spirit and ‘may even cause death, if adequate help is not timely received’.127 The spectrum of nervios follows a gradient of behavioural control.80 One end of the spectrum begins with socially acceptable nervousness: ser una persona nerviosa (being a nervous person). Padecer de los nervios (suffering from nerves) is more serious. Ataques de nervios (attacks of nerves) have greater severity and are characterized by social stressors triggering loss of behavioural control, dissociation, violent acts toward oneself or others, anger and somatic distress.128 Severe nerve illness can lead to loco (madness). Nervios (nerves), padecer de nervios (suffering from nerves) and ataques de nervios (nerve attacks) have been studied in clinical samples in large-scale Latino representative community studies in Puerto Rico and the USA.70,71 Ataques de nervios overlap with some symptoms of panic attacks and panic disorder. However, they are distinct from panic attacks because of the centrality of interpersonal disputes in triggering episodes, dissociative features and an experience of relief among some individuals after an ataque.80,132 These nervios-related conditions are associated with unexplained neurological complaints, physical health problems and functional impairment independent of association with psychiatric disorders.

Dhat—Dhat syndrome has been studied in South Asia and is rooted in Ayurvedic traditions about bodily production of semen as representing an end-product of energy demanding metabolism: 40 meals create 1 drop of blood, 40 drops of blood create 1 drop of semen.43 Dhat is recognized by a whitish discharge in urine assumed to be semen. Although sexually transmitted infections may be a source of such discharge, dhat sufferers do not appear to have greater frequency of STIs.69 Dhat sufferers do appear to have high rates of psychosexual dysfunction including premature ejaculation and erectile dysfunction: 42% of men with dhat had premature ejaculation in one study in India.64 Young males appear to be the most frequent demographic group presenting with dhat. Dhat has corollaries in Chinese medicine and European and American history with accounts of weakness, physical illness and mental illness related to the loss of semen.43,77

Koro—Koro was one of the first cultural concepts discussed in transcultural psychiatry literature.16 Koro epidemics have been reported in South Asia, and case reports have been reported throughout the world. Fear of the penis retracting into the body among men and retraction of breasts among women is a central feature. The majority of reported cases are among men.

Brain fag—Brain fag has been studied for a half-century in Western Africa. The condition is characterized by distress from thinking too much, with students being a vulnerable population.86 The experience includes headaches and an experience of a worm crawling in the head. This is similar to the Nigerian cultural concept of distress, ode ori:84 the disorder ode ori (hunter in the head) affects the brain under the anterior fontanelle where the iye (senses) control mental functions through okun (strings) that project throughout the body and provide direct linkages among the brain, eyes, ears and heart.

Khyal attacks and ‘wind’-related illnesses—The substance qi, (cf chi, chi’i, khí, khii, rlung, khyal) is associated with wind flow and wind balance. Wind-related illnesses are commonly described in East Asian populations including Tibetans, Cambodians, Vietnamese, Chinese and Mongolians.73,77,78,129,130 Shenjing shuairuo (neurological weakness, neurasthenia), studied by Kleinman in the 1970s and 80s, is associated with weakness, fatigue and social distress mediated by an alteration in qi.77 Yadargaa, a nervous fatigue described in Mongolia, is similarly viewed as an alteration in khii flow and balance.78 In the Vietnamese CCD ‘hit by wind’, shifts in ambient temperature, especially gusts of cold air, are associated with a range of physical complaints, traumatic memories, thinking too much, epilepsy and stroke.73 Similarly, in China, nerve weakness is associated with a fear of cold because it worsens nerve weakness.77 Among Cambodians, the wind-like substance khyal can be experienced as an attack associated with palpitations, asphyxia and dizziness.130 Khyal attacks can lead to rupture of blood vessels in the neck and spinning of the brain.

Kufungisisa—The experience of thinking too much (Shona: kufungisisa) is associated with general psychological distress and common mental disorders in Zimbabwe. Thinking too much is considered both a symptom of distress and a cause of other physical and psychological health problems: thinking too much can cause pain and feelings of physical pressure on the heart.54

Hwa-Byung—Heat and fire are important elements in East Asian ethnopsychology. The condition hwa-byung (fire illness resulting from chronic accumulated anger) in Korea occurs when haan (a mixture of sorrow, regret, hatred, revenge and perseverance) builds up to create a pushing sensation in the chest, resulting in the inability to appropriately control one’s anger.85 Hwa-byung affects middle-aged women in Korea who have experienced years of interpersonal conflict, typically in the context of an abusive marital relationship.

However, the term culture-bound syndrome has been associated with numerous limitations: findings of similar patterns of distress in disparate cultural settings, lack of cohesive symptom presentation characterizing a syndrome, and wide diversity in aetiological attributions, vulnerability groups and symptoms that influence cultural labels.18–22 Moreover, the combination of medical anthropology research, which documents the social construction of psychiatric disorders,23 with innovations in gene-by-environment and social neuroscience research, which illustrate that culture and biology are not neatly divisible categories,24–28 demonstrates that all psychological distress is culture bound. To acknowledge this, the DSM-5 includes text that ‘all forms of distress are locally shaped, including the DSM disorders’.15 Due to dissatisfaction with the term culture-bound syndrome, researchers have proposed other labels such as ‘idioms of distress’, ‘popular category of distress’, ‘cultural syndrome’ and ‘explanatory model’.29–33 The term ‘cultural concept of distress’ is an attempt to aggregate these different concepts without implying cultural exclusivity.

There has been a tension in cultural psychiatry about comparing CCD with psychiatric disorders. Because CCD often incorporate culturally salient aetiological models, vulnerability expectations, wide-ranging associated symptoms and a mixture of lay and local professional attributions systems, comparison with psychiatric diagnoses has been criticized as forcing homogeneity onto CCD and losing key aspects of aetiology and vulnerability that are not incorporated in most psychiatric diagnoses.20,21,34 However, there is a growing body of epidemiology literature comparing CCD with psychiatric disorders for a variety of goals, such as validating psychiatric disorders against CCD, identifying vulnerable groups based on CCD status and identifying forms of distress and impairment not captured by psychiatric disorders.

The goal of this review is to explore the methodological approaches of these epidemiological studies of CCD and psychiatric disorders, to identify limitations in the approaches and best practices for future work. We sought to develop specific criteria for evaluating epidemiological studies based on cultural psychiatry principles. With the expansion of global mental health research and scaling up of services,35–38 it is an ideal time to evaluate if and how CCD can be incorporated into community and clinical epidemiology to reduce suffering. Our review is divided into the following sections: identification of studies comparing CCD and psychiatric disorders; description of study objectives and methods including ranking epidemiological quality of these studies; examining summary effect sizes and sources of heterogeneity when comparing CCD and psychiatric disorders; and concluding with recommendations for incorporating CCD in global mental health research and services.

Methods

Informational sources

To identify literature on CCD we searched MEDLINE/PubMed, applying the following keywords: ‘culture-bound’ or ‘culture bound’ or ‘idiom of distress’ or ‘idioms of distress’. To assure inclusion of popularly studied CCD, we combined the above search with a search of CCD listed in the DSM-5 glossary: ‘nervios’ or ‘dhat’ or ‘khyal’ or ‘kufungisisa’ or ‘maladi moun’ or ‘shenjing shuairou’ or ‘susto’ or ‘taijin kyofusho’). We limited psychiatric outcomes to common mental disorders (operationalized here as depression, anxiety-related conditions including posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and panic disorder, and somatization-related conditions) because of their significant burden of disease, the breadth of research on CCD and common mental disorders, and feasibility of assessing common mental disorders through self-report. In contrast, psychosis-related conditions have shown poor reliability and low detection through self-report cross-culturally.39,40 In our preliminary searches for substance use disorders, eating disorders and developmental disorders, we identified a limited number of studies precluding synthesis of findings. The psychiatric disorder search terms thus included the following: ‘depression’ or ‘depression, postpartum’ or ‘PTSD’ or ‘stress disorders, post-traumatic’ or ‘fatigue syndrome, chronic’ or ‘fatigue’ or ‘anxiety disorders’ or ‘anxiety’ or ‘panic disorder’ or ‘panic attack’ or ‘somatoform disorders’ or ‘somatic complaints’. Searches were limited to English-language peer-reviewed journal publications. In addition, reference sections of previous reviews on culture-bound syndromes were searched,41–48 and reference sections of articles identified in the search were used to locate additional articles. The initial searches was performed in November 2012 and repeated for new references in March 2013 and September 2013.

Data collection

To extract relevant data, all studies identified through searches were read and evaluated for inclusion by the first author. Inclusion criteria comprised English language, prevalence data for a psychiatric category, prevalence data for a CCD, odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals for association of CCD and psychiatric category or data presented in a manner enabling construction of a two-by-two comparison of psychiatric classification and CCD. Exclusion criteria were case studies and articles lacking original quantitative data. Extracted data included world region, country, study population (including current country of residence for refugee and immigrant populations), researcher label for CCD (e.g. idiom of distress, culture-bound syndrome, cultural syndrome, cultural somatic symptom), language of term, English translation of term, research objective of the study, sample size, sample description, sample origin (clinical, community or school), age group of sample, representative vs convenience or other sample, inclusion and description of control or comparison group, symptom/syndrome description, assessment method for CCD (self-labelling with single-item term, labelling based on a multi-item self-report instrument score, labelling by healthcare provider including traditional healers and clinical providers, labelling from key informant in community), symptom severity assessment, type of symptoms (subjective self-report, externally observable or mixed), CCD prevalence (lifetime, current or unclear), age of onset, duration of current episode, psychiatric diagnostic instrument, administration format of psychiatric instrument (e.g. clinician administered, researcher administered, self-report), validation of instrument in study population, assessment of functioning and impairment, aetiology/perceived cause of CCD, vulnerability factors and risk group for CCD, protective factors against CCD, inclusion of follow-up assessment, percentage lost to follow-up, reasons lost to follow-up, current or prior treatment status, description of study treatment, assessment of psychiatric comorbidities, assessment of biological comorbidities and potential confounds.

Quality assessment

To assess quality, we chose the Systematic Assessment of Quality in Observational Research (SAQOR), which has been developed for assessing quality in observational studies49 and has been used to rate global mental health research conducted across cultural settings.50 SAQOR includes six domains: Sample, Control/Comparison Group, Quality of Exposure/Outcome Measurements, Follow-Up, Distorting Influences and Reporting Data. Each domain contains multiple criteria. For this study, the results section describes modification of SAQOR to develop a version for Cultural Psychiatry Epidemiology (SAQOR-CPE).

Meta-analyses

Odds ratios were extracted or calculated from quantitative studies to determine the likelihood of a specific psychiatric category given the presence of a specific CCD. Two-by-two tables were constructed for all quantitative papers that included data for categorical outcomes of CCD (yes vs no) and psychiatric categories (yes vs no). If studies only included mean scores on symptom scales without providing information on categorical cut-offs, these studies were not included in the meta-analysis. In the two-by-two tables, CCD were considered the independent variable and psychiatric categories were considered the dependent variable.

Odds ratios (OR), 95% confidence intervals, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated for all studies in the meta-analysis. If a study contained an empty field in the two-by-two table, then individual study outcomes (OR, sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV) were not calculated; however, the participants were included in the meta-analysis summary calculations. Sensitivity was calculated as the proportion of persons positive for both the CCD and the psychiatric category, among all persons with CCD. Specificity was calculated as the proportion of persons negative for the CCD and negative for the psychiatric category, among all persons negative for the CCD. Positive predictive value was calculated as the proportion of participants positive for both the CCD and psychiatric category, among all participants positive for the psychiatric category. Negative predictive value was calculated as the proportion of participants negative for both the CCD and the psychiatric category, among all persons negative for the psychiatric category.

Heterogeneity for summary effect sizes was calculated with the Q statistic. The statistic was calculated by summing the squared deviations of each study’s effect estimated from the overall effect estimate; each study was weighted by its inverse variance.51,I2 is another measure of heterogeneity calculated by dividing the difference of the Q statistic and its degrees of freedom by the Q statistic and multiplying this by 100.51 Low values (e.g. <25%) suggest low heterogeneity whereas I2 >75% suggests high heterogeneity with study characteristics and methods influencing the associations.

Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to assess the influence of study design on effect sizes. GEE is one method that can account for the clustering of multiple comparisons within a single study.52 The odds ratio for each study was used as the dependent variable. Independent variables included world region (Americas, Africa, Asia), researcher label (‘culture-bound …’, ‘idiom …’, ‘popular …’, other ‘… syndrome’ and other label), study objective (compare CCD and psychiatric disorder, instrument validation study, assessment of risk factors for psychological distress, and other), sample size (<100, 100–499 and ≥500 participants) recruitment site (clinical, community or school-based settings), representativeness of sample (representative sample vs all other recruitment forms), CCD type (four groups were created based on greatest number of participants: nervios-related studies, 10 820 participants; dhat studies, 863 participants; hwa-byung studies, 3087 participants; and all other cultural concepts of distress, 4012 participants), CCD-self report (participant endorsed CCD vs studies in which the CCD was attributed to the participant by the researcher, a clinician, or a key informant), assessment method for CCD [categorized into four groups: (i) self-report single item binary categorical endorsement (e.g. yes vs no for ‘Have you ever had an ataque de nervios?’); (ii) self-report multi-symptom instrument score (e.g. mean scale above a cut-off for number of symptoms to meet criteria as a proxy for ataques de nervios, such as symptoms of blinding, fainting and paralysis with symptoms beginning after a troubling experience53); (iii) clinical diagnosis (e.g. clinician making a diagnosis of dhat or hwa-byung based on specific clinical guidelines); or (iv) other third party labelling (e.g. binary categorical label of CCD provided by someone other than participant or clinician; this was usually done by key informants in the community or parents)], prevalence of CCD (lifetime, current/point or unclear), psychiatric categories (classified in five groups: general psychological distress, all anxiety disorders, mood disorders, somatoform disorders and other disorders), controlling for comorbidity (control through inclusion/exclusion criteria or through statistical analysis vs no control for comorbidity) and SAQOR-CPE overall ranking score (very low quality, low quality, medium quality, or high quality). Only analyses with OR outcomes were entered into the GEE. This led to inclusion of 79 comparisons drawn from 26 studies because some studies had multiple comparisons.

Results

Study characteristics

Through the search terms, 211 citations were identified; 12 studies were added from reviews and references lists. Of the total of 223 studies evaluated, 4553–97 included quantitative data on both cultural concepts of distress and psychiatric categories (see Figure 1). Ten studies were conducted in Africa, 18 in the Americas and 17 in Asia (see Table 1a, b, c). The most common CCD were nervios-related conditions, comprising 30% of studies. Nine studies (20%) included children, and the remainder only had adult participants. Studies with participants under 18 years of age were predominantly nervios-related conditions, as well as dhat among adolescent boys. Sixteen (35%) of the studies used the label ‘culture-bound’; nine studies (20%) used ‘idiom of distress’; and 23 studies had comparison of CCD with psychiatric disorders as a primary objective. For eight studies, the primary goal was to evaluate association with a risk factor or vulnerable group. Seven studies had instrument adaptation and validation as the primary goal.

Figure 1

What are clusters of symptoms that are considered recognizable diseases only within specific cultures?

PRISMA diagram showing selection of studies for inclusion in systematic review of cultural concepts of distress (CCD) and psychiatric disorders

Table 1a

Studies conducted in Africa, meeting inclusion criteria for comparison of cultural concepts of distress and psychiatric categories

ReferenceRasmussen 201193Bass 200856Makanjuola 198784Ola 201186Betancourt 200957
Country  Chad  Democratic Republic of Congo  Nigeria  Nigeria  Uganda 
Cultural concept of distress  Hozun (deep sadness), majnun (madness)  Maladi ya souci (syndrome of worry)  Ode-ori (hunter in the head)  Brain fag  Ma lwor (anxiety), kwo maraca (conduct disorder), par (mood disorder), two tam (mood disorder), kumu (‘holding one’s cheek in the hand’—mood disorder) 
Terminology  Idioms of distress  Local syndrome  Culture-bound disorder  Culture-bound syndrome; indigenous psychopathologies  Local syndrome 
Research objective  Create a culturally-appropriate measure of distress and evaluate psychometric properties of factor structure and external criterion validity  Determine existence of post-partum depression syndrome; adapt and validate instruments  Identify chief complaints and psychiatric symptoms among patients with a culture-bound syndrome  Factoral validation and reliability of brain fag scale  Evaluating reliability and validity of mental health measure 
Recruitment  Community  Clinical  Clinical  School  Community 
Sample  Adult: 848 Darfuris in refugee camp  Adult: 133 women attending maternity clinic identified by key informants  Adult: 30 psychiatric patients  Child: 234 students age 11-20 years  Child: 166 war-affected youth in internal displacement camp in northern Uganda 
Assessment method  Self-report multi-symptom inventory  Single-item key informant and self-report  Traditional healer  Self-report multi-symptom inventory  Single-item key informant, parent and self-report 
Prevalence  Unclear  Unclear  Current  Unclear  Unclear 
Comparison group  Unclear—no information regarding participants without hozun or majnun, only mean scale scores  Yes—sample included key-informant negative cases and women not endorsing syndrome  No—all patients had ode ori labels  Unclear—no information of participants with no brain fag, only mean BFSS scores provided  Yes —sample included KI-negative, parent-report negative, and self-report negative cases 
Psychiatric categories  Depression, PTSD  Depression, post-partum depression  All major psychiatric categories  Anxiety  Anxiety, depression, conduct problems 
Instruments, validation  BSI, PCL-C, not validated  EPDS, HSCL, not validated  PSE, no validation information provided  BFSS, STAI validated in Nigeria  APAI, locally developed scale 
Functioning  WHO-DAS  Local syndromes  Not reported  Peer relationships  Not reported 

ReferenceRasmussen 201193Bass 200856Makanjuola 198784Ola 201186Betancourt 200957
Country  Chad  Democratic Republic of Congo  Nigeria  Nigeria  Uganda 
Cultural concept of distress  Hozun (deep sadness), majnun (madness)  Maladi ya souci (syndrome of worry)  Ode-ori (hunter in the head)  Brain fag  Ma lwor (anxiety), kwo maraca (conduct disorder), par (mood disorder), two tam (mood disorder), kumu (‘holding one’s cheek in the hand’—mood disorder) 
Terminology  Idioms of distress  Local syndrome  Culture-bound disorder  Culture-bound syndrome; indigenous psychopathologies  Local syndrome 
Research objective  Create a culturally-appropriate measure of distress and evaluate psychometric properties of factor structure and external criterion validity  Determine existence of post-partum depression syndrome; adapt and validate instruments  Identify chief complaints and psychiatric symptoms among patients with a culture-bound syndrome  Factoral validation and reliability of brain fag scale  Evaluating reliability and validity of mental health measure 
Recruitment  Community  Clinical  Clinical  School  Community 
Sample  Adult: 848 Darfuris in refugee camp  Adult: 133 women attending maternity clinic identified by key informants  Adult: 30 psychiatric patients  Child: 234 students age 11-20 years  Child: 166 war-affected youth in internal displacement camp in northern Uganda 
Assessment method  Self-report multi-symptom inventory  Single-item key informant and self-report  Traditional healer  Self-report multi-symptom inventory  Single-item key informant, parent and self-report 
Prevalence  Unclear  Unclear  Current  Unclear  Unclear 
Comparison group  Unclear—no information regarding participants without hozun or majnun, only mean scale scores  Yes—sample included key-informant negative cases and women not endorsing syndrome  No—all patients had ode ori labels  Unclear—no information of participants with no brain fag, only mean BFSS scores provided  Yes —sample included KI-negative, parent-report negative, and self-report negative cases 
Psychiatric categories  Depression, PTSD  Depression, post-partum depression  All major psychiatric categories  Anxiety  Anxiety, depression, conduct problems 
Instruments, validation  BSI, PCL-C, not validated  EPDS, HSCL, not validated  PSE, no validation information provided  BFSS, STAI validated in Nigeria  APAI, locally developed scale 
Functioning  WHO-DAS  Local syndromes  Not reported  Peer relationships  Not reported 

ReferenceErtl 201068Bolton 200460Abas 199754Patel 199588Patel 199789
Country  Uganda  Uganda  Zimbabwe  Zimbabwe  Zimbabwe 
Cultural concept of distress  Spirit possession  Yo'kwekyawa (local depression syndrome)  Kusuwisia (deep sadness); kufungisisa (thinking too much)  Spiritual illness: chivanhu, mudzimu, mamhepo, zvishri  Mental problems 
Terminology  Indigenous expressions of psychological distress  Local syndrome  Explanatory model  Spiritual distress  Indigenous concept of psychosocial distress 
Research objective  Validate PTSD Instrument  Assess prevalence of depression using local instruments  Assess prevalence of common mental disorders and elicit explanatory models  Evaluate frequency of spiritual models of illness and association with mental disorders  Evaluate relationship between structured psychiatric diagnosis and primary care (traditional and biomedical) provider identification 
Recruitment  Community  Community  Community  Clinical  Clinical 
Sample  Child: 504 war-affected youth in Northern Uganda  Adult: 67 adults identified by key informants and self as suffering from syndrome  Adult: 172 women from townships  Adult: 302 primary care attendees  Adult: 302 primary care attendees 
Assessment method  Self-report multi-symptom inventory  Single-item key informant and self-report  Single-item self-report  Clinician and self-report multi-symptom ratings  Clinician attribution (primary care and traditional healer) 
Prevalence  Unclear  Unclear  Current  Current  Current 
Comparison group  Unclear —only SPS mean scores provided  Yes—key informant and self-rating positive and negative cases  No—explanatory models not assessed among PSE negative participants  Yes—half of sample did not endorse spiritual aetiology  Yes—participants not classified by primary care worker or healer as having a mental problem 
Psychiatric categories  Depression, PTSD  Depression  Psychological distress  General psychological distress  General psychological distress 
Instruments, validation  HSCL, PDS, SPS, CAPS not validated  Lay interview with DSM-IV MDD criteria, not validated  PSE, SSMD has validation psychometrics  CISR, SSQ, SRQ, transcultural equivalence information provided  SSQ, CISR transcultural equivalence information provided 
Functioning  Local scale  Local scale  Not reported  Not reported  WHO Quality of Life 

ReferenceErtl 201068Bolton 200460Abas 199754Patel 199588Patel 199789
Country  Uganda  Uganda  Zimbabwe  Zimbabwe  Zimbabwe 
Cultural concept of distress  Spirit possession  Yo'kwekyawa (local depression syndrome)  Kusuwisia (deep sadness); kufungisisa (thinking too much)  Spiritual illness: chivanhu, mudzimu, mamhepo, zvishri  Mental problems 
Terminology  Indigenous expressions of psychological distress  Local syndrome  Explanatory model  Spiritual distress  Indigenous concept of psychosocial distress 
Research objective  Validate PTSD Instrument  Assess prevalence of depression using local instruments  Assess prevalence of common mental disorders and elicit explanatory models  Evaluate frequency of spiritual models of illness and association with mental disorders  Evaluate relationship between structured psychiatric diagnosis and primary care (traditional and biomedical) provider identification 
Recruitment  Community  Community  Community  Clinical  Clinical 
Sample  Child: 504 war-affected youth in Northern Uganda  Adult: 67 adults identified by key informants and self as suffering from syndrome  Adult: 172 women from townships  Adult: 302 primary care attendees  Adult: 302 primary care attendees 
Assessment method  Self-report multi-symptom inventory  Single-item key informant and self-report  Single-item self-report  Clinician and self-report multi-symptom ratings  Clinician attribution (primary care and traditional healer) 
Prevalence  Unclear  Unclear  Current  Current  Current 
Comparison group  Unclear —only SPS mean scores provided  Yes—key informant and self-rating positive and negative cases  No—explanatory models not assessed among PSE negative participants  Yes—half of sample did not endorse spiritual aetiology  Yes—participants not classified by primary care worker or healer as having a mental problem 
Psychiatric categories  Depression, PTSD  Depression  Psychological distress  General psychological distress  General psychological distress 
Instruments, validation  HSCL, PDS, SPS, CAPS not validated  Lay interview with DSM-IV MDD criteria, not validated  PSE, SSMD has validation psychometrics  CISR, SSQ, SRQ, transcultural equivalence information provided  SSQ, CISR transcultural equivalence information provided 
Functioning  Local scale  Local scale  Not reported  Not reported  WHO Quality of Life 

Table 1a

Studies conducted in Africa, meeting inclusion criteria for comparison of cultural concepts of distress and psychiatric categories

ReferenceRasmussen 201193Bass 200856Makanjuola 198784Ola 201186Betancourt 200957
Country  Chad  Democratic Republic of Congo  Nigeria  Nigeria  Uganda 
Cultural concept of distress  Hozun (deep sadness), majnun (madness)  Maladi ya souci (syndrome of worry)  Ode-ori (hunter in the head)  Brain fag  Ma lwor (anxiety), kwo maraca (conduct disorder), par (mood disorder), two tam (mood disorder), kumu (‘holding one’s cheek in the hand’—mood disorder) 
Terminology  Idioms of distress  Local syndrome  Culture-bound disorder  Culture-bound syndrome; indigenous psychopathologies  Local syndrome 
Research objective  Create a culturally-appropriate measure of distress and evaluate psychometric properties of factor structure and external criterion validity  Determine existence of post-partum depression syndrome; adapt and validate instruments  Identify chief complaints and psychiatric symptoms among patients with a culture-bound syndrome  Factoral validation and reliability of brain fag scale  Evaluating reliability and validity of mental health measure 
Recruitment  Community  Clinical  Clinical  School  Community 
Sample  Adult: 848 Darfuris in refugee camp  Adult: 133 women attending maternity clinic identified by key informants  Adult: 30 psychiatric patients  Child: 234 students age 11-20 years  Child: 166 war-affected youth in internal displacement camp in northern Uganda 
Assessment method  Self-report multi-symptom inventory  Single-item key informant and self-report  Traditional healer  Self-report multi-symptom inventory  Single-item key informant, parent and self-report 
Prevalence  Unclear  Unclear  Current  Unclear  Unclear 
Comparison group  Unclear—no information regarding participants without hozun or majnun, only mean scale scores  Yes—sample included key-informant negative cases and women not endorsing syndrome  No—all patients had ode ori labels  Unclear—no information of participants with no brain fag, only mean BFSS scores provided  Yes —sample included KI-negative, parent-report negative, and self-report negative cases 
Psychiatric categories  Depression, PTSD  Depression, post-partum depression  All major psychiatric categories  Anxiety  Anxiety, depression, conduct problems 
Instruments, validation  BSI, PCL-C, not validated  EPDS, HSCL, not validated  PSE, no validation information provided  BFSS, STAI validated in Nigeria  APAI, locally developed scale 
Functioning  WHO-DAS  Local syndromes  Not reported  Peer relationships  Not reported 

ReferenceRasmussen 201193Bass 200856Makanjuola 198784Ola 201186Betancourt 200957
Country  Chad  Democratic Republic of Congo  Nigeria  Nigeria  Uganda 
Cultural concept of distress  Hozun (deep sadness), majnun (madness)  Maladi ya souci (syndrome of worry)  Ode-ori (hunter in the head)  Brain fag  Ma lwor (anxiety), kwo maraca (conduct disorder), par (mood disorder), two tam (mood disorder), kumu (‘holding one’s cheek in the hand’—mood disorder) 
Terminology  Idioms of distress  Local syndrome  Culture-bound disorder  Culture-bound syndrome; indigenous psychopathologies  Local syndrome 
Research objective  Create a culturally-appropriate measure of distress and evaluate psychometric properties of factor structure and external criterion validity  Determine existence of post-partum depression syndrome; adapt and validate instruments  Identify chief complaints and psychiatric symptoms among patients with a culture-bound syndrome  Factoral validation and reliability of brain fag scale  Evaluating reliability and validity of mental health measure 
Recruitment  Community  Clinical  Clinical  School  Community 
Sample  Adult: 848 Darfuris in refugee camp  Adult: 133 women attending maternity clinic identified by key informants  Adult: 30 psychiatric patients  Child: 234 students age 11-20 years  Child: 166 war-affected youth in internal displacement camp in northern Uganda 
Assessment method  Self-report multi-symptom inventory  Single-item key informant and self-report  Traditional healer  Self-report multi-symptom inventory  Single-item key informant, parent and self-report 
Prevalence  Unclear  Unclear  Current  Unclear  Unclear 
Comparison group  Unclear—no information regarding participants without hozun or majnun, only mean scale scores  Yes—sample included key-informant negative cases and women not endorsing syndrome  No—all patients had ode ori labels  Unclear—no information of participants with no brain fag, only mean BFSS scores provided  Yes —sample included KI-negative, parent-report negative, and self-report negative cases 
Psychiatric categories  Depression, PTSD  Depression, post-partum depression  All major psychiatric categories  Anxiety  Anxiety, depression, conduct problems 
Instruments, validation  BSI, PCL-C, not validated  EPDS, HSCL, not validated  PSE, no validation information provided  BFSS, STAI validated in Nigeria  APAI, locally developed scale 
Functioning  WHO-DAS  Local syndromes  Not reported  Peer relationships  Not reported 

ReferenceErtl 201068Bolton 200460Abas 199754Patel 199588Patel 199789
Country  Uganda  Uganda  Zimbabwe  Zimbabwe  Zimbabwe 
Cultural concept of distress  Spirit possession  Yo'kwekyawa (local depression syndrome)  Kusuwisia (deep sadness); kufungisisa (thinking too much)  Spiritual illness: chivanhu, mudzimu, mamhepo, zvishri  Mental problems 
Terminology  Indigenous expressions of psychological distress  Local syndrome  Explanatory model  Spiritual distress  Indigenous concept of psychosocial distress 
Research objective  Validate PTSD Instrument  Assess prevalence of depression using local instruments  Assess prevalence of common mental disorders and elicit explanatory models  Evaluate frequency of spiritual models of illness and association with mental disorders  Evaluate relationship between structured psychiatric diagnosis and primary care (traditional and biomedical) provider identification 
Recruitment  Community  Community  Community  Clinical  Clinical 
Sample  Child: 504 war-affected youth in Northern Uganda  Adult: 67 adults identified by key informants and self as suffering from syndrome  Adult: 172 women from townships  Adult: 302 primary care attendees  Adult: 302 primary care attendees 
Assessment method  Self-report multi-symptom inventory  Single-item key informant and self-report  Single-item self-report  Clinician and self-report multi-symptom ratings  Clinician attribution (primary care and traditional healer) 
Prevalence  Unclear  Unclear  Current  Current  Current 
Comparison group  Unclear —only SPS mean scores provided  Yes—key informant and self-rating positive and negative cases  No—explanatory models not assessed among PSE negative participants  Yes—half of sample did not endorse spiritual aetiology  Yes—participants not classified by primary care worker or healer as having a mental problem 
Psychiatric categories  Depression, PTSD  Depression  Psychological distress  General psychological distress  General psychological distress 
Instruments, validation  HSCL, PDS, SPS, CAPS not validated  Lay interview with DSM-IV MDD criteria, not validated  PSE, SSMD has validation psychometrics  CISR, SSQ, SRQ, transcultural equivalence information provided  SSQ, CISR transcultural equivalence information provided 
Functioning  Local scale  Local scale  Not reported  Not reported  WHO Quality of Life 

ReferenceErtl 201068Bolton 200460Abas 199754Patel 199588Patel 199789
Country  Uganda  Uganda  Zimbabwe  Zimbabwe  Zimbabwe 
Cultural concept of distress  Spirit possession  Yo'kwekyawa (local depression syndrome)  Kusuwisia (deep sadness); kufungisisa (thinking too much)  Spiritual illness: chivanhu, mudzimu, mamhepo, zvishri  Mental problems 
Terminology  Indigenous expressions of psychological distress  Local syndrome  Explanatory model  Spiritual distress  Indigenous concept of psychosocial distress 
Research objective  Validate PTSD Instrument  Assess prevalence of depression using local instruments  Assess prevalence of common mental disorders and elicit explanatory models  Evaluate frequency of spiritual models of illness and association with mental disorders  Evaluate relationship between structured psychiatric diagnosis and primary care (traditional and biomedical) provider identification 
Recruitment  Community  Community  Community  Clinical  Clinical 
Sample  Child: 504 war-affected youth in Northern Uganda  Adult: 67 adults identified by key informants and self as suffering from syndrome  Adult: 172 women from townships  Adult: 302 primary care attendees  Adult: 302 primary care attendees 
Assessment method  Self-report multi-symptom inventory  Single-item key informant and self-report  Single-item self-report  Clinician and self-report multi-symptom ratings  Clinician attribution (primary care and traditional healer) 
Prevalence  Unclear  Unclear  Current  Current  Current 
Comparison group  Unclear —only SPS mean scores provided  Yes—key informant and self-rating positive and negative cases  No—explanatory models not assessed among PSE negative participants  Yes—half of sample did not endorse spiritual aetiology  Yes—participants not classified by primary care worker or healer as having a mental problem 
Psychiatric categories  Depression, PTSD  Depression  Psychological distress  General psychological distress  General psychological distress 
Instruments, validation  HSCL, PDS, SPS, CAPS not validated  Lay interview with DSM-IV MDD criteria, not validated  PSE, SSMD has validation psychometrics  CISR, SSQ, SRQ, transcultural equivalence information provided  SSQ, CISR transcultural equivalence information provided 
Functioning  Local scale  Local scale  Not reported  Not reported  WHO Quality of Life 

Table 1b

Studies conducted in the Americas, meeting inclusion criteria for comparison of cultural concepts of distress and psychiatric categories

ReferenceSalgado de Snyder 200094Pedersen 200890Guarnaccia 199370Guarnaccia 200572Lopez 201183
Country  Mexico  Peru  Puerto Rico  Puerto Rico  Puerto Rico and USA 
Cultural concept of distress  Nervios (nerves)  Llaki (grief), susto (fright), piensa-mientuwan (worrying memories), tutal piensamientuwan (excess of worrying memories)  Ataque de nervios (attack of nerves)  Ataque de nervios (attack of nerves)  Ataque de nervios (attack of nerves) 
Terminology  Culturally-interpreted syndrome  Culture-bound trauma-related disorders; local idioms of distress  Popular category of distress  Cultural syndrome  Cultural idiom of distress 
Research objective  Prevalence, comorbidity with mood and anxiety disorders, and associated symptoms  Map indigenous construction of emotions in response to political violence  Association with disaster and social characteristics  Prevalence and psychiatric correlates among children  Association between ataques and somatic complaints among Puerto Rican youth 
Recruitment  Community, representative  Community, only persons with high GHQ and HSCL scores  Community, representative  Clinical and community, representative  Community, representative 
Sample  Adult: 942 community residents  Adult: 144 screened from community  Adult: 912 community sample  Child: 1892 community and 761 clinical  Child: 1138 community sample 
Assessment method  Single-item self-report (nervios ever vs never)  Single-item self-report (idioms currently yes vs no)  Single-item self-report (ataque de nervios ever vs never)  Single-item parent and self-report (ataque de nervios ever vs never)  Single-item parent and self-report (ataque de nervios ever vs never) 
Prevalence  Lifetime  Point prevalence  Lifetime  Lifetime  Lifetime 
Comparison group  Yes—adults not endorsing nervios  Yes—participants denying fright idioms  Yes—participants denying ataque de nervios episodes  Yes—participants denying ataque de nervios episodes  Yes—participants without parent or self-report of ataque de nervios 
Psychiatric categories  Anxiety, depression  Anxiety, depression, PTSD  All major psychiatric categories  All major psychiatric categories  Somatic complaints (headache) 
Instruments, validation  CIDI, validated in Spanish  GHQ and HSCL not validated for this population  DIS, validated Puerto Rican version  DISC, validated Puerto Rican version  DISC, validated Puerto Rican version 
Functioning  Not reported  Not reported  DIS  GAS  Assessed ‘limited activities’ 

ReferenceSalgado de Snyder 200094Pedersen 200890Guarnaccia 199370Guarnaccia 200572Lopez 201183
Country  Mexico  Peru  Puerto Rico  Puerto Rico  Puerto Rico and USA 
Cultural concept of distress  Nervios (nerves)  Llaki (grief), susto (fright), piensa-mientuwan (worrying memories), tutal piensamientuwan (excess of worrying memories)  Ataque de nervios (attack of nerves)  Ataque de nervios (attack of nerves)  Ataque de nervios (attack of nerves) 
Terminology  Culturally-interpreted syndrome  Culture-bound trauma-related disorders; local idioms of distress  Popular category of distress  Cultural syndrome  Cultural idiom of distress 
Research objective  Prevalence, comorbidity with mood and anxiety disorders, and associated symptoms  Map indigenous construction of emotions in response to political violence  Association with disaster and social characteristics  Prevalence and psychiatric correlates among children  Association between ataques and somatic complaints among Puerto Rican youth 
Recruitment  Community, representative  Community, only persons with high GHQ and HSCL scores  Community, representative  Clinical and community, representative  Community, representative 
Sample  Adult: 942 community residents  Adult: 144 screened from community  Adult: 912 community sample  Child: 1892 community and 761 clinical  Child: 1138 community sample 
Assessment method  Single-item self-report (nervios ever vs never)  Single-item self-report (idioms currently yes vs no)  Single-item self-report (ataque de nervios ever vs never)  Single-item parent and self-report (ataque de nervios ever vs never)  Single-item parent and self-report (ataque de nervios ever vs never) 
Prevalence  Lifetime  Point prevalence  Lifetime  Lifetime  Lifetime 
Comparison group  Yes—adults not endorsing nervios  Yes—participants denying fright idioms  Yes—participants denying ataque de nervios episodes  Yes—participants denying ataque de nervios episodes  Yes—participants without parent or self-report of ataque de nervios 
Psychiatric categories  Anxiety, depression  Anxiety, depression, PTSD  All major psychiatric categories  All major psychiatric categories  Somatic complaints (headache) 
Instruments, validation  CIDI, validated in Spanish  GHQ and HSCL not validated for this population  DIS, validated Puerto Rican version  DISC, validated Puerto Rican version  DISC, validated Puerto Rican version 
Functioning  Not reported  Not reported  DIS  GAS  Assessed ‘limited activities’ 

ReferenceGuarnaccia 201071Interian 20051,31Keough 200976Lewis-Fernandez 200280Lewis-Fernandez 20101,32
Country  USA  USA  USA  USA  USA 
Cultural concept of distress  Ataque de nervios (attack of nerves)  Ataque de nervios (attack of nerves)  Ataque de nervios (attack of nerves)  Ataque de nervios (attack of nerves)  Ataque de nervios (attack of nerves) 
Terminology  Idiom of distress  Culturally sanctioned expression of distress  Culture-bound syndrome  Popular syndrome  Cultural idioms of distress 
Research objective  Evaluate ataque de nervios as marker of social and psychiatric vulnerability  Evaluate the association of unexplained neurological symptoms with ataques  Determine prevalence of ataque-related symptoms across cultural groups  Evaluate phenomenological differences among ataque, panic attacks and panic disorder  To evaluate association among PTSD, dissociation and cultural idioms of distress 
Recruitment  Community, representative  Clinical  School  Clinical  Clinical 
Sample  Adult: 2554 Latino Americans  Adult: 95 Hispanic patients and 32 European American patients  Adult: 342 university students (200 Caucasian, 58 African American, 50 Hispanic)  Adult: 60 Hispanic patients presenting to anxiety disorders clinic with self-report of ataque de nervios  Adult: 230 Latina outpatients 
Assessment method  Single-item self-report (ataque de nervios ever vs never)  Self-report multi-symptom inventory  Self-report multi-symptom inventory  Self-report multi-symptom inventory  Single-item self-report 
Prevalence  Lifetime  Not reported  Not reported  Not reported  Lifetime 
Comparison group  Yes—participants denying ataque de nervios  Yes—patients not meeting criteria for ataque based on multi-item checklist  Yes—participants scoring below cutoff on ataque de nervios checklist  Yes—all patients self-reported ataque de nervios, but only 32 met 8-symptom criteria  Yes—patients not endorsing ataque de nervios 
Psychiatric categories  All major psychiatric categories  Anxiety, panic, depression, unexplained neurological complaints  Panic  Panic  PTSD 
Instruments, validation  CIDI, validated for population  PRIME-MD, Ataque checklist, CIDI validated  PAQ-R, no validation reported  SCID, validated  SCID, validated 
Functioning  CIDI  Not reported  Not reported  Not reported  Not reported 

ReferenceGuarnaccia 201071Interian 20051,31Keough 200976Lewis-Fernandez 200280Lewis-Fernandez 20101,32
Country  USA  USA  USA  USA  USA 
Cultural concept of distress  Ataque de nervios (attack of nerves)  Ataque de nervios (attack of nerves)  Ataque de nervios (attack of nerves)  Ataque de nervios (attack of nerves)  Ataque de nervios (attack of nerves) 
Terminology  Idiom of distress  Culturally sanctioned expression of distress  Culture-bound syndrome  Popular syndrome  Cultural idioms of distress 
Research objective  Evaluate ataque de nervios as marker of social and psychiatric vulnerability  Evaluate the association of unexplained neurological symptoms with ataques  Determine prevalence of ataque-related symptoms across cultural groups  Evaluate phenomenological differences among ataque, panic attacks and panic disorder  To evaluate association among PTSD, dissociation and cultural idioms of distress 
Recruitment  Community, representative  Clinical  School  Clinical  Clinical 
Sample  Adult: 2554 Latino Americans  Adult: 95 Hispanic patients and 32 European American patients  Adult: 342 university students (200 Caucasian, 58 African American, 50 Hispanic)  Adult: 60 Hispanic patients presenting to anxiety disorders clinic with self-report of ataque de nervios  Adult: 230 Latina outpatients 
Assessment method  Single-item self-report (ataque de nervios ever vs never)  Self-report multi-symptom inventory  Self-report multi-symptom inventory  Self-report multi-symptom inventory  Single-item self-report 
Prevalence  Lifetime  Not reported  Not reported  Not reported  Lifetime 
Comparison group  Yes—participants denying ataque de nervios  Yes—patients not meeting criteria for ataque based on multi-item checklist  Yes—participants scoring below cutoff on ataque de nervios checklist  Yes—all patients self-reported ataque de nervios, but only 32 met 8-symptom criteria  Yes—patients not endorsing ataque de nervios 
Psychiatric categories  All major psychiatric categories  Anxiety, panic, depression, unexplained neurological complaints  Panic  Panic  PTSD 
Instruments, validation  CIDI, validated for population  PRIME-MD, Ataque checklist, CIDI validated  PAQ-R, no validation reported  SCID, validated  SCID, validated 
Functioning  CIDI  Not reported  Not reported  Not reported  Not reported 

ReferenceLiebowitz 199464, Salman 199877Caplan 201061Livinas 201082Alcantara 201255Caspi 199862
Country  USA  UnSA  USA  USA  USA 
Cultural concept of distress  Ataque de nervios (attack of nerves)  Coraje (rage), nervios (nerves), susto (fright)  Nervios (nerves)  Padecer de nervios (state of suffering from nerves)  Bebatchet (deep worrying sadness), chkuэt (lost mind) 
Terminology  Popular illness category  Idioms of distress  Culture-bound syndrome  Culture-bound syndrome  Culturally defined symptoms 
Research objective  Relationship between ataques and comorbid psychiatric disorders  Detection of distress among Latinos not meeting criteria for depression  Compare performance on Adolescent Nervios Scale between Latinos and non-Latinos  Association with acculturation beyond value of traditional measures of anxiety sensitivity  Association of child loss with mental health and function impairment 
Recruitment  Clinical  Clinical  School  School  Community 
Sample  Adult: 156 Hispanic patients presenting to anxiety disorders clinic  Adult: 52 patients in psychiatry OPD  Child: 534 middle school students (307 Latino, 227 Non-Latino)  Adult: 82 mothers of Mexican origin  Adults: 161 parents 
Assessment method  Single-item self-report  Single-item self-report  Self-report multi-symptom inventory  Single-item self-report  Single-item self-report 
Prevalence  Lifetime  Past month  Unclear  Lifetime  Past week 
Comparison group  Yes – patients who did not endorse ataque de nervios  Yes – patients with and without self-labeled symptoms  Unclear – participants with no symptoms, only mean scores provided  Yes – mothers who did not have padecer de nervios  Yes – Parents without Bebatchet or chkuэt 
Psychiatric categories  Anxiety, panic, depression  Depression  Anxiety, depression, anger  Psychological distress  PTSD 
Instruments, validation  Clinician diagnosis  PHQ-9, validated  BYI-Anxiety, BYI-Depression, BYI-Anger, English language validations  BSI, Spanish BSI validation  Harvard Trauma Questionnaire, validation not reported 
Functioning  Not reported  PHQ-9 function question  School functioning adjustment  Not reported  Select functioning items 

ReferenceLiebowitz 199464, Salman 199877Caplan 201061Livinas 201082Alcantara 201255Caspi 199862
Country  USA  UnSA  USA  USA  USA 
Cultural concept of distress  Ataque de nervios (attack of nerves)  Coraje (rage), nervios (nerves), susto (fright)  Nervios (nerves)  Padecer de nervios (state of suffering from nerves)  Bebatchet (deep worrying sadness), chkuэt (lost mind) 
Terminology  Popular illness category  Idioms of distress  Culture-bound syndrome  Culture-bound syndrome  Culturally defined symptoms 
Research objective  Relationship between ataques and comorbid psychiatric disorders  Detection of distress among Latinos not meeting criteria for depression  Compare performance on Adolescent Nervios Scale between Latinos and non-Latinos  Association with acculturation beyond value of traditional measures of anxiety sensitivity  Association of child loss with mental health and function impairment 
Recruitment  Clinical  Clinical  School  School  Community 
Sample  Adult: 156 Hispanic patients presenting to anxiety disorders clinic  Adult: 52 patients in psychiatry OPD  Child: 534 middle school students (307 Latino, 227 Non-Latino)  Adult: 82 mothers of Mexican origin  Adults: 161 parents 
Assessment method  Single-item self-report  Single-item self-report  Self-report multi-symptom inventory  Single-item self-report  Single-item self-report 
Prevalence  Lifetime  Past month  Unclear  Lifetime  Past week 
Comparison group  Yes – patients who did not endorse ataque de nervios  Yes – patients with and without self-labeled symptoms  Unclear – participants with no symptoms, only mean scores provided  Yes – mothers who did not have padecer de nervios  Yes – Parents without Bebatchet or chkuэt 
Psychiatric categories  Anxiety, panic, depression  Depression  Anxiety, depression, anger  Psychological distress  PTSD 
Instruments, validation  Clinician diagnosis  PHQ-9, validated  BYI-Anxiety, BYI-Depression, BYI-Anger, English language validations  BSI, Spanish BSI validation  Harvard Trauma Questionnaire, validation not reported 
Functioning  Not reported  PHQ-9 function question  School functioning adjustment  Not reported  Select functioning items 

ReferenceHinton 200373Hinton 2011133D’Avanzo 199866
Country  USA  USA  USA and Europe 
Cultural concept of distress  Trúng gió (hit by wind)  Worry attacks  Khoucherang (thinking too much) 
Terminology  Cultural syndrome  None  Culture-bound syndrome 
Research objective  Phenomenologically characterize ‘hit by the wind'.  Determine role of cultural model of worry in PTSD severity  Evaluate frequency of depression, anxiety and CBS between USA and France for Cambodian refugees 
Recruitment  Clinical  Clinical  Community 
Sample  Adult: 60 Vietnamese patients with PTSD  Adult: 130 Cambodian patients (94 with PTSD, 36 without PTSD)  Adult: 155 Cambodian women in France and USA 
Assessment method  Single-item self-report  Self-report multi-symptom inventory  Unclear 
Prevalence  Prior month  Prior month  Unclear 
Comparison group  Yes—patients with PTSD and without panic  Yes—patients without PTSD  Unclear 
Psychiatric categories  Panic, PTSD  PTSD  Depression and anxiety 
Instruments, validation  Clinical interview with DSM-IV  PCL-C  HSCL, validated in Khmer 
Functioning  In-depth interviews  Not reported  Not reported 

ReferenceHinton 200373Hinton 2011133D’Avanzo 199866
Country  USA  USA  USA and Europe 
Cultural concept of distress  Trúng gió (hit by wind)  Worry attacks  Khoucherang (thinking too much) 
Terminology  Cultural syndrome  None  Culture-bound syndrome 
Research objective  Phenomenologically characterize ‘hit by the wind'.  Determine role of cultural model of worry in PTSD severity  Evaluate frequency of depression, anxiety and CBS between USA and France for Cambodian refugees 
Recruitment  Clinical  Clinical  Community 
Sample  Adult: 60 Vietnamese patients with PTSD  Adult: 130 Cambodian patients (94 with PTSD, 36 without PTSD)  Adult: 155 Cambodian women in France and USA 
Assessment method  Single-item self-report  Self-report multi-symptom inventory  Unclear 
Prevalence  Prior month  Prior month  Unclear 
Comparison group  Yes—patients with PTSD and without panic  Yes—patients without PTSD  Unclear 
Psychiatric categories  Panic, PTSD  PTSD  Depression and anxiety 
Instruments, validation  Clinical interview with DSM-IV  PCL-C  HSCL, validated in Khmer 
Functioning  In-depth interviews  Not reported  Not reported 

Table 1b

Studies conducted in the Americas, meeting inclusion criteria for comparison of cultural concepts of distress and psychiatric categories

ReferenceSalgado de Snyder 200094Pedersen 200890Guarnaccia 199370Guarnaccia 200572Lopez 201183
Country  Mexico  Peru  Puerto Rico  Puerto Rico  Puerto Rico and USA 
Cultural concept of distress  Nervios (nerves)  Llaki (grief), susto (fright), piensa-mientuwan (worrying memories), tutal piensamientuwan (excess of worrying memories)  Ataque de nervios (attack of nerves)  Ataque de nervios (attack of nerves)  Ataque de nervios (attack of nerves) 
Terminology  Culturally-interpreted syndrome  Culture-bound trauma-related disorders; local idioms of distress  Popular category of distress  Cultural syndrome  Cultural idiom of distress 
Research objective  Prevalence, comorbidity with mood and anxiety disorders, and associated symptoms  Map indigenous construction of emotions in response to political violence  Association with disaster and social characteristics  Prevalence and psychiatric correlates among children  Association between ataques and somatic complaints among Puerto Rican youth 
Recruitment  Community, representative  Community, only persons with high GHQ and HSCL scores  Community, representative  Clinical and community, representative  Community, representative 
Sample  Adult: 942 community residents  Adult: 144 screened from community  Adult: 912 community sample  Child: 1892 community and 761 clinical  Child: 1138 community sample 
Assessment method  Single-item self-report (nervios ever vs never)  Single-item self-report (idioms currently yes vs no)  Single-item self-report (ataque de nervios ever vs never)  Single-item parent and self-report (ataque de nervios ever vs never)  Single-item parent and self-report (ataque de nervios ever vs never) 
Prevalence  Lifetime  Point prevalence  Lifetime  Lifetime  Lifetime 
Comparison group  Yes—adults not endorsing nervios  Yes—participants denying fright idioms  Yes—participants denying ataque de nervios episodes  Yes—participants denying ataque de nervios episodes  Yes—participants without parent or self-report of ataque de nervios 
Psychiatric categories  Anxiety, depression  Anxiety, depression, PTSD  All major psychiatric categories  All major psychiatric categories  Somatic complaints (headache) 
Instruments, validation  CIDI, validated in Spanish  GHQ and HSCL not validated for this population  DIS, validated Puerto Rican version  DISC, validated Puerto Rican version  DISC, validated Puerto Rican version 
Functioning  Not reported  Not reported  DIS  GAS  Assessed ‘limited activities’ 

ReferenceSalgado de Snyder 200094Pedersen 200890Guarnaccia 199370Guarnaccia 200572Lopez 201183
Country  Mexico  Peru  Puerto Rico  Puerto Rico  Puerto Rico and USA 
Cultural concept of distress  Nervios (nerves)  Llaki (grief), susto (fright), piensa-mientuwan (worrying memories), tutal piensamientuwan (excess of worrying memories)  Ataque de nervios (attack of nerves)  Ataque de nervios (attack of nerves)  Ataque de nervios (attack of nerves) 
Terminology  Culturally-interpreted syndrome  Culture-bound trauma-related disorders; local idioms of distress  Popular category of distress  Cultural syndrome  Cultural idiom of distress 
Research objective  Prevalence, comorbidity with mood and anxiety disorders, and associated symptoms  Map indigenous construction of emotions in response to political violence  Association with disaster and social characteristics  Prevalence and psychiatric correlates among children  Association between ataques and somatic complaints among Puerto Rican youth 
Recruitment  Community, representative  Community, only persons with high GHQ and HSCL scores  Community, representative  Clinical and community, representative  Community, representative 
Sample  Adult: 942 community residents  Adult: 144 screened from community  Adult: 912 community sample  Child: 1892 community and 761 clinical  Child: 1138 community sample 
Assessment method  Single-item self-report (nervios ever vs never)  Single-item self-report (idioms currently yes vs no)  Single-item self-report (ataque de nervios ever vs never)  Single-item parent and self-report (ataque de nervios ever vs never)  Single-item parent and self-report (ataque de nervios ever vs never) 
Prevalence  Lifetime  Point prevalence  Lifetime  Lifetime  Lifetime 
Comparison group  Yes—adults not endorsing nervios  Yes—participants denying fright idioms  Yes—participants denying ataque de nervios episodes  Yes—participants denying ataque de nervios episodes  Yes—participants without parent or self-report of ataque de nervios 
Psychiatric categories  Anxiety, depression  Anxiety, depression, PTSD  All major psychiatric categories  All major psychiatric categories  Somatic complaints (headache) 
Instruments, validation  CIDI, validated in Spanish  GHQ and HSCL not validated for this population  DIS, validated Puerto Rican version  DISC, validated Puerto Rican version  DISC, validated Puerto Rican version 
Functioning  Not reported  Not reported  DIS  GAS  Assessed ‘limited activities’ 

ReferenceGuarnaccia 201071Interian 20051,31Keough 200976Lewis-Fernandez 200280Lewis-Fernandez 20101,32
Country  USA  USA  USA  USA  USA 
Cultural concept of distress  Ataque de nervios (attack of nerves)  Ataque de nervios (attack of nerves)  Ataque de nervios (attack of nerves)  Ataque de nervios (attack of nerves)  Ataque de nervios (attack of nerves) 
Terminology  Idiom of distress  Culturally sanctioned expression of distress  Culture-bound syndrome  Popular syndrome  Cultural idioms of distress 
Research objective  Evaluate ataque de nervios as marker of social and psychiatric vulnerability  Evaluate the association of unexplained neurological symptoms with ataques  Determine prevalence of ataque-related symptoms across cultural groups  Evaluate phenomenological differences among ataque, panic attacks and panic disorder  To evaluate association among PTSD, dissociation and cultural idioms of distress 
Recruitment  Community, representative  Clinical  School  Clinical  Clinical 
Sample  Adult: 2554 Latino Americans  Adult: 95 Hispanic patients and 32 European American patients  Adult: 342 university students (200 Caucasian, 58 African American, 50 Hispanic)  Adult: 60 Hispanic patients presenting to anxiety disorders clinic with self-report of ataque de nervios  Adult: 230 Latina outpatients 
Assessment method  Single-item self-report (ataque de nervios ever vs never)  Self-report multi-symptom inventory  Self-report multi-symptom inventory  Self-report multi-symptom inventory  Single-item self-report 
Prevalence  Lifetime  Not reported  Not reported  Not reported  Lifetime 
Comparison group  Yes—participants denying ataque de nervios  Yes—patients not meeting criteria for ataque based on multi-item checklist  Yes—participants scoring below cutoff on ataque de nervios checklist  Yes—all patients self-reported ataque de nervios, but only 32 met 8-symptom criteria  Yes—patients not endorsing ataque de nervios 
Psychiatric categories  All major psychiatric categories  Anxiety, panic, depression, unexplained neurological complaints  Panic  Panic  PTSD 
Instruments, validation  CIDI, validated for population  PRIME-MD, Ataque checklist, CIDI validated  PAQ-R, no validation reported  SCID, validated  SCID, validated 
Functioning  CIDI  Not reported  Not reported  Not reported  Not reported 

ReferenceGuarnaccia 201071Interian 20051,31Keough 200976Lewis-Fernandez 200280Lewis-Fernandez 20101,32
Country  USA  USA  USA  USA  USA 
Cultural concept of distress  Ataque de nervios (attack of nerves)  Ataque de nervios (attack of nerves)  Ataque de nervios (attack of nerves)  Ataque de nervios (attack of nerves)  Ataque de nervios (attack of nerves) 
Terminology  Idiom of distress  Culturally sanctioned expression of distress  Culture-bound syndrome  Popular syndrome  Cultural idioms of distress 
Research objective  Evaluate ataque de nervios as marker of social and psychiatric vulnerability  Evaluate the association of unexplained neurological symptoms with ataques  Determine prevalence of ataque-related symptoms across cultural groups  Evaluate phenomenological differences among ataque, panic attacks and panic disorder  To evaluate association among PTSD, dissociation and cultural idioms of distress 
Recruitment  Community, representative  Clinical  School  Clinical  Clinical 
Sample  Adult: 2554 Latino Americans  Adult: 95 Hispanic patients and 32 European American patients  Adult: 342 university students (200 Caucasian, 58 African American, 50 Hispanic)  Adult: 60 Hispanic patients presenting to anxiety disorders clinic with self-report of ataque de nervios  Adult: 230 Latina outpatients 
Assessment method  Single-item self-report (ataque de nervios ever vs never)  Self-report multi-symptom inventory  Self-report multi-symptom inventory  Self-report multi-symptom inventory  Single-item self-report 
Prevalence  Lifetime  Not reported  Not reported  Not reported  Lifetime 
Comparison group  Yes—participants denying ataque de nervios  Yes—patients not meeting criteria for ataque based on multi-item checklist  Yes—participants scoring below cutoff on ataque de nervios checklist  Yes—all patients self-reported ataque de nervios, but only 32 met 8-symptom criteria  Yes—patients not endorsing ataque de nervios 
Psychiatric categories  All major psychiatric categories  Anxiety, panic, depression, unexplained neurological complaints  Panic  Panic  PTSD 
Instruments, validation  CIDI, validated for population  PRIME-MD, Ataque checklist, CIDI validated  PAQ-R, no validation reported  SCID, validated  SCID, validated 
Functioning  CIDI  Not reported  Not reported  Not reported  Not reported 

ReferenceLiebowitz 199464, Salman 199877Caplan 201061Livinas 201082Alcantara 201255Caspi 199862
Country  USA  UnSA  USA  USA  USA 
Cultural concept of distress  Ataque de nervios (attack of nerves)  Coraje (rage), nervios (nerves), susto (fright)  Nervios (nerves)  Padecer de nervios (state of suffering from nerves)  Bebatchet (deep worrying sadness), chkuэt (lost mind) 
Terminology  Popular illness category  Idioms of distress  Culture-bound syndrome  Culture-bound syndrome  Culturally defined symptoms 
Research objective  Relationship between ataques and comorbid psychiatric disorders  Detection of distress among Latinos not meeting criteria for depression  Compare performance on Adolescent Nervios Scale between Latinos and non-Latinos  Association with acculturation beyond value of traditional measures of anxiety sensitivity  Association of child loss with mental health and function impairment 
Recruitment  Clinical  Clinical  School  School  Community 
Sample  Adult: 156 Hispanic patients presenting to anxiety disorders clinic  Adult: 52 patients in psychiatry OPD  Child: 534 middle school students (307 Latino, 227 Non-Latino)  Adult: 82 mothers of Mexican origin  Adults: 161 parents 
Assessment method  Single-item self-report  Single-item self-report  Self-report multi-symptom inventory  Single-item self-report  Single-item self-report 
Prevalence  Lifetime  Past month  Unclear  Lifetime  Past week 
Comparison group  Yes – patients who did not endorse ataque de nervios  Yes – patients with and without self-labeled symptoms  Unclear – participants with no symptoms, only mean scores provided  Yes – mothers who did not have padecer de nervios  Yes – Parents without Bebatchet or chkuэt 
Psychiatric categories  Anxiety, panic, depression  Depression  Anxiety, depression, anger  Psychological distress  PTSD 
Instruments, validation  Clinician diagnosis  PHQ-9, validated  BYI-Anxiety, BYI-Depression, BYI-Anger, English language validations  BSI, Spanish BSI validation  Harvard Trauma Questionnaire, validation not reported 
Functioning  Not reported  PHQ-9 function question  School functioning adjustment  Not reported  Select functioning items 

ReferenceLiebowitz 199464, Salman 199877Caplan 201061Livinas 201082Alcantara 201255Caspi 199862
Country  USA  UnSA  USA  USA  USA 
Cultural concept of distress  Ataque de nervios (attack of nerves)  Coraje (rage), nervios (nerves), susto (fright)  Nervios (nerves)  Padecer de nervios (state of suffering from nerves)  Bebatchet (deep worrying sadness), chkuэt (lost mind) 
Terminology  Popular illness category  Idioms of distress  Culture-bound syndrome  Culture-bound syndrome  Culturally defined symptoms 
Research objective  Relationship between ataques and comorbid psychiatric disorders  Detection of distress among Latinos not meeting criteria for depression  Compare performance on Adolescent Nervios Scale between Latinos and non-Latinos  Association with acculturation beyond value of traditional measures of anxiety sensitivity  Association of child loss with mental health and function impairment 
Recruitment  Clinical  Clinical  School  School  Community 
Sample  Adult: 156 Hispanic patients presenting to anxiety disorders clinic  Adult: 52 patients in psychiatry OPD  Child: 534 middle school students (307 Latino, 227 Non-Latino)  Adult: 82 mothers of Mexican origin  Adults: 161 parents 
Assessment method  Single-item self-report  Single-item self-report  Self-report multi-symptom inventory  Single-item self-report  Single-item self-report 
Prevalence  Lifetime  Past month  Unclear  Lifetime  Past week 
Comparison group  Yes – patients who did not endorse ataque de nervios  Yes – patients with and without self-labeled symptoms  Unclear – participants with no symptoms, only mean scores provided  Yes – mothers who did not have padecer de nervios  Yes – Parents without Bebatchet or chkuэt 
Psychiatric categories  Anxiety, panic, depression  Depression  Anxiety, depression, anger  Psychological distress  PTSD 
Instruments, validation  Clinician diagnosis  PHQ-9, validated  BYI-Anxiety, BYI-Depression, BYI-Anger, English language validations  BSI, Spanish BSI validation  Harvard Trauma Questionnaire, validation not reported 
Functioning  Not reported  PHQ-9 function question  School functioning adjustment  Not reported  Select functioning items 

ReferenceHinton 200373Hinton 2011133D’Avanzo 199866
Country  USA  USA  USA and Europe 
Cultural concept of distress  Trúng gió (hit by wind)  Worry attacks  Khoucherang (thinking too much) 
Terminology  Cultural syndrome  None  Culture-bound syndrome 
Research objective  Phenomenologically characterize ‘hit by the wind'.  Determine role of cultural model of worry in PTSD severity  Evaluate frequency of depression, anxiety and CBS between USA and France for Cambodian refugees 
Recruitment  Clinical  Clinical  Community 
Sample  Adult: 60 Vietnamese patients with PTSD  Adult: 130 Cambodian patients (94 with PTSD, 36 without PTSD)  Adult: 155 Cambodian women in France and USA 
Assessment method  Single-item self-report  Self-report multi-symptom inventory  Unclear 
Prevalence  Prior month  Prior month  Unclear 
Comparison group  Yes—patients with PTSD and without panic  Yes—patients without PTSD  Unclear 
Psychiatric categories  Panic, PTSD  PTSD  Depression and anxiety 
Instruments, validation  Clinical interview with DSM-IV  PCL-C  HSCL, validated in Khmer 
Functioning  In-depth interviews  Not reported  Not reported 

ReferenceHinton 200373Hinton 2011133D’Avanzo 199866
Country  USA  USA  USA and Europe 
Cultural concept of distress  Trúng gió (hit by wind)  Worry attacks  Khoucherang (thinking too much) 
Terminology  Cultural syndrome  None  Culture-bound syndrome 
Research objective  Phenomenologically characterize ‘hit by the wind'.  Determine role of cultural model of worry in PTSD severity  Evaluate frequency of depression, anxiety and CBS between USA and France for Cambodian refugees 
Recruitment  Clinical  Clinical  Community 
Sample  Adult: 60 Vietnamese patients with PTSD  Adult: 130 Cambodian patients (94 with PTSD, 36 without PTSD)  Adult: 155 Cambodian women in France and USA 
Assessment method  Single-item self-report  Self-report multi-symptom inventory  Unclear 
Prevalence  Prior month  Prior month  Unclear 
Comparison group  Yes—patients with PTSD and without panic  Yes—patients without PTSD  Unclear 
Psychiatric categories  Panic, PTSD  PTSD  Depression and anxiety 
Instruments, validation  Clinical interview with DSM-IV  PCL-C  HSCL, validated in Khmer 
Functioning  In-depth interviews  Not reported  Not reported 

Table 1c

Studies conducted in Asia, meeting inclusion criteria for comparison of cultural concepts of distress and psychiatric categories

ReferenceHinton 201274Kleinman 198277Bhatia 199159Chadda 199064Chadda 199563
Country  Cambodia  China and Taiwan  India  India  India 
Cultural concept of distress  Cambodian somatic syndromes, khyal attacks (wind attacks), thinking too much  Shenjing shuairuo (neurasthenia, neurological weakness)  Dhat (semen loss in urine)  Dhat (semen loss in urine)  Dhat (semen loss in urine) 
Terminology  Cultural syndrome and culturally emphasized somatic complaints  Bioculturally patterned illness; somatization  Culture-bound sex neurosis  Culture-bound sex neurosis  Culture-bound neurotic disorder 
Research objective  Needs assessment of trauma-affected population using culturally-sensitive instrument  Relation of somatization, depression, and neurasthenia with cultural context  Psychiatric diagnosis, presenting symptoms and treatment response among those with Dhat  Psychiatric and STI diagnoses among persons with Dhat  Illness behaviour among persons with Dhat 
Recruitment  Community  Clinical  Clinical  Clinical  Clinical 
Sample  Adult: 139 adults identified by human rights group  Adult: 100 Chinese and 51 Taiwanese patients diagnosed with neurasthenia  Adult: 114 men presenting to psychiatry OPD with psychosexual complaints  Adult: 52 men self-presenting to psychiatry OPD with passage of dhat in urine  Adult: 100 patients presenting to psychiatry OPD 
Assessment method  Self-report multi-symptom inventory  Clinician  Clinician  Single-item self-report  Single-item self-report 
Prevalence  Unclear  Lifetime  Current  Current  Current 
Comparison group  Unclear—only SPS mean scores provided  No—all patients had neurasthenia diagnoses  Yes—men with sexual complaints without dhat  No—all patients reported dhat  Yes—denial of dhat complaint 
Psychiatric categories  PTSD  Anxiety, depression, somatization, chronic pain  Depression  Anxiety, depression  Anxiety (GAD, panic, OCD), depression, somatoform disorders 
Instruments, validation  HTQ, PCL-C, CSSI; PCL-C clinically validated in Khmer  Clinician diagnoses  HAM-D  Clinical interview  Clinical interview with DSM-III-R criteria 
Functioning  Perceived limitations related to health status  Clinical interview  Not reported  Not reported  Not reported 

ReferenceHinton 201274Kleinman 198277Bhatia 199159Chadda 199064Chadda 199563
Country  Cambodia  China and Taiwan  India  India  India 
Cultural concept of distress  Cambodian somatic syndromes, khyal attacks (wind attacks), thinking too much  Shenjing shuairuo (neurasthenia, neurological weakness)  Dhat (semen loss in urine)  Dhat (semen loss in urine)  Dhat (semen loss in urine) 
Terminology  Cultural syndrome and culturally emphasized somatic complaints  Bioculturally patterned illness; somatization  Culture-bound sex neurosis  Culture-bound sex neurosis  Culture-bound neurotic disorder 
Research objective  Needs assessment of trauma-affected population using culturally-sensitive instrument  Relation of somatization, depression, and neurasthenia with cultural context  Psychiatric diagnosis, presenting symptoms and treatment response among those with Dhat  Psychiatric and STI diagnoses among persons with Dhat  Illness behaviour among persons with Dhat 
Recruitment  Community  Clinical  Clinical  Clinical  Clinical 
Sample  Adult: 139 adults identified by human rights group  Adult: 100 Chinese and 51 Taiwanese patients diagnosed with neurasthenia  Adult: 114 men presenting to psychiatry OPD with psychosexual complaints  Adult: 52 men self-presenting to psychiatry OPD with passage of dhat in urine  Adult: 100 patients presenting to psychiatry OPD 
Assessment method  Self-report multi-symptom inventory  Clinician  Clinician  Single-item self-report  Single-item self-report 
Prevalence  Unclear  Lifetime  Current  Current  Current 
Comparison group  Unclear—only SPS mean scores provided  No—all patients had neurasthenia diagnoses  Yes—men with sexual complaints without dhat  No—all patients reported dhat  Yes—denial of dhat complaint 
Psychiatric categories  PTSD  Anxiety, depression, somatization, chronic pain  Depression  Anxiety, depression  Anxiety (GAD, panic, OCD), depression, somatoform disorders 
Instruments, validation  HTQ, PCL-C, CSSI; PCL-C clinically validated in Khmer  Clinician diagnoses  HAM-D  Clinical interview  Clinical interview with DSM-III-R criteria 
Functioning  Perceived limitations related to health status  Clinical interview  Not reported  Not reported  Not reported 

ReferenceDhivak 200767Gautham 200869Perme 200591Singh 198596Bhatia 199958
Country  India  India  India  India  India 
Cultural concept of distress  Dhat (semen loss in urine)  Dhat (semen loss in urine)  Dhat (semen loss in urine)  Dhat (semen loss in urine)  Dhat (semen loss in urine), koro (genital retraction) 
Terminology  Culture-bound syndrome  Culture-bound syndrome  Culture-bound syndrome  Commonly recognized clinical entity in defined culture  Culture-bound syndrome 
Research objective  Prevalence of depression among persons with dhat  Male sexual health concerns evaluated from biomedical, anthropological and psychiatric frameworks  Compare dhat and non-dhat patients on illness beliefs and somatization  Among males with potency disorders, assess cultural illness and psychiatric disorders  Sociodemographics and psychiatric comorbidity among persons with CBS 
Recruitment  Clinical  Clinical  Clinical  Clinical  Clinical 
Sample  Adult: 30 patients presenting to psychiatry OPD with complaint of semen loss in urine  Adult: 366 men presenting to OPDs with sexual/genital complaints  Adult: 61 patients presenting to OPD without mood or anxiety disorders  Adult: 50 consecutive patients in psychiatry OPD with sexual dysfunction complaint  Adult: 60 adults presenting to psychiatry OPD with psychosexual complaints 
Assessment method  Clinician  Single-item self-report  Clinician  Clinician  Single-item self-report 
Prevalence  Current  Current  Unclear  Current  Unclear 
Comparison group  No—all patients diagnosed with dhat  Yes—dhat negative men included  Yes—participants not meeting clinical criteria for dhat  Yes—patients not clinically diagnosed with dhat  Yes—patients without dhat or koro 
Psychiatric categories  Depression  Psychological distress  Somatization, fatigue  Anxiety, depression, fatigue, psychotic depression  Anxiety, depression 
Instruments, validation  HAM-D  GHQ, validation information not provided  SSI, CFS, validation not reported  ADI, validation not reported  Clinical interview 
Functioning  Not reported  Not reported  Not reported  Not reported  Not reported 

ReferenceDhivak 200767Gautham 200869Perme 200591Singh 198596Bhatia 199958
Country  India  India  India  India  India 
Cultural concept of distress  Dhat (semen loss in urine)  Dhat (semen loss in urine)  Dhat (semen loss in urine)  Dhat (semen loss in urine)  Dhat (semen loss in urine), koro (genital retraction) 
Terminology  Culture-bound syndrome  Culture-bound syndrome  Culture-bound syndrome  Commonly recognized clinical entity in defined culture  Culture-bound syndrome 
Research objective  Prevalence of depression among persons with dhat  Male sexual health concerns evaluated from biomedical, anthropological and psychiatric frameworks  Compare dhat and non-dhat patients on illness beliefs and somatization  Among males with potency disorders, assess cultural illness and psychiatric disorders  Sociodemographics and psychiatric comorbidity among persons with CBS 
Recruitment  Clinical  Clinical  Clinical  Clinical  Clinical 
Sample  Adult: 30 patients presenting to psychiatry OPD with complaint of semen loss in urine  Adult: 366 men presenting to OPDs with sexual/genital complaints  Adult: 61 patients presenting to OPD without mood or anxiety disorders  Adult: 50 consecutive patients in psychiatry OPD with sexual dysfunction complaint  Adult: 60 adults presenting to psychiatry OPD with psychosexual complaints 
Assessment method  Clinician  Single-item self-report  Clinician  Clinician  Single-item self-report 
Prevalence  Current  Current  Unclear  Current  Unclear 
Comparison group  No—all patients diagnosed with dhat  Yes—dhat negative men included  Yes—participants not meeting clinical criteria for dhat  Yes—patients not clinically diagnosed with dhat  Yes—patients without dhat or koro 
Psychiatric categories  Depression  Psychological distress  Somatization, fatigue  Anxiety, depression, fatigue, psychotic depression  Anxiety, depression 
Instruments, validation  HAM-D  GHQ, validation information not provided  SSI, CFS, validation not reported  ADI, validation not reported  Clinical interview 
Functioning  Not reported  Not reported  Not reported  Not reported  Not reported 

ReferenceWeaver 201197Kohrt 200478Kohrt 200579Min 201085Park 200187
Country  India  Mongolia  Nepal  South Korea  South Korea 
Cultural Concept of Distress  Tension  Yadargaa (nervous fatigue)  Jham-jham (paraesthesia)  Hwa-byung (‘fire/projection of [accumulated] anger into the body’)  Hwa-byung (‘fire/projection of [accumulated] anger into the body’) 
Terminology  Idiom used to express stress  Culturally appropriate indicator of distress  Somatization  Culture-bound syndrome  Culture-bound syndrome 
Research objective  Connection among diabetes, mental health and social roles  Prevalence of yadargaa and its association with socioeconomic changes  To evaluate the role of physical comorbidities in somatic presentation of depression  Compare comorbidity of HB with other psychiatric disorders  Prevalence of HB, identify differentiating symptoms and evaluate associated SES factors 
Recruitment  Clinical  Community  Community, representative  Clinical  Community 
Sample  Adult: 33 women with type 2 diabetes  Adult: 193 adults in rural and urban settings  Adult: 316 adults in rural setting  Adult: 280 psychiatric patients  Adult: 2807 women age 41-65 years 
Assessment method  Self-report multi-symptom inventory  Single-item self-report  Single-item self-report  Clinician  Self-report multi-symptom inventory 
Prevalence  Current (2 weeks)  Current  Current (2 weeks)  Unclear  Unclear 
Comparison group  Yes—participants scoring below threshold on Tension scale  Yes—participants not endorsing yardargaa  Yes—participants not endorsing jham-jham  Yes—patients not meeting clinician ratings for hwa-byung  Yes—sample not endorsing Hwa-byung symptoms 
Psychiatric categories  General psychological distress  Anxiety, depression, somatization, chronic fatigue  Anxiety, depression, general psychological distress  Depression, anxiety  Depression 
Instruments, validation  HSCL, Tension scale, not clinically validated  CDI, SCL-90, not validated  BAI, BDI, GHQ, all instruments validated in Nepali  Hwa-byung Diagnostic Criteria and Hwa-byung scale, Korean SCID  Hwa-byung Symptom Questionnaire, no validation information 
Functioning  Role fulfilment  Not reported  Not reported  Not reported  Not reported 

ReferenceWeaver 201197Kohrt 200478Kohrt 200579Min 201085Park 200187
Country  India  Mongolia  Nepal  South Korea  South Korea 
Cultural Concept of Distress  Tension  Yadargaa (nervous fatigue)  Jham-jham (paraesthesia)  Hwa-byung (‘fire/projection of [accumulated] anger into the body’)  Hwa-byung (‘fire/projection of [accumulated] anger into the body’) 
Terminology  Idiom used to express stress  Culturally appropriate indicator of distress  Somatization  Culture-bound syndrome  Culture-bound syndrome 
Research objective  Connection among diabetes, mental health and social roles  Prevalence of yadargaa and its association with socioeconomic changes  To evaluate the role of physical comorbidities in somatic presentation of depression  Compare comorbidity of HB with other psychiatric disorders  Prevalence of HB, identify differentiating symptoms and evaluate associated SES factors 
Recruitment  Clinical  Community  Community, representative  Clinical  Community 
Sample  Adult: 33 women with type 2 diabetes  Adult: 193 adults in rural and urban settings  Adult: 316 adults in rural setting  Adult: 280 psychiatric patients  Adult: 2807 women age 41-65 years 
Assessment method  Self-report multi-symptom inventory  Single-item self-report  Single-item self-report  Clinician  Self-report multi-symptom inventory 
Prevalence  Current (2 weeks)  Current  Current (2 weeks)  Unclear  Unclear 
Comparison group  Yes—participants scoring below threshold on Tension scale  Yes—participants not endorsing yardargaa  Yes—participants not endorsing jham-jham  Yes—patients not meeting clinician ratings for hwa-byung  Yes—sample not endorsing Hwa-byung symptoms 
Psychiatric categories  General psychological distress  Anxiety, depression, somatization, chronic fatigue  Anxiety, depression, general psychological distress  Depression, anxiety  Depression 
Instruments, validation  HSCL, Tension scale, not clinically validated  CDI, SCL-90, not validated  BAI, BDI, GHQ, all instruments validated in Nepali  Hwa-byung Diagnostic Criteria and Hwa-byung scale, Korean SCID  Hwa-byung Symptom Questionnaire, no validation information 
Functioning  Role fulfilment  Not reported  Not reported  Not reported  Not reported 

ReferenceChoy 200865Phan 200492
Country  South Korea and USA  Vietnam/Australia 
Cultural concept of distress  Taijin kyofusho (fear of interpersonal relations—Japanese), taein kong po (fear of interpersonal relations—Korean)  lo âu sợ hãi (anxiety), phiền não tâm thần (depression), xáo trộn tâm thần và thế xác (somatization) 
Terminology  East Asian syndrome  Indigenous idioms of distress 
Research objective  Assess specificity of cultural symptoms in a cross-cultural comparison  Develop and validate an ethnographically derived measure of anxiety, depression and somatization 
Recruitment  Clinical  Clinical 
Sample  Adult: 64 patients in Korea and 181 patients in USA with SAD and no other diagnoses  Adult: 185 patients from psychiatry OPD and primary care 
Assessment method  Self-report multi-symptom inventory  Self-report multi-symptom inventory 
Prevalence  Unclear  Current 
Comparison group  Yes—patients with SAD and low scores on TKS inventory  Yes—patients scoring below threshold on PVPS 
Psychiatric categories  Social anxiety disorder  Anxiety, depression, somatization 
Instruments, validation  TKS Questionnaire, BDI II Korean validation  PVPS, DIS, and naturalist diagnosis, Vietnamese HSCL validated 
Functioning  Sheehan Disability Scale  Not reported 

ReferenceChoy 200865Phan 200492
Country  South Korea and USA  Vietnam/Australia 
Cultural concept of distress  Taijin kyofusho (fear of interpersonal relations—Japanese), taein kong po (fear of interpersonal relations—Korean)  lo âu sợ hãi (anxiety), phiền não tâm thần (depression), xáo trộn tâm thần và thế xác (somatization) 
Terminology  East Asian syndrome  Indigenous idioms of distress 
Research objective  Assess specificity of cultural symptoms in a cross-cultural comparison  Develop and validate an ethnographically derived measure of anxiety, depression and somatization 
Recruitment  Clinical  Clinical 
Sample  Adult: 64 patients in Korea and 181 patients in USA with SAD and no other diagnoses  Adult: 185 patients from psychiatry OPD and primary care 
Assessment method  Self-report multi-symptom inventory  Self-report multi-symptom inventory 
Prevalence  Unclear  Current 
Comparison group  Yes—patients with SAD and low scores on TKS inventory  Yes—patients scoring below threshold on PVPS 
Psychiatric categories  Social anxiety disorder  Anxiety, depression, somatization 
Instruments, validation  TKS Questionnaire, BDI II Korean validation  PVPS, DIS, and naturalist diagnosis, Vietnamese HSCL validated 
Functioning  Sheehan Disability Scale  Not reported 

ADI, Amritsar Depressive Inventory; APAI, Acholi Psychosocial Assessment Inventory; BAI, Beck Anxiety Inventory; BDI, Beck Depression Inventory; BFSS, Brain Fag Symptom Scale; BSI, Brief Symptom Inventory; BYI, Beck Youth Inventory; CBT, Cognitive Behavioural Therapy; CDI, Chinese Depression Inventory; CFS, Chalder Fatigue Scale; CIDI, Composite International Diagnostic Inventory; CISR, Clinical Interview Schedule-Revised; CSSI, Cambodian Somatic Symptom and Syndrome Inventory; DIS, Diagnostic Interview Schedule; DISC, Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children; DSM, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders; EPDS, Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Screen; GAD, Generalized Anxiety Disorder; GHQ, General Health Questionnaire; HAM-D, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale); HSCL, Hopkins Symptom Checklist; HTQ, Harvard Trauma Questionnaire; KI, Key Informant; MDD, Major Depressive Disorder; NLAAS, National Latino Asian American Study; OCD, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder);OPD, Outpatient Department; PAQ-R, Panic Attack Questionnaire-Revised; PCL-C, Posttraumatic Stress Checklist; PDS, Posttraumatic Diagnostic Scale; PHQ-9, Patient Health Questionnaire; PSE, Present State Examination; PRIME-MD, Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders; PVPS, Phan Vietnamese Psychiatric Scale; SAD, Social Anxiety Disorder; SCID, Structured Clinical Interview for DSM; SCL-90, Somatic Checklist-90 item; SPS, Spirit Possession Scale; SRQ, Self-Reporting Questionnaire; SSI, Somatization Screening Index; SSQ, Shona Symptom Questionnaire; STAI, State Trait Anxiety Inventory; TKS, Taijin Kyofu Sho.

Table 1c

Studies conducted in Asia, meeting inclusion criteria for comparison of cultural concepts of distress and psychiatric categories

ReferenceHinton 201274Kleinman 198277Bhatia 199159Chadda 199064Chadda 199563
Country  Cambodia  China and Taiwan  India  India  India 
Cultural concept of distress  Cambodian somatic syndromes, khyal attacks (wind attacks), thinking too much  Shenjing shuairuo (neurasthenia, neurological weakness)  Dhat (semen loss in urine)  Dhat (semen loss in urine)  Dhat (semen loss in urine) 
Terminology  Cultural syndrome and culturally emphasized somatic complaints  Bioculturally patterned illness; somatization  Culture-bound sex neurosis  Culture-bound sex neurosis  Culture-bound neurotic disorder 
Research objective  Needs assessment of trauma-affected population using culturally-sensitive instrument  Relation of somatization, depression, and neurasthenia with cultural context  Psychiatric diagnosis, presenting symptoms and treatment response among those with Dhat  Psychiatric and STI diagnoses among persons with Dhat  Illness behaviour among persons with Dhat 
Recruitment  Community  Clinical  Clinical  Clinical  Clinical 
Sample  Adult: 139 adults identified by human rights group  Adult: 100 Chinese and 51 Taiwanese patients diagnosed with neurasthenia  Adult: 114 men presenting to psychiatry OPD with psychosexual complaints  Adult: 52 men self-presenting to psychiatry OPD with passage of dhat in urine  Adult: 100 patients presenting to psychiatry OPD 
Assessment method  Self-report multi-symptom inventory  Clinician  Clinician  Single-item self-report  Single-item self-report 
Prevalence  Unclear  Lifetime  Current  Current  Current 
Comparison group  Unclear—only SPS mean scores provided  No—all patients had neurasthenia diagnoses  Yes—men with sexual complaints without dhat  No—all patients reported dhat  Yes—denial of dhat complaint 
Psychiatric categories  PTSD  Anxiety, depression, somatization, chronic pain  Depression  Anxiety, depression  Anxiety (GAD, panic, OCD), depression, somatoform disorders 
Instruments, validation  HTQ, PCL-C, CSSI; PCL-C clinically validated in Khmer  Clinician diagnoses  HAM-D  Clinical interview  Clinical interview with DSM-III-R criteria 
Functioning  Perceived limitations related to health status  Clinical interview  Not reported  Not reported  Not reported 

ReferenceHinton 201274Kleinman 198277Bhatia 199159Chadda 199064Chadda 199563
Country  Cambodia  China and Taiwan  India  India  India 
Cultural concept of distress  Cambodian somatic syndromes, khyal attacks (wind attacks), thinking too much  Shenjing shuairuo (neurasthenia, neurological weakness)  Dhat (semen loss in urine)  Dhat (semen loss in urine)  Dhat (semen loss in urine) 
Terminology  Cultural syndrome and culturally emphasized somatic complaints  Bioculturally patterned illness; somatization  Culture-bound sex neurosis  Culture-bound sex neurosis  Culture-bound neurotic disorder 
Research objective  Needs assessment of trauma-affected population using culturally-sensitive instrument  Relation of somatization, depression, and neurasthenia with cultural context  Psychiatric diagnosis, presenting symptoms and treatment response among those with Dhat  Psychiatric and STI diagnoses among persons with Dhat  Illness behaviour among persons with Dhat 
Recruitment  Community  Clinical  Clinical  Clinical  Clinical 
Sample  Adult: 139 adults identified by human rights group  Adult: 100 Chinese and 51 Taiwanese patients diagnosed with neurasthenia  Adult: 114 men presenting to psychiatry OPD with psychosexual complaints  Adult: 52 men self-presenting to psychiatry OPD with passage of dhat in urine  Adult: 100 patients presenting to psychiatry OPD 
Assessment method  Self-report multi-symptom inventory  Clinician  Clinician  Single-item self-report  Single-item self-report 
Prevalence  Unclear  Lifetime  Current  Current  Current 
Comparison group  Unclear—only SPS mean scores provided  No—all patients had neurasthenia diagnoses  Yes—men with sexual complaints without dhat  No—all patients reported dhat  Yes—denial of dhat complaint 
Psychiatric categories  PTSD  Anxiety, depression, somatization, chronic pain  Depression  Anxiety, depression  Anxiety (GAD, panic, OCD), depression, somatoform disorders 
Instruments, validation  HTQ, PCL-C, CSSI; PCL-C clinically validated in Khmer  Clinician diagnoses  HAM-D  Clinical interview  Clinical interview with DSM-III-R criteria 
Functioning  Perceived limitations related to health status  Clinical interview  Not reported  Not reported  Not reported 

ReferenceDhivak 200767Gautham 200869Perme 200591Singh 198596Bhatia 199958
Country  India  India  India  India  India 
Cultural concept of distress  Dhat (semen loss in urine)  Dhat (semen loss in urine)  Dhat (semen loss in urine)  Dhat (semen loss in urine)  Dhat (semen loss in urine), koro (genital retraction) 
Terminology  Culture-bound syndrome  Culture-bound syndrome  Culture-bound syndrome  Commonly recognized clinical entity in defined culture  Culture-bound syndrome 
Research objective  Prevalence of depression among persons with dhat  Male sexual health concerns evaluated from biomedical, anthropological and psychiatric frameworks  Compare dhat and non-dhat patients on illness beliefs and somatization  Among males with potency disorders, assess cultural illness and psychiatric disorders  Sociodemographics and psychiatric comorbidity among persons with CBS 
Recruitment  Clinical  Clinical  Clinical  Clinical  Clinical 
Sample  Adult: 30 patients presenting to psychiatry OPD with complaint of semen loss in urine  Adult: 366 men presenting to OPDs with sexual/genital complaints  Adult: 61 patients presenting to OPD without mood or anxiety disorders  Adult: 50 consecutive patients in psychiatry OPD with sexual dysfunction complaint  Adult: 60 adults presenting to psychiatry OPD with psychosexual complaints 
Assessment method  Clinician  Single-item self-report  Clinician  Clinician  Single-item self-report 
Prevalence  Current  Current  Unclear  Current  Unclear 
Comparison group  No—all patients diagnosed with dhat  Yes—dhat negative men included  Yes—participants not meeting clinical criteria for dhat  Yes—patients not clinically diagnosed with dhat  Yes—patients without dhat or koro 
Psychiatric categories  Depression  Psychological distress  Somatization, fatigue  Anxiety, depression, fatigue, psychotic depression  Anxiety, depression 
Instruments, validation  HAM-D  GHQ, validation information not provided  SSI, CFS, validation not reported  ADI, validation not reported  Clinical interview 
Functioning  Not reported  Not reported  Not reported  Not reported  Not reported 

ReferenceDhivak 200767Gautham 200869Perme 200591Singh 198596Bhatia 199958
Country  India  India  India  India  India 
Cultural concept of distress  Dhat (semen loss in urine)  Dhat (semen loss in urine)  Dhat (semen loss in urine)  Dhat (semen loss in urine)  Dhat (semen loss in urine), koro (genital retraction) 
Terminology  Culture-bound syndrome  Culture-bound syndrome  Culture-bound syndrome  Commonly recognized clinical entity in defined culture  Culture-bound syndrome 
Research objective  Prevalence of depression among persons with dhat  Male sexual health concerns evaluated from biomedical, anthropological and psychiatric frameworks  Compare dhat and non-dhat patients on illness beliefs and somatization  Among males with potency disorders, assess cultural illness and psychiatric disorders  Sociodemographics and psychiatric comorbidity among persons with CBS 
Recruitment  Clinical  Clinical  Clinical  Clinical  Clinical 
Sample  Adult: 30 patients presenting to psychiatry OPD with complaint of semen loss in urine  Adult: 366 men presenting to OPDs with sexual/genital complaints  Adult: 61 patients presenting to OPD without mood or anxiety disorders  Adult: 50 consecutive patients in psychiatry OPD with sexual dysfunction complaint  Adult: 60 adults presenting to psychiatry OPD with psychosexual complaints 
Assessment method  Clinician  Single-item self-report  Clinician  Clinician  Single-item self-report 
Prevalence  Current  Current  Unclear  Current  Unclear 
Comparison group  No—all patients diagnosed with dhat  Yes—dhat negative men included  Yes—participants not meeting clinical criteria for dhat  Yes—patients not clinically diagnosed with dhat  Yes—patients without dhat or koro 
Psychiatric categories  Depression  Psychological distress  Somatization, fatigue  Anxiety, depression, fatigue, psychotic depression  Anxiety, depression 
Instruments, validation  HAM-D  GHQ, validation information not provided  SSI, CFS, validation not reported  ADI, validation not reported  Clinical interview 
Functioning  Not reported  Not reported  Not reported  Not reported  Not reported 

ReferenceWeaver 201197Kohrt 200478Kohrt 200579Min 201085Park 200187
Country  India  Mongolia  Nepal  South Korea  South Korea 
Cultural Concept of Distress  Tension  Yadargaa (nervous fatigue)  Jham-jham (paraesthesia)  Hwa-byung (‘fire/projection of [accumulated] anger into the body’)  Hwa-byung (‘fire/projection of [accumulated] anger into the body’) 
Terminology  Idiom used to express stress  Culturally appropriate indicator of distress  Somatization  Culture-bound syndrome  Culture-bound syndrome 
Research objective  Connection among diabetes, mental health and social roles  Prevalence of yadargaa and its association with socioeconomic changes  To evaluate the role of physical comorbidities in somatic presentation of depression  Compare comorbidity of HB with other psychiatric disorders  Prevalence of HB, identify differentiating symptoms and evaluate associated SES factors 
Recruitment  Clinical  Community  Community, representative  Clinical  Community 
Sample  Adult: 33 women with type 2 diabetes  Adult: 193 adults in rural and urban settings  Adult: 316 adults in rural setting  Adult: 280 psychiatric patients  Adult: 2807 women age 41-65 years 
Assessment method  Self-report multi-symptom inventory  Single-item self-report  Single-item self-report  Clinician  Self-report multi-symptom inventory 
Prevalence  Current (2 weeks)  Current  Current (2 weeks)  Unclear  Unclear 
Comparison group  Yes—participants scoring below threshold on Tension scale  Yes—participants not endorsing yardargaa  Yes—participants not endorsing jham-jham  Yes—patients not meeting clinician ratings for hwa-byung  Yes—sample not endorsing Hwa-byung symptoms 
Psychiatric categories  General psychological distress  Anxiety, depression, somatization, chronic fatigue  Anxiety, depression, general psychological distress  Depression, anxiety  Depression 
Instruments, validation  HSCL, Tension scale, not clinically validated  CDI, SCL-90, not validated  BAI, BDI, GHQ, all instruments validated in Nepali  Hwa-byung Diagnostic Criteria and Hwa-byung scale, Korean SCID  Hwa-byung Symptom Questionnaire, no validation information 
Functioning  Role fulfilment  Not reported  Not reported  Not reported  Not reported 

ReferenceWeaver 201197Kohrt 200478Kohrt 200579Min 201085Park 200187
Country  India  Mongolia  Nepal  South Korea  South Korea 
Cultural Concept of Distress  Tension  Yadargaa (nervous fatigue)  Jham-jham (paraesthesia)  Hwa-byung (‘fire/projection of [accumulated] anger into the body’)  Hwa-byung (‘fire/projection of [accumulated] anger into the body’) 
Terminology  Idiom used to express stress  Culturally appropriate indicator of distress  Somatization  Culture-bound syndrome  Culture-bound syndrome 
Research objective  Connection among diabetes, mental health and social roles  Prevalence of yadargaa and its association with socioeconomic changes  To evaluate the role of physical comorbidities in somatic presentation of depression  Compare comorbidity of HB with other psychiatric disorders  Prevalence of HB, identify differentiating symptoms and evaluate associated SES factors 
Recruitment  Clinical  Community  Community, representative  Clinical  Community 
Sample  Adult: 33 women with type 2 diabetes  Adult: 193 adults in rural and urban settings  Adult: 316 adults in rural setting  Adult: 280 psychiatric patients  Adult: 2807 women age 41-65 years 
Assessment method  Self-report multi-symptom inventory  Single-item self-report  Single-item self-report  Clinician  Self-report multi-symptom inventory 
Prevalence  Current (2 weeks)  Current  Current (2 weeks)  Unclear  Unclear 
Comparison group  Yes—participants scoring below threshold on Tension scale  Yes—participants not endorsing yardargaa  Yes—participants not endorsing jham-jham  Yes—patients not meeting clinician ratings for hwa-byung  Yes—sample not endorsing Hwa-byung symptoms 
Psychiatric categories  General psychological distress  Anxiety, depression, somatization, chronic fatigue  Anxiety, depression, general psychological distress  Depression, anxiety  Depression 
Instruments, validation  HSCL, Tension scale, not clinically validated  CDI, SCL-90, not validated  BAI, BDI, GHQ, all instruments validated in Nepali  Hwa-byung Diagnostic Criteria and Hwa-byung scale, Korean SCID  Hwa-byung Symptom Questionnaire, no validation information 
Functioning  Role fulfilment  Not reported  Not reported  Not reported  Not reported 

ReferenceChoy 200865Phan 200492
Country  South Korea and USA  Vietnam/Australia 
Cultural concept of distress  Taijin kyofusho (fear of interpersonal relations—Japanese), taein kong po (fear of interpersonal relations—Korean)  lo âu sợ hãi (anxiety), phiền não tâm thần (depression), xáo trộn tâm thần và thế xác (somatization) 
Terminology  East Asian syndrome  Indigenous idioms of distress 
Research objective  Assess specificity of cultural symptoms in a cross-cultural comparison  Develop and validate an ethnographically derived measure of anxiety, depression and somatization 
Recruitment  Clinical  Clinical 
Sample  Adult: 64 patients in Korea and 181 patients in USA with SAD and no other diagnoses  Adult: 185 patients from psychiatry OPD and primary care 
Assessment method  Self-report multi-symptom inventory  Self-report multi-symptom inventory 
Prevalence  Unclear  Current 
Comparison group  Yes—patients with SAD and low scores on TKS inventory  Yes—patients scoring below threshold on PVPS 
Psychiatric categories  Social anxiety disorder  Anxiety, depression, somatization 
Instruments, validation  TKS Questionnaire, BDI II Korean validation  PVPS, DIS, and naturalist diagnosis, Vietnamese HSCL validated 
Functioning  Sheehan Disability Scale  Not reported 

ReferenceChoy 200865Phan 200492
Country  South Korea and USA  Vietnam/Australia 
Cultural concept of distress  Taijin kyofusho (fear of interpersonal relations—Japanese), taein kong po (fear of interpersonal relations—Korean)  lo âu sợ hãi (anxiety), phiền não tâm thần (depression), xáo trộn tâm thần và thế xác (somatization) 
Terminology  East Asian syndrome  Indigenous idioms of distress 
Research objective  Assess specificity of cultural symptoms in a cross-cultural comparison  Develop and validate an ethnographically derived measure of anxiety, depression and somatization 
Recruitment  Clinical  Clinical 
Sample  Adult: 64 patients in Korea and 181 patients in USA with SAD and no other diagnoses  Adult: 185 patients from psychiatry OPD and primary care 
Assessment method  Self-report multi-symptom inventory  Self-report multi-symptom inventory 
Prevalence  Unclear  Current 
Comparison group  Yes—patients with SAD and low scores on TKS inventory  Yes—patients scoring below threshold on PVPS 
Psychiatric categories  Social anxiety disorder  Anxiety, depression, somatization 
Instruments, validation  TKS Questionnaire, BDI II Korean validation  PVPS, DIS, and naturalist diagnosis, Vietnamese HSCL validated 
Functioning  Sheehan Disability Scale  Not reported 

ADI, Amritsar Depressive Inventory; APAI, Acholi Psychosocial Assessment Inventory; BAI, Beck Anxiety Inventory; BDI, Beck Depression Inventory; BFSS, Brain Fag Symptom Scale; BSI, Brief Symptom Inventory; BYI, Beck Youth Inventory; CBT, Cognitive Behavioural Therapy; CDI, Chinese Depression Inventory; CFS, Chalder Fatigue Scale; CIDI, Composite International Diagnostic Inventory; CISR, Clinical Interview Schedule-Revised; CSSI, Cambodian Somatic Symptom and Syndrome Inventory; DIS, Diagnostic Interview Schedule; DISC, Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children; DSM, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders; EPDS, Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Screen; GAD, Generalized Anxiety Disorder; GHQ, General Health Questionnaire; HAM-D, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale); HSCL, Hopkins Symptom Checklist; HTQ, Harvard Trauma Questionnaire; KI, Key Informant; MDD, Major Depressive Disorder; NLAAS, National Latino Asian American Study; OCD, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder);OPD, Outpatient Department; PAQ-R, Panic Attack Questionnaire-Revised; PCL-C, Posttraumatic Stress Checklist; PDS, Posttraumatic Diagnostic Scale; PHQ-9, Patient Health Questionnaire; PSE, Present State Examination; PRIME-MD, Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders; PVPS, Phan Vietnamese Psychiatric Scale; SAD, Social Anxiety Disorder; SCID, Structured Clinical Interview for DSM; SCL-90, Somatic Checklist-90 item; SPS, Spirit Possession Scale; SRQ, Self-Reporting Questionnaire; SSI, Somatization Screening Index; SSQ, Shona Symptom Questionnaire; STAI, State Trait Anxiety Inventory; TKS, Taijin Kyofu Sho.

Quality ratings: SAQOR-CPE

We reviewed the studies to identify types of data commonly reported, and we drew upon broader CCD literature to consider key aspects of CCD relevant to quantitative studies that could influence or confound associations between CCD and psychiatric disorder. These issues were incorporated into the Systematic Assessment of Quality in Observational Research (SAQOR)98 to develop a modified version for Cultural Psychiatry Epidemiology (CPE): the SAQOR-CPE. Table 2 lists the seven categories and their criteria. Table 3 includes the quality scoring for individual studies in the review. Below we describe each category and criterion.

Table 2

Systematic Assessment of Quality in Observational Research—Cultural Psychiatry Epidemiology (SAQOR-CPE) adaptation and scoring criteria

SAQOR original DescriptionCultural Psychiatry Epidemiology (CPE) modificationsSAQOR-CPE modified evaluation
SAMPLE 
Representative  The study sample is representative of the source population  The sample should employ cultural categories (e.g. ethnicity labels) salient to participants and represent the diversity of subgroups potentially affected by CCD  Yes = representative sample with salient cultural groups and inclusion of culturally identified vulnerable groups; No = convenience and other non-representative samples, or categorization is not culturally salient 
Source  The study must include a clear description of where the sample was drawn from. Study participants may be selected from the target population (all individuals to whom the results of the study could be applied), the source population (a defined subset of the target population from which participants are selected), or from a pool of eligible subjects (a clearly defined and counted group selected from the source population)  The study should clearly state whether persons with CCD were included because of self-labelling, being labelled by a clinician or being labelled by some other key informant. If the source is clinician- or key informant-identified, then the discrepancy between other- and self-labelling should be reported.  Yes = clearly defined group to which generalizations could be drawn (e.g. population, subgroup or patients); for CCD, clearly defined group of self-endorsing idiom or clinician-/key informant-assigned criteria; differences between self- and other-labelling should be reported; No = select or biased group not generalizable beyond research study (e.g. CCD based on research criteria only, such as number of somatic complaints, but not generalizable to application of CCD outside study contexts) 
Method  The method of participant recruitment/selection must be given  Recruitment processes in clinical or community settings should be reported because public vs private settings may impact on endorsement of CCD. Potential biases related to stigmatizing aspects of CCD should be considered in recruitment method. For key informant-identified participants, potential biases should be addressed such as not wanting to label individuals in positions of power as suffering from CCD, especially if key informants are known to the community  Yes = method of recruitment reported, potential biases in CCD endorsement from recruitment method should be discussed; number of persons approached and number consenting or refusing should be included; No = recruitment method not described or no acknowledgement of recruitment approach and CCD endorsement bias 
Size  The authors should describe how the sample size was determined and adequacy of sample size to address research question  Sample sizes ideally should be based on power calculations with prevalence estimates. For commonly researched CCD such as nervios-related conditions, dhat and hwa-byung, prevalence estimates in clinical and community settings are available. For novel CCD studies, key informants and primary care clinicians could be used to grossly estimate prevalence in order to determine if CCD are rare or common in the target group  Yes = power calculation for sample size included or ethnographic prevalence estimate based on key informants; No = no rationale given for sample size 
Inclusion/ exclusion criteria  All inclusion and exclusion criteria should be explicitly described unambiguously and applied equally to all groups  Inclusion/exclusion criteria should be addressed in three domains: cultural group, CCD and psychiatric disorder. If CCD are being investigated in a particular group, then the cultural inclusion/exclusion should be clear, e.g. self-labelling, primary language, location of residence. For CCD, inclusion and exclusion criteria should refer to self-endorsement, current or prior episodes, duration of CCD required for inclusion and comorbidity with other CCD. For psychiatric disorders, clear inclusion and exclusion criteria especially regarding substance use disorders, psychotic disorders and cognitive disorders should be described  Yes = defined criteria, e.g. inclusion age, spoken language, ethnicity etc. CCD current vs ever, duration, etc. Exclusion of psychosis, cognitive impairment, substance misuse; No = unknown criteria for cultural group inclusion, unknown psychiatric or physical comorbidity, unknown prior episodes of CCD 
       
CONTROL/COMPARISON GROUP 
Inclusion  Unless it is a descriptive study or case report/series, control group must be included  To draw conclusions about association of CCD with psychiatric disorders, physical health problems, traumatic exposures, socioeconomic vulnerability etc., it is crucial to have a control group which does not endorse the CCD. Then comparisons can be made regarding greater or lesser likelihood among those with CCD  Yes = representative community sample with persons not endorsing CCD or clinical or community sample with matched participants not endorsing CCD; No = lack of comparison group 
Identifiable  Is there a clear distinction between the groups in the study? Are the same variables considered in the control group as in the exposed group(s)?  Control/comparison groups should be clearly distinguished based on CCD status. Lifetime CCD experience is generally straightforward. However, when only current CCD are assessed, controls may include participants with recent CCD episodes that concluded before the study target period  Yes = control of confounds such as other disorders in cases and controls; clear distinction between lifetime or current CCD; No = comparison groups where confounds or prior CCD are not controlled 
Source  Control group should be drawn from the same population as the exposed group(s)  The source for controls in the community or clinic should come from comparable populations based on cultural/ethnic/linguistic group, health status, age, residence etc. Recruitment strategies should be the same for controls to minimize impact of recruitment method of biasing endorsement  Yes = cases and controls drawn from comparable social groups andsimilar context (e.g. community or clinic), using the same recruitment method; No = lack of reporting about control source or differences in source that increase risk of bias 
Matched or randomize  For matched studies, matching criteria are given. For randomized studies, randomization method is described  To identify key features that distinguish persons with CCD from those who do not endorse the CCD, matching and other strategies may be used. If used, the matching criteria and analytic process should be described in detail. Matching criteria should be relevant to the CCD  Yes = matching criteria (e.g. propensity score matching or selection process); No = no matching or randomization procedure used or described 
Statistical control  Groups selected for comparison are as similar as possible in all characteristics except for their exposure status  Statistical analyses should control for as many potential confounds as possible, with special attention to confounds that could influence CCD endorsement, such as years in a new country for immigrants and refugees, language proficiency, ethnic group and region of residence  Yes = control for confounds or other criteria when comparing between groups;No = bivariate comparisons that do not include potential confounds 
       
CULTURAL CONCEPTS OF DISTRESS (CCD) 
CCD categorical  Not applicable  Participants should be classifiable as CCD and non-CCD groups based on current or lifetime prevalence, clinician diagnoses or key informant opinions. Researcher-defined criteria (e.g. symptom cutoff scores) alone are insufficient to capture culturally significant implications of CCD status  Yes = self-report for (current or lifetime) CCD endorsed or denied; No = unable to assess from data whether persons endorse CCD or deny (only proxies used) 
CCD prevalence  Not applicable  CCD classification time period should be clearly defined. Is lifetime or current prevalence used? If current prevalence, then what is the time period: 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month etc.?  Yes = lifetime or current prevalence is reported, and period of current prevalence is specified; No = unclear prevalence reporting 
CCD label type  Not applicable  The type of CCD should be described with qualitative information, as well as quantitative information if possible. For example, is CCD attribution based on single objective or subjective symptoms, or co-occurring symptoms, certain types of exposures and presumed causes or specific vulnerability groups? Labels such as symptom-based CCD, syndrome-based CCD, aetiology-based CCD or mixed may be applicable in some studies. When possible, if a CCD is based on a presumed exposure, the type and timing of the exposure should be reported  Yes = qualitative or quantitative information is provided based on how CCD is classified, e.g. symptom, syndrome, aetiology or mixed; No = unclear why participants endorse CCD label 
CCD severity  Not applicable  Severity information should be provided, e.g. frequency of attacks or episodes, number of symptoms, intensity of episodes or symptoms, or degree of impairment associated with CCD. Severity information allows for comparisons of mildly or severely affected individuals and the association with other variables.  Yes = severity assessed through frequency, severity, number of associated symptoms or functioning; No = unclear how severe; unclear association with impairment 
CCD course  Not applicable  Information regarding CCD course prevents spurious associations or misinterpretation of findings of psychiatric associations. CCD age of onset, duration of most recent episode and presence of episodic or chronic symptoms should be included. Information regarding timing of psychiatric symptoms should be included to determine whether CCD precedes, co-occurs with, follows or is independent of psychiatric disorders  Yes = age of onset, duration of episode, number of episodes, and timing with psychiatric diagnosis; No = Unclear whether current or prior episode is detected in study, unclear duration, unclear chronic vs episodic course 
       
MEASUREMENT QUALITY 
Exposure  How did the authors ascertain that the cases/exposed group had indeed been exposed to the variable of interest?  Most CCDs are associated with a presumed stressful exposure, in the form of chronic or episodic threats. Information should be collected on the types and timing of exposure and temporal relationship of the CCD to the exposure. Exposures should be recorded among both CCD and non-CCD participants.  Yes = information is provided regarding chronic or episodic exposures presumed to associate with CCD; No = no information on exposures reported 
Outcomes  Tools/methods used to measure the outcome of interest are clearly defined; tools/methods used are sufficient to answer the study question(s); In clinical studies, the outcome assessor was blind to the group exposure status; Medical chart reviews; blood tests; neurological/physical examination; independent assessment by more than one investigator  For cross-cultural research, validity of the psychiatric assessment in the culture of interest should be recorded. If validated in the population of interest, psychometrics such as sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values should be reported. If the instrument is not validated, then transcultural translation108,134 and cross-cultural equivalence determination109 should be described.  Yes = psychiatric instruments validated for use with study population and psychometrics reported; transcultural translation and cross-cultural equivalence reported; No = lack of validated instruments, e.g. only use translation back translation 
Functional outcomes  Not applicable  Culturally salient assessment of impaired functioning should be reported. It should be determined whether a CCD is associated with impaired functioning or lack of role fulfilment. Without reporting impaired functioning, social performance labels may be incorrectly labelled as CCD  Yes = measure of functioning, ideally with quantitative association with CCD; No = no measure of functioning or impairment reported 
       
FOLLOW-UP 
Participants lost to follow-up  Does the study state how many participants were not followed up?  The attrition and follow-up rates should be reported at all time points  Yes = include number; No = not include % lost to follow-up 
Explanations for lost to follow-up  Was the explanation provided as to why participants could not or would not complete the study? For example, participants moved, gave wrong phone number, did not call back, lost interest in the study etc.  Reason for attrition should be reported if available, e.g. lack of participant transportation, death of participant, dissatisfaction with treatment  Yes = reason included; No = reason not included 
CCD change  Not applicable  A major limitation in current CCD literature is failure to report change in CCD status at follow-up studies or at post-intervention assessments. All studies with multiple time points should include assessment of CCD at successive assessments. This allows evaluation of whether CCD and psychiatric disorders occur and resolve in comparable or disparate trajectories  Yes = CCD assessed at each time point in the study, including post-intervention if applicable; No = follow-up study or treatment evaluation study that does not include information on CCD status 
       
DISTORTING INFLUENCES 
Psychiatric comorbidity  The authors explain how they dealt with depression (or other psychiatric comorbidities) in their analysis of the outcomes: did they take it into account as one of the major confounders?  Comorbidity among psychiatric disorders is high. Studies should account for psychiatric comorbidities when assessing associations between CCDs and psychiatric disorders. This can be done through inclusion/exclusion criteria, statistical controls or both. Studies in which only one psychiatric disorder is investigated do not allow adequate assessment of comorbidity. Commonly neglected comorbidities are substance misuse and psychotic disorders  Yes = control for psychiatric comorbidities through inclusion/exclusion or statistical analysis; No = only one disorder investigated; inclusion/exclusion criteria unclear; only bivariate analyses are used 
Treatment  The authors explain how they dealt with other psychotropic drugs (and other treatment) participants may have been taking: did they control for them in the analysis of outcomes?  Treatment (both biomedical and traditional) will influence current episodes of CCD. Current or prior psychiatric treatment may impact psychiatric status. Treatment status therefore may confound associations between CCD and psychiatric diagnoses. Current and prior treatment should be included, especially psychiatric care and traditional healing intended to resolve CCD  Yes = treatment status known and controlled in analyses or selection; No = no information provided on current or prior treatment 
Physical comorbidity  Not applicable  Physical health may be a significant contributor to both CCD and psychiatric disorders. Physical health problems such as micronutrient deficiencies, anaemia, infections and reproductive health problems may underlie CCD and psychiatric complaints. Potential physical health problems that could lead to CCD symptoms should be investigated and controlled for in analyses  Yes = potential physical health confounds addressed and reported through inclusion criteria or statistical analyses; No = no information provided on current or prior physical health 
Other confounds  The possible presence of confounding factors is one of the principal reasons why observational studies are not more highly rated as a source of evidence. The report of the study should indicate which potential confounders have been considered, and how they have been assessed or allowed for in the analysis  In cross-cultural research, other potential confounds include degree of acculturation for immigrants and refugees, level of language proficiency to engage with different cultural groups, lifetime access or lack of access to healthcare, educational level, degree of exposure to internet and other information technologies etc.  Yes = control for distorting influences in selection or analysis; No = no confounds proposed 
       
REPORTING OF DATA 
Missing data  The authors explain how the missing data were addressed and how dealt with during the analysis. Authors indicated numbers of participants with missing data for each variable of interest. For example, the outcomes are provided for some but not all of the participants, or the data are provided for some but not all of the variables  Missing data should be reported in standard epidemiological formats. If approaches are taken to correct missing data (such as imputation), then biases for missing data should be evaluated. For example, if missing data are more common among participants with lower linguistic proficiency, then a common imputation technique could introduce bias by generalization based on high linguistic proficiency respondents  Yes = amount of missing data and how addressed are reported; No = no discussion of missing data 
Presentation  Data are clearly and accurately presented. Confidence intervals are included where appropriate. All data numbers add up. No cases are counted more than once. There is no confusion in regard to any data presented  Data should be presented to all comparison between CCD participants and non-CCD controls. Dichotomous CCD endorsement (% with lifetime dhat vs those with no lifetime dhat) should be clearly presented  Yes = 95% CI, odds ratios for CCD and variables of interest, sensitivity and specificity for validation or associations are included; No = lack of clear presentation to judge CCD and non-CCD participants 

SAQOR original DescriptionCultural Psychiatry Epidemiology (CPE) modificationsSAQOR-CPE modified evaluation
SAMPLE 
Representative  The study sample is representative of the source population  The sample should employ cultural categories (e.g. ethnicity labels) salient to participants and represent the diversity of subgroups potentially affected by CCD  Yes = representative sample with salient cultural groups and inclusion of culturally identified vulnerable groups; No = convenience and other non-representative samples, or categorization is not culturally salient 
Source  The study must include a clear description of where the sample was drawn from. Study participants may be selected from the target population (all individuals to whom the results of the study could be applied), the source population (a defined subset of the target population from which participants are selected), or from a pool of eligible subjects (a clearly defined and counted group selected from the source population)  The study should clearly state whether persons with CCD were included because of self-labelling, being labelled by a clinician or being labelled by some other key informant. If the source is clinician- or key informant-identified, then the discrepancy between other- and self-labelling should be reported.  Yes = clearly defined group to which generalizations could be drawn (e.g. population, subgroup or patients); for CCD, clearly defined group of self-endorsing idiom or clinician-/key informant-assigned criteria; differences between self- and other-labelling should be reported; No = select or biased group not generalizable beyond research study (e.g. CCD based on research criteria only, such as number of somatic complaints, but not generalizable to application of CCD outside study contexts) 
Method  The method of participant recruitment/selection must be given  Recruitment processes in clinical or community settings should be reported because public vs private settings may impact on endorsement of CCD. Potential biases related to stigmatizing aspects of CCD should be considered in recruitment method. For key informant-identified participants, potential biases should be addressed such as not wanting to label individuals in positions of power as suffering from CCD, especially if key informants are known to the community  Yes = method of recruitment reported, potential biases in CCD endorsement from recruitment method should be discussed; number of persons approached and number consenting or refusing should be included; No = recruitment method not described or no acknowledgement of recruitment approach and CCD endorsement bias 
Size  The authors should describe how the sample size was determined and adequacy of sample size to address research question  Sample sizes ideally should be based on power calculations with prevalence estimates. For commonly researched CCD such as nervios-related conditions, dhat and hwa-byung, prevalence estimates in clinical and community settings are available. For novel CCD studies, key informants and primary care clinicians could be used to grossly estimate prevalence in order to determine if CCD are rare or common in the target group  Yes = power calculation for sample size included or ethnographic prevalence estimate based on key informants; No = no rationale given for sample size 
Inclusion/ exclusion criteria  All inclusion and exclusion criteria should be explicitly described unambiguously and applied equally to all groups  Inclusion/exclusion criteria should be addressed in three domains: cultural group, CCD and psychiatric disorder. If CCD are being investigated in a particular group, then the cultural inclusion/exclusion should be clear, e.g. self-labelling, primary language, location of residence. For CCD, inclusion and exclusion criteria should refer to self-endorsement, current or prior episodes, duration of CCD required for inclusion and comorbidity with other CCD. For psychiatric disorders, clear inclusion and exclusion criteria especially regarding substance use disorders, psychotic disorders and cognitive disorders should be described  Yes = defined criteria, e.g. inclusion age, spoken language, ethnicity etc. CCD current vs ever, duration, etc. Exclusion of psychosis, cognitive impairment, substance misuse; No = unknown criteria for cultural group inclusion, unknown psychiatric or physical comorbidity, unknown prior episodes of CCD 
       
CONTROL/COMPARISON GROUP 
Inclusion  Unless it is a descriptive study or case report/series, control group must be included  To draw conclusions about association of CCD with psychiatric disorders, physical health problems, traumatic exposures, socioeconomic vulnerability etc., it is crucial to have a control group which does not endorse the CCD. Then comparisons can be made regarding greater or lesser likelihood among those with CCD  Yes = representative community sample with persons not endorsing CCD or clinical or community sample with matched participants not endorsing CCD; No = lack of comparison group 
Identifiable  Is there a clear distinction between the groups in the study? Are the same variables considered in the control group as in the exposed group(s)?  Control/comparison groups should be clearly distinguished based on CCD status. Lifetime CCD experience is generally straightforward. However, when only current CCD are assessed, controls may include participants with recent CCD episodes that concluded before the study target period  Yes = control of confounds such as other disorders in cases and controls; clear distinction between lifetime or current CCD; No = comparison groups where confounds or prior CCD are not controlled 
Source  Control group should be drawn from the same population as the exposed group(s)  The source for controls in the community or clinic should come from comparable populations based on cultural/ethnic/linguistic group, health status, age, residence etc. Recruitment strategies should be the same for controls to minimize impact of recruitment method of biasing endorsement  Yes = cases and controls drawn from comparable social groups andsimilar context (e.g. community or clinic), using the same recruitment method; No = lack of reporting about control source or differences in source that increase risk of bias 
Matched or randomize  For matched studies, matching criteria are given. For randomized studies, randomization method is described  To identify key features that distinguish persons with CCD from those who do not endorse the CCD, matching and other strategies may be used. If used, the matching criteria and analytic process should be described in detail. Matching criteria should be relevant to the CCD  Yes = matching criteria (e.g. propensity score matching or selection process); No = no matching or randomization procedure used or described 
Statistical control  Groups selected for comparison are as similar as possible in all characteristics except for their exposure status  Statistical analyses should control for as many potential confounds as possible, with special attention to confounds that could influence CCD endorsement, such as years in a new country for immigrants and refugees, language proficiency, ethnic group and region of residence  Yes = control for confounds or other criteria when comparing between groups;No = bivariate comparisons that do not include potential confounds 
       
CULTURAL CONCEPTS OF DISTRESS (CCD) 
CCD categorical  Not applicable  Participants should be classifiable as CCD and non-CCD groups based on current or lifetime prevalence, clinician diagnoses or key informant opinions. Researcher-defined criteria (e.g. symptom cutoff scores) alone are insufficient to capture culturally significant implications of CCD status  Yes = self-report for (current or lifetime) CCD endorsed or denied; No = unable to assess from data whether persons endorse CCD or deny (only proxies used) 
CCD prevalence  Not applicable  CCD classification time period should be clearly defined. Is lifetime or current prevalence used? If current prevalence, then what is the time period: 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month etc.?  Yes = lifetime or current prevalence is reported, and period of current prevalence is specified; No = unclear prevalence reporting 
CCD label type  Not applicable  The type of CCD should be described with qualitative information, as well as quantitative information if possible. For example, is CCD attribution based on single objective or subjective symptoms, or co-occurring symptoms, certain types of exposures and presumed causes or specific vulnerability groups? Labels such as symptom-based CCD, syndrome-based CCD, aetiology-based CCD or mixed may be applicable in some studies. When possible, if a CCD is based on a presumed exposure, the type and timing of the exposure should be reported  Yes = qualitative or quantitative information is provided based on how CCD is classified, e.g. symptom, syndrome, aetiology or mixed; No = unclear why participants endorse CCD label 
CCD severity  Not applicable  Severity information should be provided, e.g. frequency of attacks or episodes, number of symptoms, intensity of episodes or symptoms, or degree of impairment associated with CCD. Severity information allows for comparisons of mildly or severely affected individuals and the association with other variables.  Yes = severity assessed through frequency, severity, number of associated symptoms or functioning; No = unclear how severe; unclear association with impairment 
CCD course  Not applicable  Information regarding CCD course prevents spurious associations or misinterpretation of findings of psychiatric associations. CCD age of onset, duration of most recent episode and presence of episodic or chronic symptoms should be included. Information regarding timing of psychiatric symptoms should be included to determine whether CCD precedes, co-occurs with, follows or is independent of psychiatric disorders  Yes = age of onset, duration of episode, number of episodes, and timing with psychiatric diagnosis; No = Unclear whether current or prior episode is detected in study, unclear duration, unclear chronic vs episodic course 
       
MEASUREMENT QUALITY 
Exposure  How did the authors ascertain that the cases/exposed group had indeed been exposed to the variable of interest?  Most CCDs are associated with a presumed stressful exposure, in the form of chronic or episodic threats. Information should be collected on the types and timing of exposure and temporal relationship of the CCD to the exposure. Exposures should be recorded among both CCD and non-CCD participants.  Yes = information is provided regarding chronic or episodic exposures presumed to associate with CCD; No = no information on exposures reported 
Outcomes  Tools/methods used to measure the outcome of interest are clearly defined; tools/methods used are sufficient to answer the study question(s); In clinical studies, the outcome assessor was blind to the group exposure status; Medical chart reviews; blood tests; neurological/physical examination; independent assessment by more than one investigator  For cross-cultural research, validity of the psychiatric assessment in the culture of interest should be recorded. If validated in the population of interest, psychometrics such as sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values should be reported. If the instrument is not validated, then transcultural translation108,134 and cross-cultural equivalence determination109 should be described.  Yes = psychiatric instruments validated for use with study population and psychometrics reported; transcultural translation and cross-cultural equivalence reported; No = lack of validated instruments, e.g. only use translation back translation 
Functional outcomes  Not applicable  Culturally salient assessment of impaired functioning should be reported. It should be determined whether a CCD is associated with impaired functioning or lack of role fulfilment. Without reporting impaired functioning, social performance labels may be incorrectly labelled as CCD  Yes = measure of functioning, ideally with quantitative association with CCD; No = no measure of functioning or impairment reported 
       
FOLLOW-UP 
Participants lost to follow-up  Does the study state how many participants were not followed up?  The attrition and follow-up rates should be reported at all time points  Yes = include number; No = not include % lost to follow-up 
Explanations for lost to follow-up  Was the explanation provided as to why participants could not or would not complete the study? For example, participants moved, gave wrong phone number, did not call back, lost interest in the study etc.  Reason for attrition should be reported if available, e.g. lack of participant transportation, death of participant, dissatisfaction with treatment  Yes = reason included; No = reason not included 
CCD change  Not applicable  A major limitation in current CCD literature is failure to report change in CCD status at follow-up studies or at post-intervention assessments. All studies with multiple time points should include assessment of CCD at successive assessments. This allows evaluation of whether CCD and psychiatric disorders occur and resolve in comparable or disparate trajectories  Yes = CCD assessed at each time point in the study, including post-intervention if applicable; No = follow-up study or treatment evaluation study that does not include information on CCD status 
       
DISTORTING INFLUENCES 
Psychiatric comorbidity  The authors explain how they dealt with depression (or other psychiatric comorbidities) in their analysis of the outcomes: did they take it into account as one of the major confounders?  Comorbidity among psychiatric disorders is high. Studies should account for psychiatric comorbidities when assessing associations between CCDs and psychiatric disorders. This can be done through inclusion/exclusion criteria, statistical controls or both. Studies in which only one psychiatric disorder is investigated do not allow adequate assessment of comorbidity. Commonly neglected comorbidities are substance misuse and psychotic disorders  Yes = control for psychiatric comorbidities through inclusion/exclusion or statistical analysis; No = only one disorder investigated; inclusion/exclusion criteria unclear; only bivariate analyses are used 
Treatment  The authors explain how they dealt with other psychotropic drugs (and other treatment) participants may have been taking: did they control for them in the analysis of outcomes?  Treatment (both biomedical and traditional) will influence current episodes of CCD. Current or prior psychiatric treatment may impact psychiatric status. Treatment status therefore may confound associations between CCD and psychiatric diagnoses. Current and prior treatment should be included, especially psychiatric care and traditional healing intended to resolve CCD  Yes = treatment status known and controlled in analyses or selection; No = no information provided on current or prior treatment 
Physical comorbidity  Not applicable  Physical health may be a significant contributor to both CCD and psychiatric disorders. Physical health problems such as micronutrient deficiencies, anaemia, infections and reproductive health problems may underlie CCD and psychiatric complaints. Potential physical health problems that could lead to CCD symptoms should be investigated and controlled for in analyses  Yes = potential physical health confounds addressed and reported through inclusion criteria or statistical analyses; No = no information provided on current or prior physical health 
Other confounds  The possible presence of confounding factors is one of the principal reasons why observational studies are not more highly rated as a source of evidence. The report of the study should indicate which potential confounders have been considered, and how they have been assessed or allowed for in the analysis  In cross-cultural research, other potential confounds include degree of acculturation for immigrants and refugees, level of language proficiency to engage with different cultural groups, lifetime access or lack of access to healthcare, educational level, degree of exposure to internet and other information technologies etc.  Yes = control for distorting influences in selection or analysis; No = no confounds proposed 
       
REPORTING OF DATA 
Missing data  The authors explain how the missing data were addressed and how dealt with during the analysis. Authors indicated numbers of participants with missing data for each variable of interest. For example, the outcomes are provided for some but not all of the participants, or the data are provided for some but not all of the variables  Missing data should be reported in standard epidemiological formats. If approaches are taken to correct missing data (such as imputation), then biases for missing data should be evaluated. For example, if missing data are more common among participants with lower linguistic proficiency, then a common imputation technique could introduce bias by generalization based on high linguistic proficiency respondents  Yes = amount of missing data and how addressed are reported; No = no discussion of missing data 
Presentation  Data are clearly and accurately presented. Confidence intervals are included where appropriate. All data numbers add up. No cases are counted more than once. There is no confusion in regard to any data presented  Data should be presented to all comparison between CCD participants and non-CCD controls. Dichotomous CCD endorsement (% with lifetime dhat vs those with no lifetime dhat) should be clearly presented  Yes = 95% CI, odds ratios for CCD and variables of interest, sensitivity and specificity for validation or associations are included; No = lack of clear presentation to judge CCD and non-CCD participants 

Table 2

Systematic Assessment of Quality in Observational Research—Cultural Psychiatry Epidemiology (SAQOR-CPE) adaptation and scoring criteria

SAQOR original DescriptionCultural Psychiatry Epidemiology (CPE) modificationsSAQOR-CPE modified evaluation
SAMPLE 
Representative  The study sample is representative of the source population  The sample should employ cultural categories (e.g. ethnicity labels) salient to participants and represent the diversity of subgroups potentially affected by CCD  Yes = representative sample with salient cultural groups and inclusion of culturally identified vulnerable groups; No = convenience and other non-representative samples, or categorization is not culturally salient 
Source  The study must include a clear description of where the sample was drawn from. Study participants may be selected from the target population (all individuals to whom the results of the study could be applied), the source population (a defined subset of the target population from which participants are selected), or from a pool of eligible subjects (a clearly defined and counted group selected from the source population)  The study should clearly state whether persons with CCD were included because of self-labelling, being labelled by a clinician or being labelled by some other key informant. If the source is clinician- or key informant-identified, then the discrepancy between other- and self-labelling should be reported.  Yes = clearly defined group to which generalizations could be drawn (e.g. population, subgroup or patients); for CCD, clearly defined group of self-endorsing idiom or clinician-/key informant-assigned criteria; differences between self- and other-labelling should be reported; No = select or biased group not generalizable beyond research study (e.g. CCD based on research criteria only, such as number of somatic complaints, but not generalizable to application of CCD outside study contexts) 
Method  The method of participant recruitment/selection must be given  Recruitment processes in clinical or community settings should be reported because public vs private settings may impact on endorsement of CCD. Potential biases related to stigmatizing aspects of CCD should be considered in recruitment method. For key informant-identified participants, potential biases should be addressed such as not wanting to label individuals in positions of power as suffering from CCD, especially if key informants are known to the community  Yes = method of recruitment reported, potential biases in CCD endorsement from recruitment method should be discussed; number of persons approached and number consenting or refusing should be included; No = recruitment method not described or no acknowledgement of recruitment approach and CCD endorsement bias 
Size  The authors should describe how the sample size was determined and adequacy of sample size to address research question  Sample sizes ideally should be based on power calculations with prevalence estimates. For commonly researched CCD such as nervios-related conditions, dhat and hwa-byung, prevalence estimates in clinical and community settings are available. For novel CCD studies, key informants and primary care clinicians could be used to grossly estimate prevalence in order to determine if CCD are rare or common in the target group  Yes = power calculation for sample size included or ethnographic prevalence estimate based on key informants; No = no rationale given for sample size 
Inclusion/ exclusion criteria  All inclusion and exclusion criteria should be explicitly described unambiguously and applied equally to all groups  Inclusion/exclusion criteria should be addressed in three domains: cultural group, CCD and psychiatric disorder. If CCD are being investigated in a particular group, then the cultural inclusion/exclusion should be clear, e.g. self-labelling, primary language, location of residence. For CCD, inclusion and exclusion criteria should refer to self-endorsement, current or prior episodes, duration of CCD required for inclusion and comorbidity with other CCD. For psychiatric disorders, clear inclusion and exclusion criteria especially regarding substance use disorders, psychotic disorders and cognitive disorders should be described  Yes = defined criteria, e.g. inclusion age, spoken language, ethnicity etc. CCD current vs ever, duration, etc. Exclusion of psychosis, cognitive impairment, substance misuse; No = unknown criteria for cultural group inclusion, unknown psychiatric or physical comorbidity, unknown prior episodes of CCD 
       
CONTROL/COMPARISON GROUP 
Inclusion  Unless it is a descriptive study or case report/series, control group must be included  To draw conclusions about association of CCD with psychiatric disorders, physical health problems, traumatic exposures, socioeconomic vulnerability etc., it is crucial to have a control group which does not endorse the CCD. Then comparisons can be made regarding greater or lesser likelihood among those with CCD  Yes = representative community sample with persons not endorsing CCD or clinical or community sample with matched participants not endorsing CCD; No = lack of comparison group 
Identifiable  Is there a clear distinction between the groups in the study? Are the same variables considered in the control group as in the exposed group(s)?  Control/comparison groups should be clearly distinguished based on CCD status. Lifetime CCD experience is generally straightforward. However, when only current CCD are assessed, controls may include participants with recent CCD episodes that concluded before the study target period  Yes = control of confounds such as other disorders in cases and controls; clear distinction between lifetime or current CCD; No = comparison groups where confounds or prior CCD are not controlled 
Source  Control group should be drawn from the same population as the exposed group(s)  The source for controls in the community or clinic should come from comparable populations based on cultural/ethnic/linguistic group, health status, age, residence etc. Recruitment strategies should be the same for controls to minimize impact of recruitment method of biasing endorsement  Yes = cases and controls drawn from comparable social groups andsimilar context (e.g. community or clinic), using the same recruitment method; No = lack of reporting about control source or differences in source that increase risk of bias 
Matched or randomize  For matched studies, matching criteria are given. For randomized studies, randomization method is described  To identify key features that distinguish persons with CCD from those who do not endorse the CCD, matching and other strategies may be used. If used, the matching criteria and analytic process should be described in detail. Matching criteria should be relevant to the CCD  Yes = matching criteria (e.g. propensity score matching or selection process); No = no matching or randomization procedure used or described 
Statistical control  Groups selected for comparison are as similar as possible in all characteristics except for their exposure status  Statistical analyses should control for as many potential confounds as possible, with special attention to confounds that could influence CCD endorsement, such as years in a new country for immigrants and refugees, language proficiency, ethnic group and region of residence  Yes = control for confounds or other criteria when comparing between groups;No = bivariate comparisons that do not include potential confounds 
       
CULTURAL CONCEPTS OF DISTRESS (CCD) 
CCD categorical  Not applicable  Participants should be classifiable as CCD and non-CCD groups based on current or lifetime prevalence, clinician diagnoses or key informant opinions. Researcher-defined criteria (e.g. symptom cutoff scores) alone are insufficient to capture culturally significant implications of CCD status  Yes = self-report for (current or lifetime) CCD endorsed or denied; No = unable to assess from data whether persons endorse CCD or deny (only proxies used) 
CCD prevalence  Not applicable  CCD classification time period should be clearly defined. Is lifetime or current prevalence used? If current prevalence, then what is the time period: 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month etc.?  Yes = lifetime or current prevalence is reported, and period of current prevalence is specified; No = unclear prevalence reporting 
CCD label type  Not applicable  The type of CCD should be described with qualitative information, as well as quantitative information if possible. For example, is CCD attribution based on single objective or subjective symptoms, or co-occurring symptoms, certain types of exposures and presumed causes or specific vulnerability groups? Labels such as symptom-based CCD, syndrome-based CCD, aetiology-based CCD or mixed may be applicable in some studies. When possible, if a CCD is based on a presumed exposure, the type and timing of the exposure should be reported  Yes = qualitative or quantitative information is provided based on how CCD is classified, e.g. symptom, syndrome, aetiology or mixed; No = unclear why participants endorse CCD label 
CCD severity  Not applicable  Severity information should be provided, e.g. frequency of attacks or episodes, number of symptoms, intensity of episodes or symptoms, or degree of impairment associated with CCD. Severity information allows for comparisons of mildly or severely affected individuals and the association with other variables.  Yes = severity assessed through frequency, severity, number of associated symptoms or functioning; No = unclear how severe; unclear association with impairment 
CCD course  Not applicable  Information regarding CCD course prevents spurious associations or misinterpretation of findings of psychiatric associations. CCD age of onset, duration of most recent episode and presence of episodic or chronic symptoms should be included. Information regarding timing of psychiatric symptoms should be included to determine whether CCD precedes, co-occurs with, follows or is independent of psychiatric disorders  Yes = age of onset, duration of episode, number of episodes, and timing with psychiatric diagnosis; No = Unclear whether current or prior episode is detected in study, unclear duration, unclear chronic vs episodic course 
       
MEASUREMENT QUALITY 
Exposure  How did the authors ascertain that the cases/exposed group had indeed been exposed to the variable of interest?  Most CCDs are associated with a presumed stressful exposure, in the form of chronic or episodic threats. Information should be collected on the types and timing of exposure and temporal relationship of the CCD to the exposure. Exposures should be recorded among both CCD and non-CCD participants.  Yes = information is provided regarding chronic or episodic exposures presumed to associate with CCD; No = no information on exposures reported 
Outcomes  Tools/methods used to measure the outcome of interest are clearly defined; tools/methods used are sufficient to answer the study question(s); In clinical studies, the outcome assessor was blind to the group exposure status; Medical chart reviews; blood tests; neurological/physical examination; independent assessment by more than one investigator  For cross-cultural research, validity of the psychiatric assessment in the culture of interest should be recorded. If validated in the population of interest, psychometrics such as sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values should be reported. If the instrument is not validated, then transcultural translation108,134 and cross-cultural equivalence determination109 should be described.  Yes = psychiatric instruments validated for use with study population and psychometrics reported; transcultural translation and cross-cultural equivalence reported; No = lack of validated instruments, e.g. only use translation back translation 
Functional outcomes  Not applicable  Culturally salient assessment of impaired functioning should be reported. It should be determined whether a CCD is associated with impaired functioning or lack of role fulfilment. Without reporting impaired functioning, social performance labels may be incorrectly labelled as CCD  Yes = measure of functioning, ideally with quantitative association with CCD; No = no measure of functioning or impairment reported 
       
FOLLOW-UP 
Participants lost to follow-up  Does the study state how many participants were not followed up?  The attrition and follow-up rates should be reported at all time points  Yes = include number; No = not include % lost to follow-up 
Explanations for lost to follow-up  Was the explanation provided as to why participants could not or would not complete the study? For example, participants moved, gave wrong phone number, did not call back, lost interest in the study etc.  Reason for attrition should be reported if available, e.g. lack of participant transportation, death of participant, dissatisfaction with treatment  Yes = reason included; No = reason not included 
CCD change  Not applicable  A major limitation in current CCD literature is failure to report change in CCD status at follow-up studies or at post-intervention assessments. All studies with multiple time points should include assessment of CCD at successive assessments. This allows evaluation of whether CCD and psychiatric disorders occur and resolve in comparable or disparate trajectories  Yes = CCD assessed at each time point in the study, including post-intervention if applicable; No = follow-up study or treatment evaluation study that does not include information on CCD status 
       
DISTORTING INFLUENCES 
Psychiatric comorbidity  The authors explain how they dealt with depression (or other psychiatric comorbidities) in their analysis of the outcomes: did they take it into account as one of the major confounders?  Comorbidity among psychiatric disorders is high. Studies should account for psychiatric comorbidities when assessing associations between CCDs and psychiatric disorders. This can be done through inclusion/exclusion criteria, statistical controls or both. Studies in which only one psychiatric disorder is investigated do not allow adequate assessment of comorbidity. Commonly neglected comorbidities are substance misuse and psychotic disorders  Yes = control for psychiatric comorbidities through inclusion/exclusion or statistical analysis; No = only one disorder investigated; inclusion/exclusion criteria unclear; only bivariate analyses are used 
Treatment  The authors explain how they dealt with other psychotropic drugs (and other treatment) participants may have been taking: did they control for them in the analysis of outcomes?  Treatment (both biomedical and traditional) will influence current episodes of CCD. Current or prior psychiatric treatment may impact psychiatric status. Treatment status therefore may confound associations between CCD and psychiatric diagnoses. Current and prior treatment should be included, especially psychiatric care and traditional healing intended to resolve CCD  Yes = treatment status known and controlled in analyses or selection; No = no information provided on current or prior treatment 
Physical comorbidity  Not applicable  Physical health may be a significant contributor to both CCD and psychiatric disorders. Physical health problems such as micronutrient deficiencies, anaemia, infections and reproductive health problems may underlie CCD and psychiatric complaints. Potential physical health problems that could lead to CCD symptoms should be investigated and controlled for in analyses  Yes = potential physical health confounds addressed and reported through inclusion criteria or statistical analyses; No = no information provided on current or prior physical health 
Other confounds  The possible presence of confounding factors is one of the principal reasons why observational studies are not more highly rated as a source of evidence. The report of the study should indicate which potential confounders have been considered, and how they have been assessed or allowed for in the analysis  In cross-cultural research, other potential confounds include degree of acculturation for immigrants and refugees, level of language proficiency to engage with different cultural groups, lifetime access or lack of access to healthcare, educational level, degree of exposure to internet and other information technologies etc.  Yes = control for distorting influences in selection or analysis; No = no confounds proposed 
       
REPORTING OF DATA 
Missing data  The authors explain how the missing data were addressed and how dealt with during the analysis. Authors indicated numbers of participants with missing data for each variable of interest. For example, the outcomes are provided for some but not all of the participants, or the data are provided for some but not all of the variables  Missing data should be reported in standard epidemiological formats. If approaches are taken to correct missing data (such as imputation), then biases for missing data should be evaluated. For example, if missing data are more common among participants with lower linguistic proficiency, then a common imputation technique could introduce bias by generalization based on high linguistic proficiency respondents  Yes = amount of missing data and how addressed are reported; No = no discussion of missing data 
Presentation  Data are clearly and accurately presented. Confidence intervals are included where appropriate. All data numbers add up. No cases are counted more than once. There is no confusion in regard to any data presented  Data should be presented to all comparison between CCD participants and non-CCD controls. Dichotomous CCD endorsement (% with lifetime dhat vs those with no lifetime dhat) should be clearly presented  Yes = 95% CI, odds ratios for CCD and variables of interest, sensitivity and specificity for validation or associations are included; No = lack of clear presentation to judge CCD and non-CCD participants 

SAQOR original DescriptionCultural Psychiatry Epidemiology (CPE) modificationsSAQOR-CPE modified evaluation
SAMPLE 
Representative  The study sample is representative of the source population  The sample should employ cultural categories (e.g. ethnicity labels) salient to participants and represent the diversity of subgroups potentially affected by CCD  Yes = representative sample with salient cultural groups and inclusion of culturally identified vulnerable groups; No = convenience and other non-representative samples, or categorization is not culturally salient 
Source  The study must include a clear description of where the sample was drawn from. Study participants may be selected from the target population (all individuals to whom the results of the study could be applied), the source population (a defined subset of the target population from which participants are selected), or from a pool of eligible subjects (a clearly defined and counted group selected from the source population)  The study should clearly state whether persons with CCD were included because of self-labelling, being labelled by a clinician or being labelled by some other key informant. If the source is clinician- or key informant-identified, then the discrepancy between other- and self-labelling should be reported.  Yes = clearly defined group to which generalizations could be drawn (e.g. population, subgroup or patients); for CCD, clearly defined group of self-endorsing idiom or clinician-/key informant-assigned criteria; differences between self- and other-labelling should be reported; No = select or biased group not generalizable beyond research study (e.g. CCD based on research criteria only, such as number of somatic complaints, but not generalizable to application of CCD outside study contexts) 
Method  The method of participant recruitment/selection must be given  Recruitment processes in clinical or community settings should be reported because public vs private settings may impact on endorsement of CCD. Potential biases related to stigmatizing aspects of CCD should be considered in recruitment method. For key informant-identified participants, potential biases should be addressed such as not wanting to label individuals in positions of power as suffering from CCD, especially if key informants are known to the community  Yes = method of recruitment reported, potential biases in CCD endorsement from recruitment method should be discussed; number of persons approached and number consenting or refusing should be included; No = recruitment method not described or no acknowledgement of recruitment approach and CCD endorsement bias 
Size  The authors should describe how the sample size was determined and adequacy of sample size to address research question  Sample sizes ideally should be based on power calculations with prevalence estimates. For commonly researched CCD such as nervios-related conditions, dhat and hwa-byung, prevalence estimates in clinical and community settings are available. For novel CCD studies, key informants and primary care clinicians could be used to grossly estimate prevalence in order to determine if CCD are rare or common in the target group  Yes = power calculation for sample size included or ethnographic prevalence estimate based on key informants; No = no rationale given for sample size 
Inclusion/ exclusion criteria  All inclusion and exclusion criteria should be explicitly described unambiguously and applied equally to all groups  Inclusion/exclusion criteria should be addressed in three domains: cultural group, CCD and psychiatric disorder. If CCD are being investigated in a particular group, then the cultural inclusion/exclusion should be clear, e.g. self-labelling, primary language, location of residence. For CCD, inclusion and exclusion criteria should refer to self-endorsement, current or prior episodes, duration of CCD required for inclusion and comorbidity with other CCD. For psychiatric disorders, clear inclusion and exclusion criteria especially regarding substance use disorders, psychotic disorders and cognitive disorders should be described  Yes = defined criteria, e.g. inclusion age, spoken language, ethnicity etc. CCD current vs ever, duration, etc. Exclusion of psychosis, cognitive impairment, substance misuse; No = unknown criteria for cultural group inclusion, unknown psychiatric or physical comorbidity, unknown prior episodes of CCD 
       
CONTROL/COMPARISON GROUP 
Inclusion  Unless it is a descriptive study or case report/series, control group must be included  To draw conclusions about association of CCD with psychiatric disorders, physical health problems, traumatic exposures, socioeconomic vulnerability etc., it is crucial to have a control group which does not endorse the CCD. Then comparisons can be made regarding greater or lesser likelihood among those with CCD  Yes = representative community sample with persons not endorsing CCD or clinical or community sample with matched participants not endorsing CCD; No = lack of comparison group 
Identifiable  Is there a clear distinction between the groups in the study? Are the same variables considered in the control group as in the exposed group(s)?  Control/comparison groups should be clearly distinguished based on CCD status. Lifetime CCD experience is generally straightforward. However, when only current CCD are assessed, controls may include participants with recent CCD episodes that concluded before the study target period  Yes = control of confounds such as other disorders in cases and controls; clear distinction between lifetime or current CCD; No = comparison groups where confounds or prior CCD are not controlled 
Source  Control group should be drawn from the same population as the exposed group(s)  The source for controls in the community or clinic should come from comparable populations based on cultural/ethnic/linguistic group, health status, age, residence etc. Recruitment strategies should be the same for controls to minimize impact of recruitment method of biasing endorsement  Yes = cases and controls drawn from comparable social groups andsimilar context (e.g. community or clinic), using the same recruitment method; No = lack of reporting about control source or differences in source that increase risk of bias 
Matched or randomize  For matched studies, matching criteria are given. For randomized studies, randomization method is described  To identify key features that distinguish persons with CCD from those who do not endorse the CCD, matching and other strategies may be used. If used, the matching criteria and analytic process should be described in detail. Matching criteria should be relevant to the CCD  Yes = matching criteria (e.g. propensity score matching or selection process); No = no matching or randomization procedure used or described 
Statistical control  Groups selected for comparison are as similar as possible in all characteristics except for their exposure status  Statistical analyses should control for as many potential confounds as possible, with special attention to confounds that could influence CCD endorsement, such as years in a new country for immigrants and refugees, language proficiency, ethnic group and region of residence  Yes = control for confounds or other criteria when comparing between groups;No = bivariate comparisons that do not include potential confounds 
       
CULTURAL CONCEPTS OF DISTRESS (CCD) 
CCD categorical  Not applicable  Participants should be classifiable as CCD and non-CCD groups based on current or lifetime prevalence, clinician diagnoses or key informant opinions. Researcher-defined criteria (e.g. symptom cutoff scores) alone are insufficient to capture culturally significant implications of CCD status  Yes = self-report for (current or lifetime) CCD endorsed or denied; No = unable to assess from data whether persons endorse CCD or deny (only proxies used) 
CCD prevalence  Not applicable  CCD classification time period should be clearly defined. Is lifetime or current prevalence used? If current prevalence, then what is the time period: 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month etc.?  Yes = lifetime or current prevalence is reported, and period of current prevalence is specified; No = unclear prevalence reporting 
CCD label type  Not applicable  The type of CCD should be described with qualitative information, as well as quantitative information if possible. For example, is CCD attribution based on single objective or subjective symptoms, or co-occurring symptoms, certain types of exposures and presumed causes or specific vulnerability groups? Labels such as symptom-based CCD, syndrome-based CCD, aetiology-based CCD or mixed may be applicable in some studies. When possible, if a CCD is based on a presumed exposure, the type and timing of the exposure should be reported  Yes = qualitative or quantitative information is provided based on how CCD is classified, e.g. symptom, syndrome, aetiology or mixed; No = unclear why participants endorse CCD label 
CCD severity  Not applicable  Severity information should be provided, e.g. frequency of attacks or episodes, number of symptoms, intensity of episodes or symptoms, or degree of impairment associated with CCD. Severity information allows for comparisons of mildly or severely affected individuals and the association with other variables.  Yes = severity assessed through frequency, severity, number of associated symptoms or functioning; No = unclear how severe; unclear association with impairment 
CCD course  Not applicable  Information regarding CCD course prevents spurious associations or misinterpretation of findings of psychiatric associations. CCD age of onset, duration of most recent episode and presence of episodic or chronic symptoms should be included. Information regarding timing of psychiatric symptoms should be included to determine whether CCD precedes, co-occurs with, follows or is independent of psychiatric disorders  Yes = age of onset, duration of episode, number of episodes, and timing with psychiatric diagnosis; No = Unclear whether current or prior episode is detected in study, unclear duration, unclear chronic vs episodic course 
       
MEASUREMENT QUALITY 
Exposure  How did the authors ascertain that the cases/exposed group had indeed been exposed to the variable of interest?  Most CCDs are associated with a presumed stressful exposure, in the form of chronic or episodic threats. Information should be collected on the types and timing of exposure and temporal relationship of the CCD to the exposure. Exposures should be recorded among both CCD and non-CCD participants.  Yes = information is provided regarding chronic or episodic exposures presumed to associate with CCD; No = no information on exposures reported 
Outcomes  Tools/methods used to measure the outcome of interest are clearly defined; tools/methods used are sufficient to answer the study question(s); In clinical studies, the outcome assessor was blind to the group exposure status; Medical chart reviews; blood tests; neurological/physical examination; independent assessment by more than one investigator  For cross-cultural research, validity of the psychiatric assessment in the culture of interest should be recorded. If validated in the population of interest, psychometrics such as sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values should be reported. If the instrument is not validated, then transcultural translation108,134 and cross-cultural equivalence determination109 should be described.  Yes = psychiatric instruments validated for use with study population and psychometrics reported; transcultural translation and cross-cultural equivalence reported; No = lack of validated instruments, e.g. only use translation back translation 
Functional outcomes  Not applicable  Culturally salient assessment of impaired functioning should be reported. It should be determined whether a CCD is associated with impaired functioning or lack of role fulfilment. Without reporting impaired functioning, social performance labels may be incorrectly labelled as CCD  Yes = measure of functioning, ideally with quantitative association with CCD; No = no measure of functioning or impairment reported 
       
FOLLOW-UP 
Participants lost to follow-up  Does the study state how many participants were not followed up?  The attrition and follow-up rates should be reported at all time points  Yes = include number; No = not include % lost to follow-up 
Explanations for lost to follow-up  Was the explanation provided as to why participants could not or would not complete the study? For example, participants moved, gave wrong phone number, did not call back, lost interest in the study etc.  Reason for attrition should be reported if available, e.g. lack of participant transportation, death of participant, dissatisfaction with treatment  Yes = reason included; No = reason not included 
CCD change  Not applicable  A major limitation in current CCD literature is failure to report change in CCD status at follow-up studies or at post-intervention assessments. All studies with multiple time points should include assessment of CCD at successive assessments. This allows evaluation of whether CCD and psychiatric disorders occur and resolve in comparable or disparate trajectories  Yes = CCD assessed at each time point in the study, including post-intervention if applicable; No = follow-up study or treatment evaluation study that does not include information on CCD status 
       
DISTORTING INFLUENCES 
Psychiatric comorbidity  The authors explain how they dealt with depression (or other psychiatric comorbidities) in their analysis of the outcomes: did they take it into account as one of the major confounders?  Comorbidity among psychiatric disorders is high. Studies should account for psychiatric comorbidities when assessing associations between CCDs and psychiatric disorders. This can be done through inclusion/exclusion criteria, statistical controls or both. Studies in which only one psychiatric disorder is investigated do not allow adequate assessment of comorbidity. Commonly neglected comorbidities are substance misuse and psychotic disorders  Yes = control for psychiatric comorbidities through inclusion/exclusion or statistical analysis; No = only one disorder investigated; inclusion/exclusion criteria unclear; only bivariate analyses are used 
Treatment  The authors explain how they dealt with other psychotropic drugs (and other treatment) participants may have been taking: did they control for them in the analysis of outcomes?  Treatment (both biomedical and traditional) will influence current episodes of CCD. Current or prior psychiatric treatment may impact psychiatric status. Treatment status therefore may confound associations between CCD and psychiatric diagnoses. Current and prior treatment should be included, especially psychiatric care and traditional healing intended to resolve CCD  Yes = treatment status known and controlled in analyses or selection; No = no information provided on current or prior treatment 
Physical comorbidity  Not applicable  Physical health may be a significant contributor to both CCD and psychiatric disorders. Physical health problems such as micronutrient deficiencies, anaemia, infections and reproductive health problems may underlie CCD and psychiatric complaints. Potential physical health problems that could lead to CCD symptoms should be investigated and controlled for in analyses  Yes = potential physical health confounds addressed and reported through inclusion criteria or statistical analyses; No = no information provided on current or prior physical health 
Other confounds  The possible presence of confounding factors is one of the principal reasons why observational studies are not more highly rated as a source of evidence. The report of the study should indicate which potential confounders have been considered, and how they have been assessed or allowed for in the analysis  In cross-cultural research, other potential confounds include degree of acculturation for immigrants and refugees, level of language proficiency to engage with different cultural groups, lifetime access or lack of access to healthcare, educational level, degree of exposure to internet and other information technologies etc.  Yes = control for distorting influences in selection or analysis; No = no confounds proposed 
       
REPORTING OF DATA 
Missing data  The authors explain how the missing data were addressed and how dealt with during the analysis. Authors indicated numbers of participants with missing data for each variable of interest. For example, the outcomes are provided for some but not all of the participants, or the data are provided for some but not all of the variables  Missing data should be reported in standard epidemiological formats. If approaches are taken to correct missing data (such as imputation), then biases for missing data should be evaluated. For example, if missing data are more common among participants with lower linguistic proficiency, then a common imputation technique could introduce bias by generalization based on high linguistic proficiency respondents  Yes = amount of missing data and how addressed are reported; No = no discussion of missing data 
Presentation  Data are clearly and accurately presented. Confidence intervals are included where appropriate. All data numbers add up. No cases are counted more than once. There is no confusion in regard to any data presented  Data should be presented to all comparison between CCD participants and non-CCD controls. Dichotomous CCD endorsement (% with lifetime dhat vs those with no lifetime dhat) should be clearly presented  Yes = 95% CI, odds ratios for CCD and variables of interest, sensitivity and specificity for validation or associations are included; No = lack of clear presentation to judge CCD and non-CCD participants 

Table 3

Systematic Assessment of Quality in Observational Research-Cultural Psychiatry Epidemiology (SAQOR-CPE) ratings

Abas 199754Alcantara 201255Bass 200856Betancourt 200957Bhatia 199159Bhatia 199958Bolton 200460Caplan 201061Caspi 199862Chadda 199064Chadda 199563Choy 200865D'Avanzo 199866Dhikav 200767Ertl 201068Gautham 200869Guarnaccia 199370
Sample                                   
Representative 
Source 
Method 
Size 
Inclusion/ Exclusion 
Summary  A  A  A  A  A  I  A  A  A  A  A  A  I  I  A  A  A 
Comparison group                                   
Inclusion 
Identifiable  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A 
Source  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A 
Matched or randomized  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A 
Statistical control  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A 
Summary  I  A  A  A  A  I  A  A  A  I  A  I  I  I  A  A  A 
Cultural Concept of Distress                                   
CCD Categorical 
CCD Prevalence 
CCD Label Type 
CCD Severity 
CCD Course 
Summary  A  A  A  A  A  I  I  A  A  A  A  I  I  A  I  A  A 
Measure quality                                   
Exposure measure 
Outcome measure 
Functioning 
Summary  A  A  A  I  A  I  I  A  A  I  I  A  A  I  A  I  A 
Follow-up                                   
Percentage lost  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A 
Reason lost  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A 
Change in CCD  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A 
Summary  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  I  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  I  N/A  N/A  N/A  I  N/A  N/A  N/A 
Distorting influences                                   
Psychological comorbidities 
Physical comorbidities 
Treatment status 
Other confounds 
Summary  I  I  I  A  A  A  I  A  A  I  I  I  I  I  I  A  A 
Data                                   
Missing data 
Clarity/accuracy of data 
Summary  I  A  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I 
SAQOR-CPE quality  L  M  L  L  M  VL  VL  M  M  VL  L  VL  VL  VL  L  L  M 

Abas 199754Alcantara 201255Bass 200856Betancourt 200957Bhatia 199159Bhatia 199958Bolton 200460Caplan 201061Caspi 199862Chadda 199064Chadda 199563Choy 200865D'Avanzo 199866Dhikav 200767Ertl 201068Gautham 200869Guarnaccia 199370
Sample                                   
Representative 
Source 
Method 
Size 
Inclusion/ Exclusion 
Summary  A  A  A  A  A  I  A  A  A  A  A  A  I  I  A  A  A 
Comparison group                                   
Inclusion 
Identifiable  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A 
Source  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A 
Matched or randomized  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A 
Statistical control  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A 
Summary  I  A  A  A  A  I  A  A  A  I  A  I  I  I  A  A  A 
Cultural Concept of Distress                                   
CCD Categorical 
CCD Prevalence 
CCD Label Type 
CCD Severity 
CCD Course 
Summary  A  A  A  A  A  I  I  A  A  A  A  I  I  A  I  A  A 
Measure quality                                   
Exposure measure 
Outcome measure 
Functioning 
Summary  A  A  A  I  A  I  I  A  A  I  I  A  A  I  A  I  A 
Follow-up                                   
Percentage lost  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A 
Reason lost  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A 
Change in CCD  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A 
Summary  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  I  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  I  N/A  N/A  N/A  I  N/A  N/A  N/A 
Distorting influences                                   
Psychological comorbidities 
Physical comorbidities 
Treatment status 
Other confounds 
Summary  I  I  I  A  A  A  I  A  A  I  I  I  I  I  I  A  A 
Data                                   
Missing data 
Clarity/accuracy of data 
Summary  I  A  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I 
SAQOR-CPE quality  L  M  L  L  M  VL  VL  M  M  VL  L  VL  VL  VL  L  L  M 

Guarnaccia 200572Guarnaccia 201071Hinton 200373Hinton 201175Hinton 201274Interian 200553Keough 200976Kleinman 198277Kohrt 200478Kohrt 200579Lewis – Fernandez 200280Lewis – Fernandez 2010132Liebowitz 199481 (Salman 1998)Livinas 201082Lopez 201183Makanjuola 198784
Sample                                 
Representative 
Source 
Method 
Power calculation 
Inclusion criteria 
Summary  A  I  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A 
Comparison group                                 
Control inclusion 
Identifiable  N/A  N/A  N/A 
Source  N/A  N/A  N/A 
Matched or randomized  N/A  N/A  N/A 
Statistical control  N/A  N/A  N/A 
Summary  A  A  I  A  I  A  A  I  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  I 
Cultural Concept of Distress                                 
CCD Categorical 
CCD Prevalence 
CCD Label Type 
CCD Severity 
CCD Course 
Summary  A  A  A  A  I  I  I  A  A  A  A  A  A  I  A  A 
Measure quality                                 
Exposure measure 
Outcome measure 
Functioning 
Summary  A  A  I  A  A  A  I  A  I  A  A  A  I  A  A  I 
Follow-up                                 
Percentage lost  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A 
Reason lost  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A 
Change in CCD  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A 
Summary  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  A 
Distorting influences                                 
Psychological comorbidities 
Physical comorbidities 
Treatment status 
Other confounds 
Summary  I  A  A  I  I  I  I  A  A  A  U  A  I  I  A  I 
Data                                 
Missing data 
Clarity/accuracy of data 
Summary  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I 
SAQOR-CPE quality  L  L  L  L  L  L  VL  M  L  M  L  M  L  L  M  L 

Guarnaccia 200572Guarnaccia 201071Hinton 200373Hinton 201175Hinton 201274Interian 200553Keough 200976Kleinman 198277Kohrt 200478Kohrt 200579Lewis – Fernandez 200280Lewis – Fernandez 2010132Liebowitz 199481 (Salman 1998)Livinas 201082Lopez 201183Makanjuola 198784
Sample                                 
Representative 
Source 
Method 
Power calculation 
Inclusion criteria 
Summary  A  I  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A 
Comparison group                                 
Control inclusion 
Identifiable  N/A  N/A  N/A 
Source  N/A  N/A  N/A 
Matched or randomized  N/A  N/A  N/A 
Statistical control  N/A  N/A  N/A 
Summary  A  A  I  A  I  A  A  I  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  I 
Cultural Concept of Distress                                 
CCD Categorical 
CCD Prevalence 
CCD Label Type 
CCD Severity 
CCD Course 
Summary  A  A  A  A  I  I  I  A  A  A  A  A  A  I  A  A 
Measure quality                                 
Exposure measure 
Outcome measure 
Functioning 
Summary  A  A  I  A  A  A  I  A  I  A  A  A  I  A  A  I 
Follow-up                                 
Percentage lost  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A 
Reason lost  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A 
Change in CCD  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A 
Summary  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  A 
Distorting influences                                 
Psychological comorbidities 
Physical comorbidities 
Treatment status 
Other confounds 
Summary  I  A  A  I  I  I  I  A  A  A  U  A  I  I  A  I 
Data                                 
Missing data 
Clarity/accuracy of data 
Summary  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I 
SAQOR-CPE quality  L  L  L  L  L  L  VL  M  L  M  L  M  L  L  M  L 

Min 201085Ola 201186Park 200187Patel 199588Patel 199789Pedersen 200890Perme 200591Phan 200492Rasmussen 201193Salgado de Snyder 200094Singh 198596 Weaver 201197Number (%) of studies
Sample                                   
Representative  12 (29%) 
Source  44 (98%) 
Method  43 (96%) 
Power calculation  1 (2%) 
Inclusion criteria  42 (93%) 
Summary  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  41 (91%) 
Comparison group                                   
Control inclusion  36 (80%) 
Identifiable  N/A  35 (78%) 
Source  N/A  35 (78%) 
Matched or randomized  N/A  0 (0%) 
Statistical control  N/A  22 (49%) 
Summary  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  I  A  A  A  A  34 (76%) 
Cultural Concept of Distress                                   
CCD Categorical  27 (60%) 
CCD Prevalence  29 (64%) 
CCD Label Type  37 (82%) 
CCD Severity  25 (56%) 
CCD Course  14 (31%) 
Summary  I  I  I  A  A  A  I  A  I  I  A  A  30 (67%) 
Measure quality                                   
Exposure measure  32 (71%) 
Outcome measure  24 (53%) 
Functioning  20 (44%) 
Summary  I  A  I  I  A  I  I  A  I  A  I  A  26 (58%) 
Follow-up                                   
Percentage lost  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  4 (9%) 
Reason lost  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  4 (9%) 
Change in CCD  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  3 (7%) 
Summary  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  3 (7%) 
Distorting influences                                   
Psychiatric comorbidities  22 (49%) 
Physical comorbidities  6 (13%) 
Treatment status  7 (16%) 
Other confounds  22 (49%) 
Summary  A  I  I  A  A  I  I  A  A  A  I  I  20 (44%) 
Data                                   
Missing data  1 (2%) 
Clarity/accuracy of data  37 (82%) 
Summary  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  1 (2%) 
SAQOR-CPE Quality  L  L  VL  L  M  L  VL  M  L  M  L  L  M (12), L (24), VL (9) 

Min 201085Ola 201186Park 200187Patel 199588Patel 199789Pedersen 200890Perme 200591Phan 200492Rasmussen 201193Salgado de Snyder 200094Singh 198596 Weaver 201197Number (%) of studies
Sample                                   
Representative  12 (29%) 
Source  44 (98%) 
Method  43 (96%) 
Power calculation  1 (2%) 
Inclusion criteria  42 (93%) 
Summary  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  41 (91%) 
Comparison group                                   
Control inclusion  36 (80%) 
Identifiable  N/A  35 (78%) 
Source  N/A  35 (78%) 
Matched or randomized  N/A  0 (0%) 
Statistical control  N/A  22 (49%) 
Summary  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  I  A  A  A  A  34 (76%) 
Cultural Concept of Distress                                   
CCD Categorical  27 (60%) 
CCD Prevalence  29 (64%) 
CCD Label Type  37 (82%) 
CCD Severity  25 (56%) 
CCD Course  14 (31%) 
Summary  I  I  I  A  A  A  I  A  I  I  A  A  30 (67%) 
Measure quality                                   
Exposure measure  32 (71%) 
Outcome measure  24 (53%) 
Functioning  20 (44%) 
Summary  I  A  I  I  A  I  I  A  I  A  I  A  26 (58%) 
Follow-up                                   
Percentage lost  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  4 (9%) 
Reason lost  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  4 (9%) 
Change in CCD  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  3 (7%) 
Summary  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  3 (7%) 
Distorting influences                                   
Psychiatric comorbidities  22 (49%) 
Physical comorbidities  6 (13%) 
Treatment status  7 (16%) 
Other confounds  22 (49%) 
Summary  A  I  I  A  A  I  I  A  A  A  I  I  20 (44%) 
Data                                   
Missing data  1 (2%) 
Clarity/accuracy of data  37 (82%) 
Summary  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  1 (2%) 
SAQOR-CPE Quality  L  L  VL  L  M  L  VL  M  L  M  L  L  M (12), L (24), VL (9) 

SAQOR-CPE (Cultural Psychiatry Epidemiology) ratings adapted from SAQOR developed by Ross et al. 2011. Adapted scoring criteria: Sample: ‘Adequate’, if ≥3 ‘Yes’; control/comparison group: ‘Adequate’, if ≥3 ‘Yes’; Cultural Concept of Distress: ‘Adequate’, if ≥3 ‘Yes’; Quality of measures: ‘Adequate’, if ≥2‘Yes’; follow-up: ‘Adequate’ if change in CCD reported; distorting influences: ‘Adequate’, if ≥2‘Yes’; data reporting: ‘Adequate’, if both ‘Yes’; SAQOR Quality: High (H) if ‘Adequate’ for all 7 categories, Moderate (M) if ‘Adequate’ for 5-6 categories, Low (L) if ‘Adequate’ for 3-4categories;,Very Low (VL) if ‘Adequate’ for 0-2 categories. Abbreviations: A, Adequate; I, Inadequate; N, no; N/A, not applicable); U, Unclear; Y, Yes.

Table 3

Systematic Assessment of Quality in Observational Research-Cultural Psychiatry Epidemiology (SAQOR-CPE) ratings

Abas 199754Alcantara 201255Bass 200856Betancourt 200957Bhatia 199159Bhatia 199958Bolton 200460Caplan 201061Caspi 199862Chadda 199064Chadda 199563Choy 200865D'Avanzo 199866Dhikav 200767Ertl 201068Gautham 200869Guarnaccia 199370
Sample                                   
Representative 
Source 
Method 
Size 
Inclusion/ Exclusion 
Summary  A  A  A  A  A  I  A  A  A  A  A  A  I  I  A  A  A 
Comparison group                                   
Inclusion 
Identifiable  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A 
Source  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A 
Matched or randomized  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A 
Statistical control  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A 
Summary  I  A  A  A  A  I  A  A  A  I  A  I  I  I  A  A  A 
Cultural Concept of Distress                                   
CCD Categorical 
CCD Prevalence 
CCD Label Type 
CCD Severity 
CCD Course 
Summary  A  A  A  A  A  I  I  A  A  A  A  I  I  A  I  A  A 
Measure quality                                   
Exposure measure 
Outcome measure 
Functioning 
Summary  A  A  A  I  A  I  I  A  A  I  I  A  A  I  A  I  A 
Follow-up                                   
Percentage lost  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A 
Reason lost  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A 
Change in CCD  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A 
Summary  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  I  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  I  N/A  N/A  N/A  I  N/A  N/A  N/A 
Distorting influences                                   
Psychological comorbidities 
Physical comorbidities 
Treatment status 
Other confounds 
Summary  I  I  I  A  A  A  I  A  A  I  I  I  I  I  I  A  A 
Data                                   
Missing data 
Clarity/accuracy of data 
Summary  I  A  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I 
SAQOR-CPE quality  L  M  L  L  M  VL  VL  M  M  VL  L  VL  VL  VL  L  L  M 

Abas 199754Alcantara 201255Bass 200856Betancourt 200957Bhatia 199159Bhatia 199958Bolton 200460Caplan 201061Caspi 199862Chadda 199064Chadda 199563Choy 200865D'Avanzo 199866Dhikav 200767Ertl 201068Gautham 200869Guarnaccia 199370
Sample                                   
Representative 
Source 
Method 
Size 
Inclusion/ Exclusion 
Summary  A  A  A  A  A  I  A  A  A  A  A  A  I  I  A  A  A 
Comparison group                                   
Inclusion 
Identifiable  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A 
Source  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A 
Matched or randomized  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A 
Statistical control  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A 
Summary  I  A  A  A  A  I  A  A  A  I  A  I  I  I  A  A  A 
Cultural Concept of Distress                                   
CCD Categorical 
CCD Prevalence 
CCD Label Type 
CCD Severity 
CCD Course 
Summary  A  A  A  A  A  I  I  A  A  A  A  I  I  A  I  A  A 
Measure quality                                   
Exposure measure 
Outcome measure 
Functioning 
Summary  A  A  A  I  A  I  I  A  A  I  I  A  A  I  A  I  A 
Follow-up                                   
Percentage lost  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A 
Reason lost  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A 
Change in CCD  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A 
Summary  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  I  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  I  N/A  N/A  N/A  I  N/A  N/A  N/A 
Distorting influences                                   
Psychological comorbidities 
Physical comorbidities 
Treatment status 
Other confounds 
Summary  I  I  I  A  A  A  I  A  A  I  I  I  I  I  I  A  A 
Data                                   
Missing data 
Clarity/accuracy of data 
Summary  I  A  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I 
SAQOR-CPE quality  L  M  L  L  M  VL  VL  M  M  VL  L  VL  VL  VL  L  L  M 

Guarnaccia 200572Guarnaccia 201071Hinton 200373Hinton 201175Hinton 201274Interian 200553Keough 200976Kleinman 198277Kohrt 200478Kohrt 200579Lewis – Fernandez 200280Lewis – Fernandez 2010132Liebowitz 199481 (Salman 1998)Livinas 201082Lopez 201183Makanjuola 198784
Sample                                 
Representative 
Source 
Method 
Power calculation 
Inclusion criteria 
Summary  A  I  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A 
Comparison group                                 
Control inclusion 
Identifiable  N/A  N/A  N/A 
Source  N/A  N/A  N/A 
Matched or randomized  N/A  N/A  N/A 
Statistical control  N/A  N/A  N/A 
Summary  A  A  I  A  I  A  A  I  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  I 
Cultural Concept of Distress                                 
CCD Categorical 
CCD Prevalence 
CCD Label Type 
CCD Severity 
CCD Course 
Summary  A  A  A  A  I  I  I  A  A  A  A  A  A  I  A  A 
Measure quality                                 
Exposure measure 
Outcome measure 
Functioning 
Summary  A  A  I  A  A  A  I  A  I  A  A  A  I  A  A  I 
Follow-up                                 
Percentage lost  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A 
Reason lost  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A 
Change in CCD  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A 
Summary  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  A 
Distorting influences                                 
Psychological comorbidities 
Physical comorbidities 
Treatment status 
Other confounds 
Summary  I  A  A  I  I  I  I  A  A  A  U  A  I  I  A  I 
Data                                 
Missing data 
Clarity/accuracy of data 
Summary  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I 
SAQOR-CPE quality  L  L  L  L  L  L  VL  M  L  M  L  M  L  L  M  L 

Guarnaccia 200572Guarnaccia 201071Hinton 200373Hinton 201175Hinton 201274Interian 200553Keough 200976Kleinman 198277Kohrt 200478Kohrt 200579Lewis – Fernandez 200280Lewis – Fernandez 2010132Liebowitz 199481 (Salman 1998)Livinas 201082Lopez 201183Makanjuola 198784
Sample                                 
Representative 
Source 
Method 
Power calculation 
Inclusion criteria 
Summary  A  I  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A 
Comparison group                                 
Control inclusion 
Identifiable  N/A  N/A  N/A 
Source  N/A  N/A  N/A 
Matched or randomized  N/A  N/A  N/A 
Statistical control  N/A  N/A  N/A 
Summary  A  A  I  A  I  A  A  I  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  I 
Cultural Concept of Distress                                 
CCD Categorical 
CCD Prevalence 
CCD Label Type 
CCD Severity 
CCD Course 
Summary  A  A  A  A  I  I  I  A  A  A  A  A  A  I  A  A 
Measure quality                                 
Exposure measure 
Outcome measure 
Functioning 
Summary  A  A  I  A  A  A  I  A  I  A  A  A  I  A  A  I 
Follow-up                                 
Percentage lost  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A 
Reason lost  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A 
Change in CCD  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A 
Summary  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  A 
Distorting influences                                 
Psychological comorbidities 
Physical comorbidities 
Treatment status 
Other confounds 
Summary  I  A  A  I  I  I  I  A  A  A  U  A  I  I  A  I 
Data                                 
Missing data 
Clarity/accuracy of data 
Summary  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I 
SAQOR-CPE quality  L  L  L  L  L  L  VL  M  L  M  L  M  L  L  M  L 

Min 201085Ola 201186Park 200187Patel 199588Patel 199789Pedersen 200890Perme 200591Phan 200492Rasmussen 201193Salgado de Snyder 200094Singh 198596 Weaver 201197Number (%) of studies
Sample                                   
Representative  12 (29%) 
Source  44 (98%) 
Method  43 (96%) 
Power calculation  1 (2%) 
Inclusion criteria  42 (93%) 
Summary  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  41 (91%) 
Comparison group                                   
Control inclusion  36 (80%) 
Identifiable  N/A  35 (78%) 
Source  N/A  35 (78%) 
Matched or randomized  N/A  0 (0%) 
Statistical control  N/A  22 (49%) 
Summary  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  I  A  A  A  A  34 (76%) 
Cultural Concept of Distress                                   
CCD Categorical  27 (60%) 
CCD Prevalence  29 (64%) 
CCD Label Type  37 (82%) 
CCD Severity  25 (56%) 
CCD Course  14 (31%) 
Summary  I  I  I  A  A  A  I  A  I  I  A  A  30 (67%) 
Measure quality                                   
Exposure measure  32 (71%) 
Outcome measure  24 (53%) 
Functioning  20 (44%) 
Summary  I  A  I  I  A  I  I  A  I  A  I  A  26 (58%) 
Follow-up                                   
Percentage lost  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  4 (9%) 
Reason lost  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  4 (9%) 
Change in CCD  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  3 (7%) 
Summary  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  3 (7%) 
Distorting influences                                   
Psychiatric comorbidities  22 (49%) 
Physical comorbidities  6 (13%) 
Treatment status  7 (16%) 
Other confounds  22 (49%) 
Summary  A  I  I  A  A  I  I  A  A  A  I  I  20 (44%) 
Data                                   
Missing data  1 (2%) 
Clarity/accuracy of data  37 (82%) 
Summary  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  1 (2%) 
SAQOR-CPE Quality  L  L  VL  L  M  L  VL  M  L  M  L  L  M (12), L (24), VL (9) 

Min 201085Ola 201186Park 200187Patel 199588Patel 199789Pedersen 200890Perme 200591Phan 200492Rasmussen 201193Salgado de Snyder 200094Singh 198596 Weaver 201197Number (%) of studies
Sample                                   
Representative  12 (29%) 
Source  44 (98%) 
Method  43 (96%) 
Power calculation  1 (2%) 
Inclusion criteria  42 (93%) 
Summary  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  41 (91%) 
Comparison group                                   
Control inclusion  36 (80%) 
Identifiable  N/A  35 (78%) 
Source  N/A  35 (78%) 
Matched or randomized  N/A  0 (0%) 
Statistical control  N/A  22 (49%) 
Summary  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  I  A  A  A  A  34 (76%) 
Cultural Concept of Distress                                   
CCD Categorical  27 (60%) 
CCD Prevalence  29 (64%) 
CCD Label Type  37 (82%) 
CCD Severity  25 (56%) 
CCD Course  14 (31%) 
Summary  I  I  I  A  A  A  I  A  I  I  A  A  30 (67%) 
Measure quality                                   
Exposure measure  32 (71%) 
Outcome measure  24 (53%) 
Functioning  20 (44%) 
Summary  I  A  I  I  A  I  I  A  I  A  I  A  26 (58%) 
Follow-up                                   
Percentage lost  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  4 (9%) 
Reason lost  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  4 (9%) 
Change in CCD  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  3 (7%) 
Summary  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  3 (7%) 
Distorting influences                                   
Psychiatric comorbidities  22 (49%) 
Physical comorbidities  6 (13%) 
Treatment status  7 (16%) 
Other confounds  22 (49%) 
Summary  A  I  I  A  A  I  I  A  A  A  I  I  20 (44%) 
Data                                   
Missing data  1 (2%) 
Clarity/accuracy of data  37 (82%) 
Summary  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  1 (2%) 
SAQOR-CPE Quality  L  L  VL  L  M  L  VL  M  L  M  L  L  M (12), L (24), VL (9) 

SAQOR-CPE (Cultural Psychiatry Epidemiology) ratings adapted from SAQOR developed by Ross et al. 2011. Adapted scoring criteria: Sample: ‘Adequate’, if ≥3 ‘Yes’; control/comparison group: ‘Adequate’, if ≥3 ‘Yes’; Cultural Concept of Distress: ‘Adequate’, if ≥3 ‘Yes’; Quality of measures: ‘Adequate’, if ≥2‘Yes’; follow-up: ‘Adequate’ if change in CCD reported; distorting influences: ‘Adequate’, if ≥2‘Yes’; data reporting: ‘Adequate’, if both ‘Yes’; SAQOR Quality: High (H) if ‘Adequate’ for all 7 categories, Moderate (M) if ‘Adequate’ for 5-6 categories, Low (L) if ‘Adequate’ for 3-4categories;,Very Low (VL) if ‘Adequate’ for 0-2 categories. Abbreviations: A, Adequate; I, Inadequate; N, no; N/A, not applicable); U, Unclear; Y, Yes.

Sample

The Sample category and each of its original five criteria were retained.

Representative refers to studies that can be generalized to a population of interest. Cultural Psychiatry Epidemiology (CPE) studies should use the same epidemiological principles as standard health studies. It is especially crucial that CPE studies have a clear definition of the cultural group of interest to which findings can be applied. For example, ataque de nervios findings from Puerto Rico may not be generalizable to Guatemalans, Cubans or Bolivians in their home countries or after immigration. An exemplar study is the investigation of ataques de nervios in the National Latino and Asian American Study, in which outcomes are presented separately for Puerto Ricans, Cubans, Mexicans and other Latinos, revealing group differences.71 Less than one-third of the studies (29%) in this review used culturally appropriate representative sampling.

Source refers to how cases are identified. Authors should clearly state if self-labelling, clinician diagnosis or other key informant identification was used to enroll a participant as either CCD or non-CCD. If an individual other than the participant assigned the label, then the degree of concordance between the external label and the self-label should be reported. A study to validate a postpartum depression measure in the Democratic Republic of Congo provides a good example of this: of 91 women identified with a CCD by key informants, only 41 (45%) self-endorsed the CCD label; of 42 women identified by key informants as not having the CCD, only 20 (48%) self-endorsed not having the CCD.56 This illustrates that using key informants in this setting to identify cases and make generalizations is no better than randomly assigning a group of women to CCD vs not-CCD status. In all, 44 studies reported CCD source.

Method refers to the process of recruiting participants. In cross-cultural research, recruitment method may bias prevalence rates and association with risk factors. For example, if key informants are used, they may be less likely to identify high-status individuals in the community who have CCD. Stigma may lead to CCD non-disclosure despite experiencing suffering. A study of Darfuri refugees in Chad used United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) registration to randomly select participants; because caseness (ie CCD status) was not a criteria in the sampling frame, potential participants were approached without prior knowledge of CCD status, thus reducing potential bias in endorsement.93 A total of 43 studies provided some information on recruitment methods.

Sample size and power calculation: studies need to be adequately powered to detect differences between groups in exposures, psychiatric disorders or other factors. Prior studies done with similar populations can be used to estimate prevalence of a CCD. If novel CCD are investigated, primary care workers, traditional healers or other key informants could be used to grossly judge whether a CCD is common or infrequent. Of note, if multiple sites are used, controlling for clustering needs to be considered in calculations; local variation in terminology and social composition may affect CCD endorsement. Only one study used a power calculation, which was based on estimates of receiving quality care and not based on CCD prevalence.69

Inclusion/exclusion criteria are crucial for any epidemiological study, to minimize confounds and to have internally comparable participants. For cultural psychiatry, three domains of inclusion/exclusion criteria are important: (i) cultural group, (ii) psychiatric conditions and (iii) CCD. Defining a cultural group could be based on self-labelled ethnicity, linguistic proficiency, years living in particular region or other culturally salient group identifiers. Common psychiatric exclusion criteria are substance use disorders, psychotic disorders or cognitive impairment. One study of nervios in Mexico used the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) to exclude participants with substance use disorders and physical injuries that produce nervios.94 A total of 42 studies reported some form of inclusion/exclusion criteria.

Control/Comparison Group

All criteria for this category were retained for the SAQOR-CPE.

Inclusion refers to the presence of a comparison group. For the majority of research objectives in cultural epidemiology studies, a comparison group is needed to test inferences. For example, rate of depression among persons without a CCD is important to determine whether a CCD increases depression risk. In a study of a somatic CCD in Nepal, auditory hallucinations were reported by one-fifth of CCD sufferers; however, the control group reported an equally high prevalence of auditory hallucinations.99 In a validation study of the Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL) in Rwanda, a CCD did not differentiate between persons with and without anhedonia,100 thus demonstrating that this CCD was not appropriate to selectively identify persons with that feature of depression. A total of 36 studies included non-CCD participants.

Identifiable refers to use of a strategy to clearly differentiate cases from controls. This is generally straightforward when lifetime prevalence is assessed through self-labelling. However, when assessing current episodes, there should be a clear time period to identify cases and controls. For example, if 2-week prevalence is used, is a control with no lifetime episodes comparable to a control with an episode that ended 3 weeks ago? All but 1 study including a comparison provided information regarding how the non-CCD group was identified.

Source refers to cases and controls drawn from similar populations. If cases are selected from a psychiatric clinic and controls are drawn from other medical clinics, this biases the CCD group to have greater prevalence of psychiatric conditions. Community representative samples are ideal to assure the same source.71,72,79,93,101. Only one study lacked information on source of control participants.

Matching and randomization may be used in some studies to optimize similarities between groups. For example, if a researcher is trying to identify family-related protective factors against ataque de nervios, then matching based on economic status, educational status and residential region in recruitment or statistical techniques such as propensity score matching would be helpful. Matching could be used to control for issues related to language proficiency55 or years of residence in a new country that may confound endorsement of a CCD. One study employed a matching process.

Statistical control refers to using multivariable models to control for issues that may confound relationships between CCD and psychiatric disorders such as socioeconomic status, other psychiatric comorbidities and stressful exposures. A study of dhat found an association with psychological distress (General Health Questionnaire caseness) when statistically controlling for age, district of residence and marital status, all of which were independently associated with dhat.69 In the multivariable analysis, only psychological caseness and region of residence independently associated with dhat. A total of 22 studies included some form of multivariable analysis.

Cultural Concept of Distress

CCD is a category added to the SAQOR for cultural psychiatry studies.

CCD categorical classification refers to the presentation of data on who does and does not endorse a CCD as a dichotomous variable, ideally through self-endorsement by participants; 27 (60%) of the studies included a categorical response by participants regarding whether they did or did not endorse having the CCD. The remainder used either clinically-assigned labels of a CCD or a proxy measure, such as having somatic complaints.

CCD prevalence refers to obtaining data on lifetime and/or current prevalence: if current prevalence, then the time period should be specified; 10 (22%) studies assessed lifetime prevalence and 19 (41%) assessed current CCD, such as in the past 2 weeks or past month and 17 (37%) were unclear regarding time frame and whether the time range matched with the timing of the psychiatric disorder. For example, some studies did not include assessment period and others used vague language, such as ‘recent' episodes.

CCD label type should describe whether the CCD is attributed according to a single symptom, a constellation of symptoms, a certain type of exposure or being part of a vulnerable group. In many cases, CCD may reflect a combination of the above. A study in Mongolia78 used the Explanatory Model Interview Catalogue (EMIC)31,32 to collect this information. In a study of women in Zimbabwe, explanatory models were collected and revealed that kufungisisa was both a symptom of distress and a cause of health problems.54 A total of 37 studies included information on label type.

CCD severity refers to measurement of the frequency, number of associated symptoms or degree of impairment associated with a CCD. For example, two individuals may both endorse lifetime ataques de nervios but one individual may have weekly episodes whereas the other has them every few years. This would impact the association with psychiatric categories; 27 studies included severity information.

CCD course refers to the age of onset, duration of episodes, timing of episodes and chronicity of experience, with special attention to overlapping periods with psychiatric symptoms. For example, the mean age of onset of dhat in one study was 21.6 years among men.59 Knowing this could help readers of the study consider potential psychosocial erectile dysfunction versus age- or diabetes-related dysfunction. Studying onset of ataque de nervios revealed that the episodes typically preceded depression and anxiety symptoms,70 which is helpful information for screening and prevention. Only 14 studies included course information.

Measurement Quality

The Measurement Quality category of the SAQOR includes exposure and outcome measures. An additional category for functioning was based on the CCD literature.

Exposure is important for CCD because explanatory models typically associate certain types of experiences with invoking CCD. For example, family, financial, health and political stressors are strongly associated with jham-jham paresthesia in rural Nepal.79 However, work and academic stressors are not risk factors for jham-jham. This contrasts with brain fag in Nigeria, in which academic stress is assumed to be one of the main precipitants.86,102 Orthostatic hypotension is not assumed by the lay American public to be a trigger for PTSD, but Hinton and colleagues have shown that this sensation mediates post-traumatic psychiatric sequelae among Cambodians.103-106 Therefore, assessing dizziness and orthostatic hypotension triggers is crucial to a culturally salient study of khyal attacks. A total of 32 studies included information on exposures.

Psychiatric outcome measures require special attention in cross-cultural research. If an instrument has not been validated in the local context, results are difficult to interpret.107 Lack of association between CCD and the psychiatric measure may be due to using a non-validated instrument rather than cultural-exclusivity of the distress; 24 studies used instruments validated for the cultural group, and some provided psychometric properties for the instrument in that population.54,61,66,79,92 When instruments have not been validated, then significant detail should be provided on how instruments underwent transcultural translation to achieve cross-cultural equivalence.108,109

Functional outcome was added as an additional criterion for measurement quality. Early debates in culture-bound syndrome research raised questions about distinguishing between abnormal behaviours related to cultural performance vs abnormal behaviours associated with impairment in multiple domains of life.110–112 Bolton and colleagues have developed rapid, feasible approaches to create functional impairment measures.113 Their approach makes it easy to assess whether persons with CCD are more likely to have impaired role fulfilment. Other studies in our review used standard functioning measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) and the Sheehan Disability Scale. A total of 20 studies reported some form of functioning assessment.

Follow-Up

The Follow-Up category includes percentage lost to follow-up and reasons lost to follow-up. We added change in CCD prevalence. Four studies included a follow-up assessment.

Percentage lost to follow-up is standard reporting for longitudinal studies. In a Nigerian study, 57% of patients with ode ori participated in a 1-year follow-up evaluation.84

Wherever possible,Reasons for loss to follow-up should be elicited and reported to inform interpretation of results, highlight potential biases, and help shape future longitudinal studies of CCD. In a study of dhat, follow-up rates were much lower among patients receiving counselling compared with patients receiving medication; this suggested that participants were dissatisfied with psychotherapeutic interventions and dropped out.59

We added CCD change at follow-up as an additional criterion. In the CCD literature we reviewed, a major shortcoming was lack of CCD documentation at follow-up. In treatment studies of dhat and hwa-byung, CCD was not evaluated post treatment.59,114,115 Among Cambodian refugees with ‘thinking too much,’ 58% of patients in California received sedatives whereas 20% did in Massachusetts; however, no information was provided regarding which group showed better outcomes.116 The absence of information on resolution of CCD during mental health treatment is a major gap in the existing literature. In studies in Nigeria and China, CCD did not resolve after psychotropic medication despite improvement in psychiatric disorders.77,84 In contrast, studies of culturally adapted psychotherapy treatments showed improvement for ataque de nervios among Latinas and khyal attacks among Cambodian refugees.75,106 A study with pharmacotherapy showed improvement of khyal attacks, ‘thinking a lot' and several other idioms among Cambodian refugees as measured by effect sizes.135 Measuring CCD in longitudinal observational and treatment studies is crucial to determine whether CCD worsen, resolve with or are independent of psychiatric symptoms trajectories.

Distorting Influences

Distorting Influences in the original SAQOR focused on distorting influences related to maternal depression.98 We modified the distorting influences category for factors that commonly confound cultural psychiatry epidemiology studies.

Psychiatric comorbidities: because of the high rate of comorbidity among psychiatric disorders, it is possible that associations between CCD and a target psychiatric disorder are the result of another condition. For example, PTSD and depression are often comorbid. If CCD have significant associations with PTSD, it may be that the associations are better explained by associations with depression. Controlling for comorbidities through selection criteria and analysis is crucial. In a study of social phobia and taijin-kyofu-sho (TKS), a CCD in Japan and Korea, the researchers excluded persons with major depressive disorders, bipolar affective disorder, psychosis and substance misuse to assure that associations between TKS and social phobia were not the result of mutual associations with other disorders.65 In a study of a fatigue CCD in Mongolia, yadargaa associated significantly with a scale for chronic fatigue syndrome in bivariate analysis. However, when other psychiatric conditions were entered into the analysis, yadargaa associated significantly with depression but the association with chronic fatigue syndrome was no longer significant.78 A study in Uganda among war-affected youth stands out in the CCD literature because multiple CCD were addressed in the same population.57 This allowed for testing CCD comorbidities in addition to psychiatric comorbidities. Half of the studies include psychiatric comorbidity information.

Physical health comorbidities also impact associations between CCD and psychiatric diagnoses. Investigators of dhat often account for physical comorbidities, especially sexually transmitted infections (STIs), in their analyses.59,64,69 Including STIs among both dhat cases and controls revealed that STIs were not associated with dhat; instead, psychological distress differed between the groups.69 Controlling for possible physical pathologies led to the finding in Nepal that a somatic complaint of paraesthesia, which was strongly associated with depression, was not the result of psychosomatization but a consequence of physical health problems, commonly B12 deficiency.79 Six studies included information on physical comorbidities.

Treatment status is a potential confound. If participants are receiving biomedical or traditional treatments, this may influence psychiatric disorders, CCD or both. Seven studies included information on treatment status. Other confounds include linguistic proficiency differences which may influence endorsement of CCD. One study reported that missing data were significantly more common among persons with low English proficiency.55 A total of 22 studies included other potential confounds.

Reporting of Data

In the Reporting of Data category, the SAQOR requires that all studies include information on missing data.

Missing data were repoted by only one study.55

Clarity and accuracy of data refers to use of confidence intervals, multivariable analyses, and tables and figures that are easily interpreted. A total of 37 studies presented data clearly. Other studies inconsistently identified CCD vs non-CCD groups; for example, they did not clarify which participants were included in analyses or included figures that did not clarify CCD association with psychiatric measures in quantitative comparisons.

Meta-analyses for likelihood of a psychiatric classification given presence of a cultural concept of distress

Meta-analyses were conducted with psychiatric conditions as the outcome (see Table 4 and Figures 2–6). The results should be interpreted as the odds that an individual has a given psychiatric disorder given endorsement of a CCD. For example, among persons who endorse dhat, ataque de nervios, susto or other CCD, there is an 8-fold greater odds of experiencing bivariate depression compared with persons who do not endorse a CCD. The level of heterogeneity, not surprisingly, was significant for most of the outcomes: all anxiety disorders (Q = 13.75, df = 28, P < .05), panic (Q = 2.43, df = 8, P < .05), PTSD (Q = 0.10, df = 2, P < .05), depression (Q = 6.15, df = 19, P < .05), somatoform disorders (Q = 0.67, df = 6, P < .05), and general anxiety (Q = 8.70, df = 16, P < .10). Converting Q statistics to I2 to account for small numbers of studies, all summary effects had heterogeneity percentages greater than 75%. Only general psychological distress had a non-significant test of heterogeneity, (Q = 7.41, df = 8, P = 0.5), with I2 = 8% suggesting that associations of general psychological distress with CCD are generally homogeneous with limited variance attributable to between-study characteristics.

Figure 2

What are clusters of symptoms that are considered recognizable diseases only within specific cultures?

Meta-analysis with forest plot for odds of having depression given presence of cultural concepts of distress (CCD); n = 9032, odds ratio = 7.55 (95% confidence interval, 6.69–8.52)

Figure 3

What are clusters of symptoms that are considered recognizable diseases only within specific cultures?

Meta-analysis with forest plot for odds of having general anxiety given presence of cultural concepts of distress (CCD); n = 8211, odds ratio = 5.06 (95% confidence interval, 4.48–5.70)

Figure 4

What are clusters of symptoms that are considered recognizable diseases only within specific cultures?

Meta-analysis with forest plot for odds of having panic attacks/disorder or PTSD given presence of cultural concepts of distress (CCD); panic attacks/disorder, n = 6158, odds ratio = 4.48 (95% confidence interval, 3.77–5.32); posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), n = 1246, odds ratio = 10.10 (95% confidence interval, 7.51–13.57)

Figure 5

What are clusters of symptoms that are considered recognizable diseases only within specific cultures?

Meta-analysis with forest plot for odds of having general psychological distress given presence of cultural concepts of distress (CCD); n = 6658, odds ratio = 5.39 (95% confidence interval, 4.71–6.17)

Figure 6

What are clusters of symptoms that are considered recognizable diseases only within specific cultures?

Meta-analysis with forest plot for odds of having somatoform disorders given presence of cultural concepts of distress (CCD); n = 3268, odds ratio = 2.68 (95% confidence interval, 2.18–3.28)

Table 4

Meta-analysis for odds of meeting criteria for a psychiatric category among persons endorsing a cultural concept of distress

Psychiatric categoryCultural Concept of DistressNumber of studiesUnique participantsOdds ratio95% CIHeterogeneity Q (I2)SensitivitySpecificityPositive predictive valueNegative predictive value
Depression  Coraje, dhat, hwa-byung, jham-jham, koro, shenjing shuairuo, nervios-related labels, ode ori, phiền não tâm thần, susto, yadargaa, yo’kwekyawa  20  9032  7.55  6.69—8.52  6.15 (>75%)  0.61  0.78  0.41  0.88 
General anxiety  Dhat, fright idioms, hwa-byung, jham-jham, koro, lo âu sợ hãi, shenjing shuairuo, nervios-related labels, ode-ori, worry attacks, yadargaa  16  8211  5.06  4.48—5.70  8.70 (>75%)  0.58  0.88  0.48  0.85 
Panic  Dhat, nervios-related labels, trúng gió  6158  4.48  3.77—5.32  2.43 (>75%)  0.30  0.91  0.37  0.89 
PTSD  Fright idioms, nervios-related labels, trúng gió, worry attacks  1246  10.10  7.51—13.57  0.10 (>75%)  0.58  0.88  0.64  0.85 
All anxiety  Dhat, fright idioms, hwa-byung, jham-jham, koro, lo âu sợ hãi, shenjing shuairuo, nervios-related labels, ode-ori, worry attacks, taein kong po, taijin kyofu sho, trúng gió, yadargaa  22  9731  6.12  5.49—6.83  13.75 (>75%)  0.50  0.86  0.53  0.85 
General psychological distress  Dhat, jham-jham, kufungisisa, kusuwisia, mental problem, nervios-related labels, spiritual problems, tension  6658  5.39  4.71—6.17  7.41 (8%)  0.50  0.88  0.54  0.87 
Somatoform disorders  Dhat, shenjing shuairuo, nervios-related labels, xáo trộn tâm thần và thế xác, yadargaa  3268  2.68  2.18—3.28  0.67 (>75%)  0.37  0.82  0.28  0.87 

Psychiatric categoryCultural Concept of DistressNumber of studiesUnique participantsOdds ratio95% CIHeterogeneity Q (I2)SensitivitySpecificityPositive predictive valueNegative predictive value
Depression  Coraje, dhat, hwa-byung, jham-jham, koro, shenjing shuairuo, nervios-related labels, ode ori, phiền não tâm thần, susto, yadargaa, yo’kwekyawa  20  9032  7.55  6.69—8.52  6.15 (>75%)  0.61  0.78  0.41  0.88 
General anxiety  Dhat, fright idioms, hwa-byung, jham-jham, koro, lo âu sợ hãi, shenjing shuairuo, nervios-related labels, ode-ori, worry attacks, yadargaa  16  8211  5.06  4.48—5.70  8.70 (>75%)  0.58  0.88  0.48  0.85 
Panic  Dhat, nervios-related labels, trúng gió  6158  4.48  3.77—5.32  2.43 (>75%)  0.30  0.91  0.37  0.89 
PTSD  Fright idioms, nervios-related labels, trúng gió, worry attacks  1246  10.10  7.51—13.57  0.10 (>75%)  0.58  0.88  0.64  0.85 
All anxiety  Dhat, fright idioms, hwa-byung, jham-jham, koro, lo âu sợ hãi, shenjing shuairuo, nervios-related labels, ode-ori, worry attacks, taein kong po, taijin kyofu sho, trúng gió, yadargaa  22  9731  6.12  5.49—6.83  13.75 (>75%)  0.50  0.86  0.53  0.85 
General psychological distress  Dhat, jham-jham, kufungisisa, kusuwisia, mental problem, nervios-related labels, spiritual problems, tension  6658  5.39  4.71—6.17  7.41 (8%)  0.50  0.88  0.54  0.87 
Somatoform disorders  Dhat, shenjing shuairuo, nervios-related labels, xáo trộn tâm thần và thế xác, yadargaa  3268  2.68  2.18—3.28  0.67 (>75%)  0.37  0.82  0.28  0.87 

Table 4

Meta-analysis for odds of meeting criteria for a psychiatric category among persons endorsing a cultural concept of distress

Psychiatric categoryCultural Concept of DistressNumber of studiesUnique participantsOdds ratio95% CIHeterogeneity Q (I2)SensitivitySpecificityPositive predictive valueNegative predictive value
Depression  Coraje, dhat, hwa-byung, jham-jham, koro, shenjing shuairuo, nervios-related labels, ode ori, phiền não tâm thần, susto, yadargaa, yo’kwekyawa  20  9032  7.55  6.69—8.52  6.15 (>75%)  0.61  0.78  0.41  0.88 
General anxiety  Dhat, fright idioms, hwa-byung, jham-jham, koro, lo âu sợ hãi, shenjing shuairuo, nervios-related labels, ode-ori, worry attacks, yadargaa  16  8211  5.06  4.48—5.70  8.70 (>75%)  0.58  0.88  0.48  0.85 
Panic  Dhat, nervios-related labels, trúng gió  6158  4.48  3.77—5.32  2.43 (>75%)  0.30  0.91  0.37  0.89 
PTSD  Fright idioms, nervios-related labels, trúng gió, worry attacks  1246  10.10  7.51—13.57  0.10 (>75%)  0.58  0.88  0.64  0.85 
All anxiety  Dhat, fright idioms, hwa-byung, jham-jham, koro, lo âu sợ hãi, shenjing shuairuo, nervios-related labels, ode-ori, worry attacks, taein kong po, taijin kyofu sho, trúng gió, yadargaa  22  9731  6.12  5.49—6.83  13.75 (>75%)  0.50  0.86  0.53  0.85 
General psychological distress  Dhat, jham-jham, kufungisisa, kusuwisia, mental problem, nervios-related labels, spiritual problems, tension  6658  5.39  4.71—6.17  7.41 (8%)  0.50  0.88  0.54  0.87 
Somatoform disorders  Dhat, shenjing shuairuo, nervios-related labels, xáo trộn tâm thần và thế xác, yadargaa  3268  2.68  2.18—3.28  0.67 (>75%)  0.37  0.82  0.28  0.87 

Psychiatric categoryCultural Concept of DistressNumber of studiesUnique participantsOdds ratio95% CIHeterogeneity Q (I2)SensitivitySpecificityPositive predictive valueNegative predictive value
Depression  Coraje, dhat, hwa-byung, jham-jham, koro, shenjing shuairuo, nervios-related labels, ode ori, phiền não tâm thần, susto, yadargaa, yo’kwekyawa  20  9032  7.55  6.69—8.52  6.15 (>75%)  0.61  0.78  0.41  0.88 
General anxiety  Dhat, fright idioms, hwa-byung, jham-jham, koro, lo âu sợ hãi, shenjing shuairuo, nervios-related labels, ode-ori, worry attacks, yadargaa  16  8211  5.06  4.48—5.70  8.70 (>75%)  0.58  0.88  0.48  0.85 
Panic  Dhat, nervios-related labels, trúng gió  6158  4.48  3.77—5.32  2.43 (>75%)  0.30  0.91  0.37  0.89 
PTSD  Fright idioms, nervios-related labels, trúng gió, worry attacks  1246  10.10  7.51—13.57  0.10 (>75%)  0.58  0.88  0.64  0.85 
All anxiety  Dhat, fright idioms, hwa-byung, jham-jham, koro, lo âu sợ hãi, shenjing shuairuo, nervios-related labels, ode-ori, worry attacks, taein kong po, taijin kyofu sho, trúng gió, yadargaa  22  9731  6.12  5.49—6.83  13.75 (>75%)  0.50  0.86  0.53  0.85 
General psychological distress  Dhat, jham-jham, kufungisisa, kusuwisia, mental problem, nervios-related labels, spiritual problems, tension  6658  5.39  4.71—6.17  7.41 (8%)  0.50  0.88  0.54  0.87 
Somatoform disorders  Dhat, shenjing shuairuo, nervios-related labels, xáo trộn tâm thần và thế xác, yadargaa  3268  2.68  2.18—3.28  0.67 (>75%)  0.37  0.82  0.28  0.87 

Potential sources of between-study variation in association of cultural concepts of distress with psychiatric categories

Given the high heterogeneity among the studies, we used generalized estimating equations (GEE) to determine the association of study design with strength of odd ratios between CCD and psychiatric categories (see Table 5). We conducted 13 bivariate analyses of study characteristics with strengths of odds ratios between CCD and psychiatric disorders. Variables significant in bivariate analyses were entered into the multivariable analysis. In the multivariable analysis, studies conducted in the Americas had greater ORs than those conducted in Africa or Asia; studies labelled as ‘culture-bound’ had greater ORs than any of the other labels; validation studies had ORs 16 points greater than studies in which the objective was to compare CCD with psychiatric disorders; greater sample sizes were associated with greater ORs; self-report multi-item checklists had 6 points greater ORs than dichotomous categorical self-report scores, and medium quality SAQOR-CPE rankings were 7 points below ORs of very low quality studies.

Table 5

Generalized estimating equation for association of study design variables with magnitude of odds ratio between psychiatric category and cultural concept of distress

VariableStudy comparisons, N (%)Bivariate regression coefficient (95% CI)Multivariable regression coefficient (95% CI)
World region  Americas  44 (55.7%)  Ref.  Ref. 
Africa  7 (8.9%)  -4.14 (−5.91, −2.36)***  −8.23 (−13.38, −3.18)** 
Asia  28 (35.4%)  2.17 (−5.97, 10.31)  −5.44 (−10.26, −0.62)
Researcher label  ‘Culture-bound … ’  15 (19.0%)  Ref.  Ref. 
‘Idiom … ’  21 (26.6%)  7.85 (−1.30, 17.01)  −4.67 (−7.63, −1.70)** 
‘Popular … ’  9 (11.4%)  2.08 (−1.00, 5.17)  −3.44 (−6.86, −0.01)
Other ‘ … syndrome’  13 (16.5%)  3.25 (1.23, 5.27)**  −4.59 (−8.76, −0.41)
Other label  21 (26.6%)  0.37 (−2.01, 2.74)  −4.54 (−7.86, −1.23)** 
Study objective  Compare CCD and psychiatric disorder  47 (59.5%)  Ref.  Ref. 
Validation  7 (8.9%)  17.65 (9.11, 26.18)***  16.27 (12.75, 19.79)*** 
Assess risk factors  17 (21.5%)  2.26 (−0.24, 4.75)  −1.62 (−3.57, 0.33) 
Other  8 (10.1%)  −1.67 (−3.72, 0.38)  −5.08 (−8.61, −1.55)** 
Sample size  1-99  20 (25.3%)  Ref.  Ref. 
100-499  34 (43.0%)  3.42 (−3.55, 10.39)  −2.13 (−4.68, 0.42) 
≥ 500  25 (31.6%)  3.03 (1.42, 4.64)***  6.92 (2.66, 11.17)** 
Recruitment site  Clinical  48 (60.8%)  Ref.   
Community  29 (36.7%)  −0.12 (−5.68, 5.44)   
School  2 (2.5%)  −2.72 (−9.01, 3.58)   
Representative  No  50 (63.3%)  Ref.   
Yes  29 (36.7%)  0.40 (−4.70, 5.51)   
Cultural concept of distress category  Nervios-related labels  40 (50.6%)  Ref.  Ref. 
Dhat  10 (12.7%)  −2.99 (−4.84, −1.15)  −0.15 (−7.72, 7.42) 
Hwa-byung  2 (2.5%)  −3.52 (−5.26, −1.78)***  8.02 (−0.04, 16.10) 
Other labels  27 (34.2%)  3.86 (−4.26, 11.98)**  3.58 (−2.73, 9.89) 
CCD self-eport  No  19 (24.1%)  Ref.   
Yes  60 (75.9%)  2.29 (−2.44, 7.03)   
Assessment method for cultural concept of distress  Single-item sel- report  40 (50.6%)  Ref.  Ref. 
Self-report multi-item scale score  18 (22.8%)  7.51 (−4.69, 19.70)  6.10 (1.89, 10.31)** 
Clinician diagnosis  8 (10.1%)  −2.28 (−3.82, −0.73)++  0.48 (−1.93, 2.89) 
Other labelled (parent, key informant)  13 (16.5%)  1.59 (−1.21, 4.39)  −2.81 (−5.90, 0.28) 
Prevalence  Lifetime  30 (38.0%)  Ref.  Ref. 
Current  33 (41.8%)  1.68 (−5.34, 8.70)  6.65 (−0.87, 14.17) 
Unclear  16 (20.3%)  −3.78 (−5.20. −2.36)***  −6.31 (−13.00, 0.37) 
Psychiatric category  General psychological distress  13 (16.5%)  Ref.   
Anxiety disorders  30 (38.0%)  2.76 (−1.87, 7.38)   
Mood disorders  21 (26.6%)  2.18 (−2.69, 7.05)   
Somatic disorders  8 (10.1%)  4.65 (−2.44, 11.74)   
Psychotic and other disorders  7 (8.9%)  −1.87 (−4.14, 0.39)   
Controlled for comorbidity  Not controlled  27 (34.2%)  Ref.   
Controlled  52 (65.8%)  −4.56 (−13.06, 3.93)   
SAQOR-CPE ranking  Very Low  5 (6.3%)  Ref.  Ref. 
Low  48 (60.8%)  2.28 (0.22, 4.33)−5.04 (−10.14, 0.06) 
Medium  26 (32.9%)  6.35 (−1.69, 14.40)  −7.47 (−12.63, −2.30)** 

VariableStudy comparisons, N (%)Bivariate regression coefficient (95% CI)Multivariable regression coefficient (95% CI)
World region  Americas  44 (55.7%)  Ref.  Ref. 
Africa  7 (8.9%)  -4.14 (−5.91, −2.36)***  −8.23 (−13.38, −3.18)** 
Asia  28 (35.4%)  2.17 (−5.97, 10.31)  −5.44 (−10.26, −0.62)
Researcher label  ‘Culture-bound … ’  15 (19.0%)  Ref.  Ref. 
‘Idiom … ’  21 (26.6%)  7.85 (−1.30, 17.01)  −4.67 (−7.63, −1.70)** 
‘Popular … ’  9 (11.4%)  2.08 (−1.00, 5.17)  −3.44 (−6.86, −0.01)
Other ‘ … syndrome’  13 (16.5%)  3.25 (1.23, 5.27)**  −4.59 (−8.76, −0.41)
Other label  21 (26.6%)  0.37 (−2.01, 2.74)  −4.54 (−7.86, −1.23)** 
Study objective  Compare CCD and psychiatric disorder  47 (59.5%)  Ref.  Ref. 
Validation  7 (8.9%)  17.65 (9.11, 26.18)***  16.27 (12.75, 19.79)*** 
Assess risk factors  17 (21.5%)  2.26 (−0.24, 4.75)  −1.62 (−3.57, 0.33) 
Other  8 (10.1%)  −1.67 (−3.72, 0.38)  −5.08 (−8.61, −1.55)** 
Sample size  1-99  20 (25.3%)  Ref.  Ref. 
100-499  34 (43.0%)  3.42 (−3.55, 10.39)  −2.13 (−4.68, 0.42) 
≥ 500  25 (31.6%)  3.03 (1.42, 4.64)***  6.92 (2.66, 11.17)** 
Recruitment site  Clinical  48 (60.8%)  Ref.   
Community  29 (36.7%)  −0.12 (−5.68, 5.44)   
School  2 (2.5%)  −2.72 (−9.01, 3.58)   
Representative  No  50 (63.3%)  Ref.   
Yes  29 (36.7%)  0.40 (−4.70, 5.51)   
Cultural concept of distress category  Nervios-related labels  40 (50.6%)  Ref.  Ref. 
Dhat  10 (12.7%)  −2.99 (−4.84, −1.15)  −0.15 (−7.72, 7.42) 
Hwa-byung  2 (2.5%)  −3.52 (−5.26, −1.78)***  8.02 (−0.04, 16.10) 
Other labels  27 (34.2%)  3.86 (−4.26, 11.98)**  3.58 (−2.73, 9.89) 
CCD self-eport  No  19 (24.1%)  Ref.   
Yes  60 (75.9%)  2.29 (−2.44, 7.03)   
Assessment method for cultural concept of distress  Single-item sel- report  40 (50.6%)  Ref.  Ref. 
Self-report multi-item scale score  18 (22.8%)  7.51 (−4.69, 19.70)  6.10 (1.89, 10.31)** 
Clinician diagnosis  8 (10.1%)  −2.28 (−3.82, −0.73)++  0.48 (−1.93, 2.89) 
Other labelled (parent, key informant)  13 (16.5%)  1.59 (−1.21, 4.39)  −2.81 (−5.90, 0.28) 
Prevalence  Lifetime  30 (38.0%)  Ref.  Ref. 
Current  33 (41.8%)  1.68 (−5.34, 8.70)  6.65 (−0.87, 14.17) 
Unclear  16 (20.3%)  −3.78 (−5.20. −2.36)***  −6.31 (−13.00, 0.37) 
Psychiatric category  General psychological distress  13 (16.5%)  Ref.   
Anxiety disorders  30 (38.0%)  2.76 (−1.87, 7.38)   
Mood disorders  21 (26.6%)  2.18 (−2.69, 7.05)   
Somatic disorders  8 (10.1%)  4.65 (−2.44, 11.74)   
Psychotic and other disorders  7 (8.9%)  −1.87 (−4.14, 0.39)   
Controlled for comorbidity  Not controlled  27 (34.2%)  Ref.   
Controlled  52 (65.8%)  −4.56 (−13.06, 3.93)   
SAQOR-CPE ranking  Very Low  5 (6.3%)  Ref.  Ref. 
Low  48 (60.8%)  2.28 (0.22, 4.33)−5.04 (−10.14, 0.06) 
Medium  26 (32.9%)  6.35 (−1.69, 14.40)  −7.47 (−12.63, −2.30)** 

N = 79 comparisons; number of studies 26. Only items with significant bivariate associations were included in the multivariable model.

*P < .05; **P < .01; ***P < .001.

Table 5

Generalized estimating equation for association of study design variables with magnitude of odds ratio between psychiatric category and cultural concept of distress

VariableStudy comparisons, N (%)Bivariate regression coefficient (95% CI)Multivariable regression coefficient (95% CI)
World region  Americas  44 (55.7%)  Ref.  Ref. 
Africa  7 (8.9%)  -4.14 (−5.91, −2.36)***  −8.23 (−13.38, −3.18)** 
Asia  28 (35.4%)  2.17 (−5.97, 10.31)  −5.44 (−10.26, −0.62)
Researcher label  ‘Culture-bound … ’  15 (19.0%)  Ref.  Ref. 
‘Idiom … ’  21 (26.6%)  7.85 (−1.30, 17.01)  −4.67 (−7.63, −1.70)** 
‘Popular … ’  9 (11.4%)  2.08 (−1.00, 5.17)  −3.44 (−6.86, −0.01)
Other ‘ … syndrome’  13 (16.5%)  3.25 (1.23, 5.27)**  −4.59 (−8.76, −0.41)
Other label  21 (26.6%)  0.37 (−2.01, 2.74)  −4.54 (−7.86, −1.23)** 
Study objective  Compare CCD and psychiatric disorder  47 (59.5%)  Ref.  Ref. 
Validation  7 (8.9%)  17.65 (9.11, 26.18)***  16.27 (12.75, 19.79)*** 
Assess risk factors  17 (21.5%)  2.26 (−0.24, 4.75)  −1.62 (−3.57, 0.33) 
Other  8 (10.1%)  −1.67 (−3.72, 0.38)  −5.08 (−8.61, −1.55)** 
Sample size  1-99  20 (25.3%)  Ref.  Ref. 
100-499  34 (43.0%)  3.42 (−3.55, 10.39)  −2.13 (−4.68, 0.42) 
≥ 500  25 (31.6%)  3.03 (1.42, 4.64)***  6.92 (2.66, 11.17)** 
Recruitment site  Clinical  48 (60.8%)  Ref.   
Community  29 (36.7%)  −0.12 (−5.68, 5.44)   
School  2 (2.5%)  −2.72 (−9.01, 3.58)   
Representative  No  50 (63.3%)  Ref.   
Yes  29 (36.7%)  0.40 (−4.70, 5.51)   
Cultural concept of distress category  Nervios-related labels  40 (50.6%)  Ref.  Ref. 
Dhat  10 (12.7%)  −2.99 (−4.84, −1.15)  −0.15 (−7.72, 7.42) 
Hwa-byung  2 (2.5%)  −3.52 (−5.26, −1.78)***  8.02 (−0.04, 16.10) 
Other labels  27 (34.2%)  3.86 (−4.26, 11.98)**  3.58 (−2.73, 9.89) 
CCD self-eport  No  19 (24.1%)  Ref.   
Yes  60 (75.9%)  2.29 (−2.44, 7.03)   
Assessment method for cultural concept of distress  Single-item sel- report  40 (50.6%)  Ref.  Ref. 
Self-report multi-item scale score  18 (22.8%)  7.51 (−4.69, 19.70)  6.10 (1.89, 10.31)** 
Clinician diagnosis  8 (10.1%)  −2.28 (−3.82, −0.73)++  0.48 (−1.93, 2.89) 
Other labelled (parent, key informant)  13 (16.5%)  1.59 (−1.21, 4.39)  −2.81 (−5.90, 0.28) 
Prevalence  Lifetime  30 (38.0%)  Ref.  Ref. 
Current  33 (41.8%)  1.68 (−5.34, 8.70)  6.65 (−0.87, 14.17) 
Unclear  16 (20.3%)  −3.78 (−5.20. −2.36)***  −6.31 (−13.00, 0.37) 
Psychiatric category  General psychological distress  13 (16.5%)  Ref.   
Anxiety disorders  30 (38.0%)  2.76 (−1.87, 7.38)   
Mood disorders  21 (26.6%)  2.18 (−2.69, 7.05)   
Somatic disorders  8 (10.1%)  4.65 (−2.44, 11.74)   
Psychotic and other disorders  7 (8.9%)  −1.87 (−4.14, 0.39)   
Controlled for comorbidity  Not controlled  27 (34.2%)  Ref.   
Controlled  52 (65.8%)  −4.56 (−13.06, 3.93)   
SAQOR-CPE ranking  Very Low  5 (6.3%)  Ref.  Ref. 
Low  48 (60.8%)  2.28 (0.22, 4.33)−5.04 (−10.14, 0.06) 
Medium  26 (32.9%)  6.35 (−1.69, 14.40)  −7.47 (−12.63, −2.30)** 

VariableStudy comparisons, N (%)Bivariate regression coefficient (95% CI)Multivariable regression coefficient (95% CI)
World region  Americas  44 (55.7%)  Ref.  Ref. 
Africa  7 (8.9%)  -4.14 (−5.91, −2.36)***  −8.23 (−13.38, −3.18)** 
Asia  28 (35.4%)  2.17 (−5.97, 10.31)  −5.44 (−10.26, −0.62)
Researcher label  ‘Culture-bound … ’  15 (19.0%)  Ref.  Ref. 
‘Idiom … ’  21 (26.6%)  7.85 (−1.30, 17.01)  −4.67 (−7.63, −1.70)** 
‘Popular … ’  9 (11.4%)  2.08 (−1.00, 5.17)  −3.44 (−6.86, −0.01)
Other ‘ … syndrome’  13 (16.5%)  3.25 (1.23, 5.27)**  −4.59 (−8.76, −0.41)
Other label  21 (26.6%)  0.37 (−2.01, 2.74)  −4.54 (−7.86, −1.23)** 
Study objective  Compare CCD and psychiatric disorder  47 (59.5%)  Ref.  Ref. 
Validation  7 (8.9%)  17.65 (9.11, 26.18)***  16.27 (12.75, 19.79)*** 
Assess risk factors  17 (21.5%)  2.26 (−0.24, 4.75)  −1.62 (−3.57, 0.33) 
Other  8 (10.1%)  −1.67 (−3.72, 0.38)  −5.08 (−8.61, −1.55)** 
Sample size  1-99  20 (25.3%)  Ref.  Ref. 
100-499  34 (43.0%)  3.42 (−3.55, 10.39)  −2.13 (−4.68, 0.42) 
≥ 500  25 (31.6%)  3.03 (1.42, 4.64)***  6.92 (2.66, 11.17)** 
Recruitment site  Clinical  48 (60.8%)  Ref.   
Community  29 (36.7%)  −0.12 (−5.68, 5.44)   
School  2 (2.5%)  −2.72 (−9.01, 3.58)   
Representative  No  50 (63.3%)  Ref.   
Yes  29 (36.7%)  0.40 (−4.70, 5.51)   
Cultural concept of distress category  Nervios-related labels  40 (50.6%)  Ref.  Ref. 
Dhat  10 (12.7%)  −2.99 (−4.84, −1.15)  −0.15 (−7.72, 7.42) 
Hwa-byung  2 (2.5%)  −3.52 (−5.26, −1.78)***  8.02 (−0.04, 16.10) 
Other labels  27 (34.2%)  3.86 (−4.26, 11.98)**  3.58 (−2.73, 9.89) 
CCD self-eport  No  19 (24.1%)  Ref.   
Yes  60 (75.9%)  2.29 (−2.44, 7.03)   
Assessment method for cultural concept of distress  Single-item sel- report  40 (50.6%)  Ref.  Ref. 
Self-report multi-item scale score  18 (22.8%)  7.51 (−4.69, 19.70)  6.10 (1.89, 10.31)** 
Clinician diagnosis  8 (10.1%)  −2.28 (−3.82, −0.73)++  0.48 (−1.93, 2.89) 
Other labelled (parent, key informant)  13 (16.5%)  1.59 (−1.21, 4.39)  −2.81 (−5.90, 0.28) 
Prevalence  Lifetime  30 (38.0%)  Ref.  Ref. 
Current  33 (41.8%)  1.68 (−5.34, 8.70)  6.65 (−0.87, 14.17) 
Unclear  16 (20.3%)  −3.78 (−5.20. −2.36)***  −6.31 (−13.00, 0.37) 
Psychiatric category  General psychological distress  13 (16.5%)  Ref.   
Anxiety disorders  30 (38.0%)  2.76 (−1.87, 7.38)   
Mood disorders  21 (26.6%)  2.18 (−2.69, 7.05)   
Somatic disorders  8 (10.1%)  4.65 (−2.44, 11.74)   
Psychotic and other disorders  7 (8.9%)  −1.87 (−4.14, 0.39)   
Controlled for comorbidity  Not controlled  27 (34.2%)  Ref.   
Controlled  52 (65.8%)  −4.56 (−13.06, 3.93)   
SAQOR-CPE ranking  Very Low  5 (6.3%)  Ref.  Ref. 
Low  48 (60.8%)  2.28 (0.22, 4.33)−5.04 (−10.14, 0.06) 
Medium  26 (32.9%)  6.35 (−1.69, 14.40)  −7.47 (−12.63, −2.30)** 

N = 79 comparisons; number of studies 26. Only items with significant bivariate associations were included in the multivariable model.

*P < .05; **P < .01; ***P < .001.

Discussion

Within the growing body of literature comparing cultural concepts of distress (CCD) and psychiatric disorders, there is a wide range of quality and epidemiological rigor. Twelve (27%) of the studies had medium quality based on the Systematic Assessment of Quality in Observational Research–Cultural Psychiatry Epidemiology (SAQOR-CPE) ranking system. The remainder were of low or very low quality. Studies lack both basic criteria for epidemiological reporting (e.g. representative samples, prevalence parameters, missing data frequency and management, and controlling for potential confounds) and key aspects of CCD reporting (e.g. differentiation among symptoms, syndromes, and aetiological models; operationalization of cultural and ethnic groups to generalize findings; assessment of confounders; and severity and course of distress).

Making generalizations based on summary effects from meta-analysis is impeded by the high degree of heterogeneity in all but one of the analyses. The high degree of heterogeneity is not surprising given the wide range of quality and methodological approaches among the studies. Studies conducted in the Americas were more likely to show an association of CCD with psychiatric disorders. This may represent acculturation issues among the populations studied because most of the participants were immigrants in the USA. Phan and colleagues suggested that CCD were strongly associated with psychiatric disorders among Vietnamese immigrants in Australia because of acculturation effects that reframe understandings of mental health and disorder.92

We were surprised to find that studies in which the researcher referred to the CCD as ‘culture-bound’ had stronger associations between the CCD and psychiatric disorders than all other labels. This was counter-intuitive given that ‘culture-bound’ implies a distinction from psychiatric nosology. However, we found that labels such as ‘culture-bound’ or ‘idioms of distress’ were not applied systematically. The same CCD, e.g. ataques de nervios, was described as a culture-bound syndrome, idiom of distress, and popular category by different researchers. Moreover, the category labels for CCD change between studies even within single research teams. Therefore, we do not suggest that comparing studies based on the label used is an informative lens and may lead to potentially spurious associations.

The finding that validation studies were most likely to show an association between CCD and psychiatric disorders is expected, given that in validation studies researchers likely try to identify the CCD that are most similar to a psychiatric category. Furthermore, there is high likelihood of a publication bias in validation studies with negative findings less likely to be published (it is rare to read a published negative validation study). The same publication bias may not hold for studies comparing CCD and psychiatric disorders that have negative findings, as this would still be theoretically significant for culture-bound suppositions. Multi-item checklists for CCD assessment were associated with stronger associations between CCD and psychiatric disorders. This is consistent with checklists operating more similarly to psychiatric diagnostic criteria. Studies in which single items are used for CCD endorsement likely enable greater diversity of manifestations and framings.

The final noteworthy finding of our review is that medium quality studies had weaker associations between CCD and psychiatric disorders than very low quality studies (no high quality studies were identified in this review). This raises a crucial issue: we do not hypothesize that greater epidemiological rigor will foster stronger associations between CCD and psychiatric disorders. The converse is equally likely: more rigorous and culturally appropriate studies (as recognized by higher SAQOR-CPE rankings) may represent studies that describe CCD more accurately and thus capture the uniqueness from psychiatric categories. For example, studies than controlled for psychiatric and physical health comorbidities had weaker associations than those not controlling for comorbidity. One of the most important quality issues was better documentation of CCD course and timing in association with psychiatric disorders. Future studies that closely document course and use longitudinal designs in well-contextualized community settings will shed new light on the experience and meaning of CCD and their association psychiatric pathological categories. Emulating the work of pioneers in psychiatric epidemiology, such as Alexander Leighton who followed a rural population in Canada over decades to understand life trajectories of mental illness, can help inform future studies.28,117,118

Limitations

The objective of this review was to provide an overview of the quality of epidemiological studies comparing CCD and psychiatric disorders. Whereas the issues highlighted here and the recommendations provided can be used to strengthen the epidemiological rigor of CCD studies, we caution against generalizing the findings beyond the literature identified here. We limited our initial search of the literature to PubMed/MEDLINE and English-language publications. All of studies were coded by the first author; future reviews should include multiple coders with inter-rater reliability metrics. Future research also should incorporate databases such as PsycInfo, which may include more rigorous psychological studies, and Web of Science, which will capture social science and medical anthropological journals not indexed in PubMed. Inclusion of books and book chapters would also bolster the social science representation. Ultimately, to make broad claims about the association of CCD and psychiatric disorders, access to investigators’ original data would be most helpful because many of the shortcomings reported here may reflect what is reported rather than what is collected. We hope that the adaptation of the SAQOR-CPE can be applied to broader searches and to the design of future cultural psychiatric epidemiology studies.

Applications to global mental health

The DSM-5 and other publications have provided recommendations for the application of CCD to improve clinical care.15,119 CCD also can be applied to improve research and public health interventions in global mental health, with special attention to low resource settings:

  • CCD can be used to enhance screening and detection of mental health problems. – The CCD literature demonstrates an overlap with psychiatric disorders as well as identification of populations with emotional, behavioral, or cognitive problems with significant impairment that may not be captured by psychiatric diagnoses. The single summary effect with low heterogeneity in our analyses was the comparison of CCD and general psychological distress: persons with any CCD have five-fold greater odds of having general psychological distress than persons not endorsing CCD. Furthermore, in order for global mental health not to be limited to treating only disorders recognized by Western biomedical psychiatry, it will be crucial to consider how scaling up services can also address CCD. CCD feasibly can be incorporated into psychiatric screeners such as the PHQ-9 through the addition of a limited number of questions. Among Latinas, the addition of CCD identifies distress not captured by standard PHQ-9 implementation.61 In Zimbabwe, the Shona Symptom Questionnaire adequately captures common mental disorders including postpartum distress and has the benefit of including idioms that represent key concerns of both local patient populations and traditional healers.89,120

  • CCD are key to assessing treatments and interventions in global mental health. – One of the major shortcomings of the current literature was the lack of CCD in treatment studies. If interventions reduce psychiatric symptoms but do not impact CCD, then individuals will be likely to continue treatment seeking and report functional impairment. In order for interventions to be used and sustained they will need to demonstrate that local concerns and CCD also are improved. Cultural adaptation of psychotherapy is a promising area to address CCD as well as psychiatric problems. Culturally adapted CBT has positive outcomes for ataque de nervios and a number of Southeast Asian CCD75,106,121-124 as did treatment with SSRIs.135 Whereas psychotherapy as practiced in hospital settings in India does not appear culturally compelling for treatment of dhat,59,67,69 clinical trials of SSRIs would be ideal because they can improve not only psychological distress but also reduce premature ejaculation and other complaints associated with dhat.

  • CCD can highlight vulnerable populations for public health measures and secondary prevention initiatives. – Despite variable associations of CCD with psychiatric disorders, they are consistently associated with identifying vulnerable populations. CCD are a marker of risk groups and may indicate a prodrome to psychiatric disorders. Public health and non-clinical psychosocial interventions should be investigated with CCD-endorsing populations as a possible avenue of mental health promotion and disorder prevention.

  • Cross-cultural comparison studies of CCD can help illuminate biases and limitations in psychiatric categories. – One study in our review demonstrated that offense-avoidance symptoms are common among Americans with social phobia similar to Koreans with TKS.65 This draws attention to therapeutic needs to address offense-avoidance in American social phobia patients, as well as the need to potentially add these to DSM criteria as symptoms of interest (current TKS features are limited to ‘culture-related diagnostic issues’ in DSM-5, p.20515). Similarly, cross-cultural comparisons of ataque de nervios demonstrate that interpersonal-distress induced anxiety and loss of control are also observable among European Americans and are not synonymous with panic disorder.76 Therefore, the therapeutic need to address aspects of ataques in non-Latino populations could be considered. A number of studies demonstrated that some symptom requirements in psychiatric disorders may lead to exclusion of treatment for distressed persons from other cultural groups. For example, requiring that panic attacks be unprovoked would exclude Cambodian patients for whom catastrophic cognitions related to orthostatic hypotension and ethnophysiological expectations of khyal trigger attacks.125 Ultimately, cross-national studies that include a range of CCD features as well as psychiatric diagnoses are needed to reduce cultural bias in psychiatric nosology and help address unmet needs in both high-income and low- and middle-income settings.

Conclusions

Despite claims that cultural concepts of distress are not amenable to epidemiological study, our literature review demonstrated a range of important contributions of CCD epidemiological studies to detection of mental health problems, evaluation of interventions, identification of vulnerable groups, and identification of cultural biases in psychiatric diagnostic criteria. The literature, however, suffers from a lack of epidemiological rigor and lack of comprehensive data collection about key issues in CCD. Tools such as the SAQOR-CPE are needed to systematically evaluate this literature and establish guidelines for research design and reporting for global mental health studies. Ultimately, combining the strengths of psychiatric epidemiology and cultural psychiatry will foster equitable, feasible, and effective global mental health services.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health [U19 MH095687-01S1, South Asian Hub for Advocacy, Research & Education on Mental Health (SHARE), Principal Investigators: Vikram Patel and Atif Rahman] supplement for continuity of research experience during clinical training provided to the first author (BAK). Author BNK is supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship [Grant No. 0234618].

Conflict of interest: None declared.

  • Epidemiology studies of cultural concepts of distress can improve global mental health services through improved detection of psychological distress, identification of risk groups and assessment of culturally salient intervention outcomes.

  • The literature on cultural concepts of distress and psychiatric disorders is characterized by low epidemiological rigor (e.g. unclear prevalence reporting, use of non-validated instruments and lack of control for confounding) and lack of reporting key facets of explanatory models (e.g. aetiological attributions, course and severity of distress, and association with impaired functioning).

  • Treatment and intervention studies including both psychiatric disorders and cultural concepts of distress demonstrate independent changes in these outcomes. Future global mental health intervention research should include both psychiatric outcomes and cultural concepts of distress to assure that culturally salient indicators of distress also resolve in treatment trials.

References

1

Emil Kraepelin and comparative sociocultural psychiatry

,

Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Nuerosci

,

1995

, vol.

245

 

(pg.

231

-

38

)

2

How scientifically valid is the knowledge base of global mental health?

,

BMJ

,

2008

, vol.

336

 

(pg.

992

-

94

)

3

,

Rethinking Psychiatry: From Cultural Category to Personal Experience

,

1988

New York

Free Press, Collier Macmillan

4

,

Psychiatry Around the Globe: A Transcultural View

,

1981

New York

Marcel Dekker

5

,  ,  ,  ,  . 

Outcome in schizophrenia and related disorders compared between developing and developed countries – A recursive partitioning re-analysis of the WHO DOSMD data

,

Br J Psychiatry

,

1997

, vol.

170

 

(pg.

229

-

33

)

6

,  ,  , et al. 

Recovery from psychotic illness: a 15- and 25-year international follow-up study

,

Br J Psychiatry

,

2001

, vol.

178

 

(pg.

506

-

17

)

7

,  ,  . 

Two-year follow-up of the patients included in the WHO International Pilot Study of Schizophrenia

,

Psychol Med

,

1977

, vol.

7

 

(pg.

529

-

41

)

8

,  ,  ,  . 

WHO international pilot study of schizophrenia

,

Psychol Med

,

1972

, vol.

2

 

(pg.

422

-

25

)

9

World Health Organization

,

Schizophrenia: an International Follow-up Study

,

1981

Chichester, UK

Wiley

10

,  ,  ,  . 

Schizophrenia: manifestations, incidence and course in different cultures: a World Health Organization ten-country study

,

Psychol Med Monogr Suppl

,

1992

, vol.

20

 

(pg.

1

-

97

)

11

,  ,  ,  . 

Is the outcome of schizophrenia really better in developing countries?

,

Rev Bras Psiquiatr

,

2006

, vol.

28

 

(pg.

149

-

52

)

12

Prognosis for schizophrenia in the third world – a reevaluation of cross-cultural research

,

Cult Med Psychiatry

,

1992

, vol.

16

 

(pg.

53

-

75

)

13

,  . 

Culture and schizophrenia – the DOSMD challenge

,

Br J Psychiatry

,

1994

, vol.

164

 

(pg.

222

-

31

)

14

,  . 

World Health Organization

,

The WHO World Mental Health Surveys: Global Perspectives on the Epidemiology of Mental Disorders

,

2008

Geneva

World Health Organization

15

American Psychiatric Association

,

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-5

,

2013

Washington, DC

AMA

16

Koro – a Culture-Bound Depersonalization Syndrome

,

Br J Psychiatry

,

1965

, vol.

111

 

(pg.

43

-

50

)

17

American Psychiatric Association

,

Task Force on DSM-IV. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-IV

,

1994

4th edn

Washington, DC

American Psychiatric Association

18

,  . 

The future of cultural psychiatry: an international perspective

,

Can J Psychiatr.

,

2000

, vol.

45

 

(pg.

438

-

46

)

19

Deconstructing Culture-Bound Syndromes

,

Soc Sci Med

,

1985

, vol.

21

 

(pg.

221

-

28

)

20

,

Sickness and Healing: An Anthropological Perspective

,

1995

New Haven, CT

Yale University Press

21

,  . ,

The Culture Bound Syndromes: Folk Illnesses of Psychiatric and Anthropological Interest

,

1985

Boston, MA

Reidel

22

,  . 

The metamorphosis of ‘culture-bound' syndromes

,

Soc Sci Med

,

1985

, vol.

21

 

(pg.

205

-

10

)

23

,

The Harmony of Illusions: Inventing Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder

,

1995

Princeton, NJ

Princeton University Press

24

,  ,  ,  . 

Multilevel integrative analyses of human behavior: social neuroscience and the complementing nature of social and biological approaches

,

Psychol Bull

,

2000

, vol.

126

 

pg.

829

 

25

,  . ,  . 

Cultural neuroscience

,

Handbook of Cultural Psychology

,

2007

New York

Guilford Press

26

,  . 

Cultural neuroscience and psychopathology: Prospects for cultural psychiatry

,

Prog Brain Res

,

2009

, vol.

178

 

(pg.

263

-

83

)

27

,  . 

Gene–environment interactions in psychiatry: joining forces with neuroscience

,

Nat Rev Neurosci

,

2006

, vol.

7

 

(pg.

583

-

90

)

28

Beyond the New Cross-cultural Psychiatry: Cultural Biology, Discursive Psychology and the Ironies of Globalization

,

Transcult Psychiatry

,

2006

, vol.

43

 

(pg.

126

-

44

)

29

Idioms of distress: alternatives in the expression of psychosocial distress: a case study from South India

,

Cult Med Psychiatry

,

1981

, vol.

5

 

(pg.

379

-

408

)

30

Idioms of distress revisited

,

Cult Med Psychiatry

,

2010

, vol.

34

 

(pg.

401

-

16

)

31

Explanatory Model Interview Catalogue (EMIC): Framework for comparative study of illness

,

Transcult Psychiatry

,

1997

, vol.

34

 

(pg.

235

-

63

)

32

,  ,  , et al. 

The Explanatory Model Interview Catalogue (EMIC). Contribution to cross-cultural research methods from a study of leprosy and mental health

,

Br J Psychiatry

,

1992

, vol.

160

 

(pg.

819

-

30

)

33

Rational men and the explanatory model approach

,

Cult Med Psychiatry

,

1982

, vol.

6

 

(pg.

57

-

71

)

34

,  . 

Kiyang-yang, a West-African postwar idiom of distress

,

Cult Med Psychiatry

,

2010

, vol.

34

 

(pg.

301

-

21

)

35

,  . 

The ethical imperative to scale up health care services for people with severe mental disorders in low and middle income countries

,

Postgrad Med J

,

2009

, vol.

85

 

(pg.

509

-

13

)

36

,  ,  ,  ,  ,  . 

Mental health is integral to public health: a call to scale up evidence-based services and develop mental health research

,

Suid-Afrikaanse Tydskrif Vir Geneeskunde

,

2008

, vol.

98

 

pg.

444

 

37

,  ,  , et al. 

Scale up of services for mental health in low-income and middle-income countries

,

Lancet

,

2011

, vol.

378

 

(pg.

1592

-

1603

)

38

,  ,  , et al. 

Scale up services for mental disorders: a call for action

,

Lancet

,

2007

, vol.

370

 

(pg.

1241

-

52

)

39

,  ,  , et al. 

An evaluation of two screening methods to identify cases with schizophrenia and affective disorders in a community survey in rural Ethiopia

,

Int J Soc Psychiatry

,

2002

, vol.

48

 

(pg.

200

-

08

)

40

,  ,  ,  . 

Exploring the apparent absence of psychosis amongst the Borana pastoralist community of Southern Ethiopia. A mixed method follow-up study

,

World Psychiatry

,

2010

, vol.

9

 

(pg.

98

-

102

)

41

,  ,  . ,  . 

Culture-Bound Syndromes

,

Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry

,

2009

Philadelphia, PA

Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins

42

,  . 

Culture and somatization: Clinical, epidemiological, and ethnographic perspectives

,

Psychosom Med

,

1998

, vol.

60

 

(pg.

420

-

30

)

43

,  ,  . 

Culture-bound syndromes: the story of dhat syndrome

,

Br J Psychiatry

,

2004

, vol.

184

 

(pg.

200

-

09

)

44

The definition and classification of Koro

,

Cult Med Psychiatry

,

1996

, vol.

20

 

(pg.

41

-

65

)

45

Anxiety disorders in Japan: a review of the Japanese literature on shinkeishitsu and taijinkyofusho

,

Cult Med Psychiatry

,

1989

, vol.

13

 

(pg.

391

-

03

)

46

,  ,  ,  . 

A conceptual history of Koro

,

Transcult Psychiatry

,

2007

, vol.

44

 

(pg.

27

-

43

)

47

,  . 

Depression in cultural context: ‘Chinese somatization,’ revisited

,

Psychiatr Clin North Am

,

2012

, vol.

35

 

(pg.

15

-

36

)

48

,  ,  ,  ,  . 

Dhat Syndrome: A Systematic Review

,

Psychosomatics

,

2013

, vol.

54

 

(pg.

212

-

18

)

49

,  ,  , et al. 

Quality assessment of observational studies in psychiatry: an example from perinatal psychiatric research

,

Int J Methods Psychiatr Res

,

2011

, vol.

20

 

(pg.

224

-

34

)

50

,  ,  , et al. 

Research Review: Psychosocial adjustment and mental health in former child soldiers – a systematic review of the literature and recommendations for future research

,

J Child Psychol Psychiatry

,

2013

, vol.

54

 

(pg.

17

-

36

)

51

,  ,  ,  . 

Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I2 index?

,

Psychol Methods

,

2006

, vol.

11

 

pg.

193

 

52

,  . ,

Generalized Estimating Equations

,

2008

 

53

,  ,  , et al. 

The relationship between ataque de nervios and unexplained neurological symptoms: a preliminary analysis

,

J Nerv Ment Dis

,

2005

, vol.

193

 

(pg.

32

-

39

)

54

,  . 

Depression and anxiety among women in an urban setting in Zimbabwe

,

Psychol Med

,

1997

, vol.

27

 

(pg.

59

-

71

)

55

,  ,  . 

Beyond anxious predisposition: do padecer de nervios and ataque de nervios add incremental validity to predictions of current distress among Mexican mothers?

,

Depress Anxiety

,

2012

, vol.

29

 

(pg.

23

-

31

)

56

,  ,  ,  ,  . 

Post-partum depression in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo: validation of a concept using a mixed-methods cross-cultural approach

,

Trop Med Int Health

,

2008

, vol.

13

 

(pg.

1534

-

42

)

57

,  ,  , et al. 

Assessing local instrument reliability and validity: a field-based example from northern Uganda

,

Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol

,

2009

, vol.

44

 

(pg.

685

-

92

)

58

An analysis of 60 cases of culture bound syndromes

,

Indian J Med Sci

,

1999

, vol.

53

 

(pg.

149

-

52

)

59

,  . 

Dhat syndrome – a useful diagnostic entity in Indian culture

,

Br J Psychiatry

,

1991

, vol.

159

 

(pg.

691

-

95

)

60

,  ,  . 

Assessment of depression prevalence in rural Uganda using symptom and function criteria

,

Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol

,

2004

, vol.

39

 

(pg.

442

-

47

)

61

,  ,  , et al. 

Subjective versus objective: an exploratory analysis of latino primary care patients with self-perceived depression who do not fulfill primary care evaluation of mental disorders patient health questionnaire criteria for depression

,

Prim Care Companion J Clin Psychiatry

,

2010

, vol.

12

  

PCC.09m00899

62

,  ,  ,  . 

Relationship of child loss to psychiatric and functional impairment in resettled Cambodian refugees

,

J Nerv Ment Dis

,

1998

, vol.

186

 

(pg.

484

-

91

)

63

Dhat syndrome: is it a distinct clinical entity? A study of illness behaviour characteristics

,

Acta Psychiatr Scand

,

1995

, vol.

91

 

(pg.

136

-

39

)

64

,  . 

Dhat syndrome. A sex neurosis of the Indian subcontinent

,

Br J Psychiatry

,

1990

, vol.

156

 

(pg.

577

-

79

)

65

,  ,  ,  ,  . 

Features of the offensive subtype of Taijin-Kyofu-Sho in US and Korean patients with DSM-IV social anxiety disorder

,

Depress Anxiety

,

2008

, vol.

25

 

(pg.

230

-

40

)

66

,  . 

Depression and anxiety among Cambodian refugee women in France and the United States

,

Issues Ment Health Nurs

,

1998

, vol.

19

 

(pg.

541

-

56

)

67

,  ,  . 

Is Dhat syndrome, a culturally appropriate manifestation of depression?

,

Med Hypotheses

,

2007

, vol.

69

 

pg.

698

 

68

,  ,  ,  ,  ,  . 

Validation of a mental health assessment in an African conflict population

,

Psychol Assess

,

2010

, vol.

22

 

(pg.

318

-

24

)

69

,  ,  , et al. 

Socio-cultural, psychosexual and biomedical factors associated with genital symptoms experienced by men in rural India

,

Trop Med Int Health

,

2008

, vol.

13

 

(pg.

384

-

95

)

70

,  ,  ,  . 

The prevalence of ataques de nervios in the Puerto Rico disaster study. The role of culture in psychiatric epidemiology

,

J Nerv Ment Dis

,

1993

, vol.

181

 

(pg.

157

-

65

)

71

,  ,  , et al. 

Ataque de nervios as a marker of social and psychiatric vulnerability: results from the NLAAS

,

Int J Soc Psychiatry

,

2010

, vol.

56

 

(pg.

298

-

309

)

72

,  ,  ,  . 

Are ataques de nervios in Puerto Rican children associated with psychiatric disorder?

,

J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry

,

2005

, vol.

44

 

(pg.

1184

-

92

)

73

,  ,  ,  ,  . 

‘Hit by the wind' and temperature-shift panic among Vietnamese refugees

,

Transcult Psychiatry

,

2003

, vol.

40

 

(pg.

342

-

76

)

74

,  ,  ,  . 

PTSD and Key Somatic Complaints and Cultural Syndromes among Rural Cambodians: The Results of a Needs Assessment Survey

,

Med Anthropol Q

,

2012

, vol.

26

 

(pg.

383

-

407

)

75

,  ,  ,  ,  . 

Culturally adapted CBT (CA-CBT) for Latino women with treatment-resistant PTSD: a pilot study comparing CA-CBT to applied muscle relaxation

,

Behav Res Ther

,

2011

, vol.

49

 

(pg.

275

-

80

)

76

,  ,  . 

Ataques de nervios: culturally bound and distinct from panic attacks?

,

Depress Anxiety

,

2009

, vol.

26

 

(pg.

16

-

21

)

77

Neurasthenia and depression: a study of somatization and culture in China

,

Cult Med Psychiatry

,

1982

, vol.

6

 

(pg.

117

-

90

)

78

,  ,  ,  ,  . 

Distribution of distress in post-socialist Mongolia: a cultural epidemiology of yadargaa

,

Soc Sci Med

,

2004

, vol.

58

 

(pg.

471

-

85

)

79

,  ,  ,  ,  ,  . 

‘Somatization’ and ‘Comorbidity’: A Study of Jhum-Jhum and Depression in Rural Nepal

,

Etho.

,

2005

, vol.

33

 

(pg.

125

-

147

)

80

,  ,  ,  ,  ,  . 

Comparative phenomenology of ataques de nervios, panic attacks, and panic disorder

,

Cult Med Psychiatry

,

2002

, vol.

26

 

(pg.

199

-

223

)

81

,  ,  , et al. 

Ataque de nervios and panic disorder

,

Am J Psychiatry

,

1994

, vol.

151

 

(pg.

871

-

75

)

82

,  . 

The development of the Adolescent Nervios Scale: preliminary findings

,

Cultur Divers Ethni Minor Psychol

,

2010

, vol.

16

 

(pg.

9

-

15

)

83

,  ,  ,  ,  . 

Ataques de nervios and somatic complaints among island and mainland Puerto Rican children

,

CNS Neurosci Ther

,

2011

, vol.

17

 

(pg.

158

-

66

)

84

‘Ode Ori’: a culture-bound disorder with prominent somatic features in Yoruba Nigerian patients

,

Acta Psychiatr Scand

,

1987

, vol.

75

 

(pg.

231

-

36

)

85

,  . 

The anger syndrome hwa-byung and its comorbidity

,

J Affect Disord

,

2010

, vol.

124

 

(pg.

211

-

14

)

86

,  . 

Factorial validation and reliability analysis of the Brain Fag Syndrome Scale

,

Afr Health Sci

,

2011

, vol.

11

 

(pg.

334

-

40

)

87

,  ,  ,  . 

A survey of Hwa-Byung in middle-age Korean women

,

J Transcult Nurs

,

2001

, vol.

12

 

(pg.

115

-

22

)

88

Spiritual distress: an indigenous model of nonpsychotic mental illness in primary care in Harare, Zimbabwe

,

Acta Psychiatr Scand

,

1995

, vol.

92

 

(pg.

103

-

07

)

89

,  . 

Etic and emic criteria for non-psychotic mental disorder: a study of the CISR and care provider assessment in Harare

,

Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol

,

1997

, vol.

32

 

(pg.

84

-

89

)

90

,  ,  ,  . 

The sequelae of political violence: assessing trauma, suffering and dislocation in the Peruvian highlands

,

Soc Sci Med

,

2008

, vol.

67

 

(pg.

205

-

17

)

91

,  ,  ,  . 

Dhat (semen loss) syndrome: a functional somatic syndrome of the Indian subcontinent?

,

Gen Hosp Psychiatry

,

2005

, vol.

27

 

(pg.

215

-

17

)

92

,  ,  . 

An Ethnographically Derived Measure of Anxiety, Depression and Somatization: The Phan Vietnamese Psychiatric Scale

,

Transcult Psychiatry

,

2004

, vol.

41

 

(pg.

200

-

32

)

93

,  ,  ,  . 

Posttraumatic idioms of distress among Darfur refugees: Hozun and Majnun

,

Transcult Psychiatry

,

2011

, vol.

48

 

(pg.

392

-

415

)

94

,  ,  . 

The Prevalence of Nervios and Associated Symptomatology Among Inhabitants of Mexican Rural Communities

,

Cult Med Psychiatry

,

2000

, vol.

24

 

(pg.

453

-

70

)

95

,  ,  , et al. 

Subtypes of ataques de nervios: the influence of coexisting psychiatric diagnosis

,

Cult Med Psychiatry

,

1998

, vol.

22

 

(pg.

231

-

44

)

96

Dhat syndrome revisited

,

Indian J Psychiatry

,

1985

, vol.

27

 

(pg.

119

-

22

)

97

,  . 

Social Pathways in the Comorbidity between Type 2 Diabetes and Mental Health Concerns in a Pilot Study of Urban Middle- and Upper-Class Indian Women

,

Ethos

,

2011

, vol.

39

 

(pg.

211

-

25

)

98

,  ,  , et al. 

Perinatal mental distress and infant morbidity in Ethiopia: a cohort study

,

Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed.

,

2011

, vol.

96

 

(pg.

F59

-

64

)

99

,  . 

Jhum-jhum: neuropsychiatric symptoms in a Nepali village

,

Lancet

,

1999

, vol.

353

 

pg.

1070

 

100

,  ,  . 

Prevalence of depression in rural Rwanda based on symptom and functional criteria

,

J Nerv Ment Dis

,

2002

, vol.

190

 

(pg.

631

-

37

)

101

Ataques de nervios in Puerto Rico: culture-bound syndrome or popular illness?

,

Med Anthropol

,

1993

, vol.

15

 

(pg.

157

-

70

)

102

,  ,  . 

Brain Fag Syndrome – a myth or a reality

,

Afr J Psychiatry (Johannesbg)

,

2009

, vol.

12

 

(pg.

135

-

43

)

103

,  ,  ,  ,  ,  . 

A randomized controlled trial of cognitive-behavior therapy for Cambodian refugees with treatment-resistant PTSD and panic attacks: a cross-over design

,

J Trauma Stress

,

2005

, vol.

18

 

(pg.

617

-

29

)

104

,  ,  ,  ,  ,  . 

A Psychobiocultural Model of Orthostatic Panic Among Cambodian Refugees: Flashbacks, Catastrophic Cognitions, and Reduced Orthostatic Blood-Pressure Response

,

Psychol Trauma Theor Res Pract Pol

,

2010

, vol.

2

 

(pg.

63

-

70

)

105

,  ,  ,  ,  . 

The panic attack-posttraumatic stress disorder model: applicability to orthostatic panic among Cambodian refugees

,

Cogn Behav Ther

,

2008

, vol.

37

 

(pg.

101

-

16

)

106

,  ,  ,  . 

Mechanisms of Efficacy of CBT for Cambodian Refugees with PTSD: Improvement in Emotion Regulation and Orthostatic Blood Pressure Response

,

CNS Neurosci Ther

,

2009

, vol.

15

 

(pg.

255

-

63

)

107

Validity issues in transcultural epidemiology

,

Br J Psychiatry

,

2003

, vol.

182

 

(pg.

376

-

78

)

108

,  ,  , et al. 

Preparing instruments for transcultural research: use of the translation monitoring form with Nepali-speaking Bhutanese

,

Transcult Psychiatry

,

1999

, vol.

36

 

(pg.

285

-

301

)

109

,  ,  , et al. 

Developing instruments for cross-cultural psychiatric research

,

J Nerv Ment Dis

,

1988

, vol.

176

 

(pg.

257

-

63

)

110

,

Boo!: Culture, Experience, and the Startle Reflex

,

1996

New York

Oxford University Press

111

Paradox lost: The latah problem re-visited

,

J Nerv MentDis

,

1983

, vol.

171

 

pg.

159

 

112

,

Basic Problems of Ethnopsychiatry

,

1980

Chicago

University of Chicago Press

113

,  . 

An alternative approach to cross-cultural function assessment

,

Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol.

,

2002

, vol.

37

 

(pg.

537

-

43

)

114

,  . 

Evidence-based nursing: effects of a structured nursing program for the health promotion of Korean women with Hwa-Byung

,

Arch Psychiatr Nurs

,

2007

, vol.

21

 

(pg.

12

-

16

)

115

,  ,  ,  ,  . 

Depression in Dhat syndrome

,

J Sex Med

,

2008

, vol.

5

 

(pg.

841

-

44

)

116

,  . 

Themes in managing culturally defined illness in the Cambodian refugee family

,

J Community Health Nurs

,

1994

, vol.

11

 

(pg.

89

-

98

)

117

Alexander Leighton and the evolutionary perspective

,

Transcult Psychiatry

,

2006

, vol.

43

 

(pg.

45

-

55

)

118

,

My Name is Legion: Foundations for a Theory of Man in Relation to Culture

,

1959

New York

Basic Books

119

,  . 

Idioms of distress among trauma survivors: subtypes and clinical utility

,

Cult Med Psychiatry

,

2010

, vol.

34

 

(pg.

209

-

18

)

120

,  ,  . 

Predicting postnatal mental disorder with a screening questionnaire: A prospective cohort study from Zimbabwe

,

J Epidemiol Community Health

,

1998

, vol.

52

 

(pg.

262

-

66

)

121

,  ,  ,  ,  . 

Adapting CBT for traumatized refugees and ethnic minority patients: examples from culturally adapted CBT (CA-CBT)

,

Transcult Psychiatry

,

2012

, vol.

49

 

(pg.

340

-

65

)

122

Special issue – Culturally sensitive CBT

,

Cogn Behav Pract

,

2006

, vol.

13

 

(pg.

246

-

48

)

123

,  ,  ,  ,  ,  . 

CBT for Vietnamese refugees with treatment-resistant PTSD and panic attacks: a pilot study

,

J Trauma Stress

,

2004

, vol.

17

 

(pg.

429

-

33

)

124

,  . 

Modifying exposure-based CBT for Cambodian refugees with posttraumatic stress disorder

,

Cogn Behav Pract

,

2006

, vol.

13

 

(pg.

261

-

70

)

125

,  . ,

Culture and Panic Disorder

,

2009

Redwood City, CA

Stanford University Press

126

,  ,  . 

Toward a Puerto Rican popular nosology: nervios and ataque de nervios

,

Cult Med Psychiatry

,

2003

, vol.

27

 

(pg.

339

-

66

)

127

,  ,  . 

An examination of nervios among Mexican seasonal farm workers

,

Nurs Inq

,

2007

, vol.

14

 

(pg.

189

-

201

)

128

,  ,  ,  . 

The experiences of ataques de nervios: towards an anthropology of emotions in Puerto Rico

,

Cult Med Psychiatry

,

1996

, vol.

20

 

(pg.

343

-

67

)

129

Imagined lives, suffering, and the work of culture: the embodied discourses of conflict in modern Tibet

,

Med Anthropol Q

,

1999

, vol.

13

 

(pg.

391

-

412

)

130

,  ,  ,  . 

PTSD and key somatic complaints and cultural syndromes among rural Cambodians: the results of a needs assessment survey

,

Med Anthropol Q

,

2012

, vol.

26

 

(pg.

383

-

407

)

131

,  ,  , et al. 

Jiko-shisen-kyofu (fear of one's own glance), but not taijin-kyofusho (fear of interpersonal relations), is an east Asian culture-related specific syndrome

,

Aust N Z J Psychiatry

,

2011

, vol.

45

 

(pg.

148

-

52

)

132

,  ,  ,  ,  ,  . 

Association of trauma-related disorders and dissociation with four idioms of distress among Latino psychiatric outpatients

,

Cult Med Psychiatry

,

2010

, vol.

34

 

(pg.

219

-

43

)

133

,  ,  . 

Worry, worry attacks, and PTSD among Cambodian refugees: A path analysis investigation

,

Soc Sci Med

,

2011

, vol.

72

 

(pg.

1817

-

25

)

134

,  ,  ,  ,  ,  . 

Validation of cross-cultural child mental health and psychosocial research instruments: adapting the Depression Self-Rating Scale and Child PTSD Symptom Scale in Nepal

,

BMC Psychiatry

,

2011

, vol.

11

 

pg.

127

 

135

,  ,  ,  ,  . 

Treatment change of somatic symptoms and cultural syndromes among Cambodian refugees with PTSD

,

Depression and Anxiety

,

2012

, vol.

29

 

(pg.

148

-

55

)

Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Epidemiological Association © The Author 2013; all rights reserved.

Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Epidemiological Association © The Author 2013; all rights reserved.

Topic:

  • epidemiology
  • heterogeneity
  • mental disorders
  • mental health
  • psychiatry
  • post-traumatic stress disorder
  • diagnosis
  • culture-bound syndromes
  • cultural psychiatry
  • cultural concepts of distress

What term describes a cluster of symptoms that are considered recognizable diseases only within specific cultures?

In medicine and medical anthropology, a culture-bound syndrome, culture-specific syndrome, or folk illness is a combination of psychiatric and somatic symptoms that are considered to be a recognizable disease only within a specific society or culture.

What type of mental illness symptoms is culture specific?

Culture-bound syndromes include, among others, amok, amurakh, bangungut, hsieh-ping, imu, jumping Frenchmen of Maine syndrome, koro, latah, mal de pelea, myriachit, piblokto, susto, voodoo death, and windigo psychosis.

What are the symptoms of culture

Ataque de nervios, seen in Latin American and Latin Mediterranean cultures, is associated with a sense of being out of control, uncontrollable shouting, trembling, crying, heat in the chest rising to the head, and fainting or seizure-like episodes, and somewhat resembles panic disorder.

What is a cultural symptom?

Improving Cultural Competency for Behavioral Health Professionals. Cultural syndromes are clusters of symptoms and attributions that tend to co-occur among individuals in specific cultural groups, communities, or contexts. They are recognized locally as coherent patterns of experience.