Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40937426›Full record

ArticleBMJ public health2025

Testing the diagnostic expansion hypothesis with a population-based survey of attitudes to depression in Australia.

Nicola Reavley, Anthony Jorm, Stephen Carbone, Ellie Tsiamis, Amy Joanna Morgan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Nicola ReavleyCentre for Mental Health and Community Wellbeing, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5513-8291
Anthony JormCentre for Mental Health and Community Wellbeing, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1424-4116
Stephen CarboneCentre for Mental Health and Community Wellbeing, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2113-1689
Ellie TsiamisCentre for Mental Health and Community Wellbeing, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8006-7958
Amy Joanna MorganCentre for Mental Health and Community Wellbeing, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3784-0540

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: There is growing concern about the increasing use of psychiatric terminology to describe behaviours and experiences that do not meet criteria for diagnosis of a mental illness. We aimed to conduct a nationally representative online cross-sectional survey exploring diagnostic labelling of vignettes describing a person with different levels of depression symptoms or risk and whether this was associated with mental health-related intended actions and psychological distress. Methods: Australian respondents (n=6142) were randomly assigned to read one of five vignettes describing a person in the following situations: (1) currently well (family history of depression), (2) currently well (own history of depression), (3) subthreshold depressive symptoms, (4) major depressive disorder (MDD) and (5) MDD with suicidal thoughts. They were asked what, if anything, was wrong with this person. Further questions covered intentions to seek professional help or take self-help actions; psychological distress and personal experience of depression. Results: Labelling non-clinical or subthreshold vignettes with diagnostic labels was relatively common, with a depression label applied by 19.8% [99% CI 16.6, 23.6], 31.3% [99% CI 27.4, 35.6], 47.7% [99% CI 43.4, 52.0], 68.6 [99% CI 64.5, 72.5] and 77.2 [99% CI 73.1, 80.7] of respondents to vignettes 1 to 5 respectively. Younger people were more likely to give a depression label. Across all vignettes, labelling was associated with a greater likelihood of intentions to speak to a health professional or take medication but not with psychological distress or reductions in effective self-help. Conclusions: Findings suggest that public messages should have a more nuanced approach, making it clear that, for some mental health difficulties, non-medical solutions may be more appropriate, while also taking care not to increase the proportion of people with more severe problems who meet diagnostic criteria but do not seek help.

Indexed as

depressiondiagnostic expansionMental health literacypopulation survey

Identifiers

PMID40937426
PMCPMC12421594

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.