Background: It has been argued that lay interviewers’ use of fully-structured interviews could lead to a diagnostic pattern different to that by treating physicians. Clinical interviewers in community samples should probably identify cases that are closer to those seen in clinical settings. The greatest advantage of using clinical interviewers consists of the immediate assessment of a possible psychopathology, i.e. the evaluation of current disorders. Methods: Two thousand three hundred and sixty-three citizens from the community of Sesto Fiorentino, Italy, were interviewed by their own general practitioners using the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI). Positive cases for any lifetime psychiatric disorder as well as a random sample of the negative cases were re-interviewed by psychiatrists or trained residents in psychiatry using the Florence Psychiatric Interview (FPI). Results: The point prevalence for any current disorder was 8.7%; the two disorders with the highest prevalence were generalised anxiety disorder (2.9%) and major depressive episode (2.7%). The figures increase about 50% when the sub-threshold sequelae of previous disorders are considered. Current comorbidity was generally high. The one-year prevalence of any disorder was 10.6%. Ninety-two percent of the cases sought help, 82% were being treated at the moment of interview. Social impairment was considerable. Conclusions: The period prevalence rates for most of the disorders considered were generally comparable with the range defined by previous studies conducted in other Western countries, despite using different methodologies. Conversely, the use of health facilities, the treatment received and the social impairment were much higher than those reported by the other studies, suggesting a greater similarity with the clinical samples.

The recent epidemiologic studies report extremely varied rates for social phobia (SP). One of the reasons for this may be the difficulty in diagnosing SP, the boundaries of which are uncertain. A community survey was carried out using doctors with experience in clinical psychiatry as interviewers, and a clinical diagnostic instrument. Two thousand three hundred and fifty-five people (out of the 2,500 randomly selected from the population) living in Sesto Fiorentino, a suburb of Florence, Italy, were interviewed by their own general practitioner, using the MINI plus six additional questions. Six hundred and ten of the 623 subjects that were found positive for any form of psychopathology at the screening interview, and 57 negative subjects, were re-interviewed by residents in psychiatry using the Florence Psychiatric Interview (FPI). The FPI is a validated composite instrument that has the format of a structured clinical research record. It was found that 6.58% of subjects showed social anxiety not attributable to other psychiatric or medical conditions during their life. Social or occupational impairments meeting DSM-IV diagnostic requirements for SP was detected in 76 subjects (lifetime prevalence = 3.27%). Correction for age raises the lifetime expected prevalence to 4%. Sex ratio was approximately (F:M) 2:1. The most common fear was speaking in public (89.4%), followed by entering a room occupied by others (63.1%) and meeting with strangers (47.3%). Eighty-six point nine percent of subjects with SP complained of more than one fear. The mean age of onset (when the subjects first fully met DSM-IV criteria for SP) was 28.8 years, but the first symptoms of SP usually occurred much earlier, with a mean age of onset at 15.5 years. Ninety-two percent of cases with SP also showed at least one other co-morbid psychiatric disorder during their life. Lifetime prevalence of avoidant personality disorder (APD) was 3.6%. Forty-two point nine percent of cases with SP also had APD, whereas 37.9% of cases with APD developed SP.

Background: This paper presents lifetime prevalences and estimated risks of DSM-IV psychiatric disorders from a community survey conducted in Sesto Fiorentino, Italy, using psychiatric interviewers with clinical experience and clinical instruments. Methods: Two thousand five hundred subjects aged 14 or more were randomly selected from the lists of 15 general practitioners (GPs) regardless of wheter or not they had consulted the GP. A three-phase design was adopted, with the GPs using the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) for the first stage. All positive cases at the MINI and a probability sample of 123 negative cases were re-interviewed by psychiatrists or trained residents in psychiatry using the Florence Psychiatric Interview (FPI) at the second stage. During phase III, the subjects were administered the rating scales specific to the pathology detected by the FPI. Results: Two thousand three hundred and sixty-three subjects were interviewed (response rate 94.5%) by their own GP; 623 were found positive for any psychiatric disorder. The psychiatrists could re-interview 605 of these, along with a random sample of 123 negatives. Almost twenty-five percent (24.4%; 15.7% males, 31.7% females) of the population was found positive for any DSM-IV disorder during their lives. The most common diagnosis was major depressive episode, followed by anxiety not otherwise specified. Women had higher rates for most disorders. Conclusions: The prevalence rates for most of the disorders considered are generally comparable with the range identified by previous studies conducted in other Western countries, even though they were using different methodologies. Exceptions are represented by the high prevalence of residual categories and the lower prevalence of phobias.

The Florence Psychiatric Interview (FPI) is an interviewing instrument for evaluating psychopathology in the community. The FPI is designed to be completed by clinical interviewers, and focuses on single episodes of illness where the symptoms are assessed and graded according to their severity on five‐point scales. Psychiatric symptoms are evaluated regardless of their diagnostic collocation, and period and lifetime diagnoses may be generated by combining the episodes and using the appropriate algorithms (the information provided by the FPI covers the requirements of all the present diagnostic systems). Other aspects of psychiatric disorders that are usually ignored in other interviews are investigated (for example, costs of illness, use of health facilities, life events, and personality traits). Data on reliability (inter‐rater agreement and test‐retest reliability) and agreement with other instruments such as the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) and the Structured Clinical Interview for the Diagnostic and Statistic Manual of Mental Disorders (SCID) seem encouraging. The FPI's ability to collect lifetime symptoms by combining episodes matches that of an interview (the CIDI) that uses the lifetime approach. Agreement between fully qualified psychiatrists and trained residents was excellent. The ability of the cases to recall symptoms experienced several years before was also acceptable. This instrument is therefore proposed for clinical studies at the epidemiological level. Copyright © 2001 Whurr Publishers Ltd.