Prevalence of hoarding disorders: a scientific assessment

The general population often thinks that hoarding disorder (HD) is common, but that is not the case. As a collector, I often have to make that distinction. I’m not a hoarder, I’m a collector. I addressed some differentiators between the two My previous posts on this subject. Here, based on scientific evidence, I will clarify how common stockings are.

Hoarding obstacles are characterized by permanent difficulties in destroying or separating property, resulting in significant disruption that undermines the intended use of biological space. This behavior often results in considerable distress and functional impairment. Estimates of HD prevalence vary widely between 1.5% and 6%. To provide a more accurate estimate, Postlethwaite, Kellett, and Mataix-Cols aim to summarise and reliably estimate the prevalence of HD by conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses, employing strict inclusion criteria, and analyzing studies using large enough samples.

Methodology

The authors conduct extensive and systematic literature searches in multiple databases, including PubMed, Psycinfo, and Embase, and aim to identify high-quality prevalence studies with a particular focus on storage disorders (HD). Their inclusion criteria were particularly strict. Each study required explicitly reporting the prevalence of HD among adults within the working age range, with a minimum sample size of 1,009 participants. The authors established this substantial minimum to ensure proper statistical power, thereby increasing the reliability and generalizability of the conclusions. Furthermore, selected studies are DSM-5 The criteria for hoarding obstacles to ensure methodological consistency. From the initial extensive search, the rigorous screening process identified 11 studies that met all specified criteria. These studies collectively include 53,378 participants, thus providing a robust dataset for analysis. In particular, all studies originating from developed countries, primarily from North America and Europe, were rigorously assessed for quality and determined to be low risk. bias Because of careful methodological criteria and clearly articulated diagnostic criteria.

result

A meta-analysis synthesized data from 11 carefully selected studies and found an estimated prevalence of pooled HD at 2.5%, with 95% Confidence Intervals ranging from 1.7% to 3.6%. This finding suggests that approximately one in 40 people in the general population experiences clinically significant hoarding behaviors that meet diagnostic thresholds. Importantly, subgroups are exploring sex The differences reveal no significant variation between men and women in prevalence, highlighting that HD affects both genders in a similar way. This contradicts certain previous assumptions or small studies. The narrow confidence intervals reflect the high accuracy in pooled estimates, highlighting the reliability of these findings. This robust analysis clarifies previous contradictions in the literature and establishes a clearer epidemiological understanding of the widespread effects of HD in the general adult population.

Discussion

The results of this meta-analysis provide a more accurate estimate of HD prevalence compared to previous reports. The pooled prevalence of 2.5% emphasizes that HD is a relatively common mental health condition and affects a significant portion of the population. The lack of significant gender differences is consistent with previous studies, but in contrast to studies suggesting a higher prevalence in men. This inconsistency could be due to methodological differences between studies and cultural factors that influence help-seeking behavior.

Conclusion

These findings highlight the importance of recognizing HD as a common and influential mental health disorder and are appropriately clinically necessary. Note and resource allocation.