Abstract

For several decades now, there has been a strong interest in quantifying the magnitude of mental health problems in the general population. In spite of the growing methodological sophistication of investigations, there remain conceptual issues. The aim of this article is to critically analyse both the community prevalence studies of mental disorders and the way in which some of their findings are highlighted and disseminated. The article states that the "cases" identification criteria used in the studies favour a psychopathologising view of human problems. The need for a different conceptual framework for community prevalence studies is suggested.