top notch - check out this 2003 interview with the head of our scientific advisory panel.
In the current edition of the ISI Essential Science Indicators, this paper is ranked #1 among papers published in the past decade in the field of Psychiatry/Psychology, with a total of 2,513 citations to date. Dr. Kessler’s record includes collective citation totals in excess of 12,000 in the fields of Clinical Medicine and Social Sciences as well as Psychiatry/Psychology.
Dr. Kessler goes on to note:
The high prevalence estimates reported in the paper were initially met with a good deal of skepticism. Although subsequent clinical calibration studies showed that the estimates are accurate, this led to a deeper questioning of the accuracy of the DSM system itself. The thinking goes like this: It’s inconceivable that half the population is mentally ill. Therefore, there must be something wrong with the DSM system. The error in this thinking is that the term "mentally ill" is being taken too seriously. It wouldn’t surprise anyone if I said that 99.9% of the population had been physically ill at some time in their life. Why, then, should it surprise anyone that 50% of the population has been mentally ill at some time in their life? The reason, of course, is that we invest the term "mentally ill" with excess meaning. A number of common mental illnesses, like adjustment disorders and brief episodes of depression, are usually mild and self-limiting. Many people experience these kinds of disorders at some time in their life. This raises a legitimate question about whether all mental illnesses require treatment and, if not, why it is that conditions not requiring treatment are defined as disorders in the DSM system. This is an ongoing debate that is too big an issue to address in this forum. It is important to note, though, that the paper we’re discussing has been a lightning rod for that debate.