Mental Health in UK Biobank Revised – development, implementation and results from an online questionnaire completed by 157,366 participants ============================================================================================================================================== * Katrina A. S. Davis * Jonathan R. I. Coleman * Mark Adams * Naomi Allen * Gerome Breen * Breda Cullen * Chris Dickens * Elaine Fox * Nick Graham * Jo Holliday * Louise M Howard * Ann John * William Lee * Rose McCabe * Andrew McIntosh * Robert Pearsall * Daniel J. Smith * Cathie Sudlow * Joey Ward * Stan Zammit * Matthew Hotopf ## Abstract This paper corrects and updates a paper published in BJPsych Open 2018 “Mental Health in UK Biobank” ([https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2018.12](https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2018.12)) that was voluntarily retracted following the finding of errors in the coding of the variable for alcohol use disorder. Notably, the percentage of participants reaching threshold for alcohol use disorder on the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Tool increased from 7% to 21%. **Background** UK Biobank is a well-characterised cohort of over 500,000 participants that offers unique opportunities to investigate multiple diseases and risk factors. An online mental health questionnaire completed by UK Biobank participants expands the potential for research into mental disorders. **Methods** An expert working group designed the questionnaire, using established measures where possible, and consulting with a service user group regarding acceptability. Operational criteria were agreed for defining likely disorder and risk states, including lifetime depression, mania/hypomania, generalised anxiety disorder, unusual experiences and self-harm, and current post-traumatic stress and alcohol use disorders. **Results** 157,366 completed online questionnaires were available by August 2017. Comparison of self-reported diagnosed mental disorder with a contemporary study shows a similar prevalence, despite respondents being of higher average socioeconomic status. Lifetime depression was the most common finding in 24% of participants (37,434), with current alcohol use disorder criteria met by 21% (32,602), while other criteria were met by less than 8% of the participants. There was extensive comorbidity among the syndromes. Mental disorders were associated with a high neuroticism score, adverse life events and long-term illness; addiction and bipolar affective disorder in particular were associated with measures of deprivation. **Conclusions** The questionnaire represents a very large mental health survey in itself, and the results presented here show high face validity, although caution is needed due to selection bias. Built into UK Biobank, these data intersect with other health data to offer unparalleled potential for crosscutting biomedical research involving mental health. ## Introduction UK (United Kingdom) Biobank is a very large, population-based cohort study established to identify the determinants of common life-threatening and disabling conditions.1 Most of these conditions, like heart disease, stroke and mental disorders, are multifactorial, involving multiple genes of small effect, and complex relationships with environmental exposures. This means large samples are required to study associations between these exposures and disease, and identify targets for treatment and prevention.2 The utility of traditional epidemiological study designs is often limited by their focus on single disorders or exposures and relatively modest sample sizes.3 UK Biobank is an open-access resource providing detailed characterisation of over half a million people aged 40-69 years at recruitment, with proposed long term follow-up. Recruitment was completed in 2010, along with consent for future contact and linkage to routinely collected health-related data, such as those produced by the National Health Service (NHS). Baseline measures were extensive, from family history to sensory acuity (a searchable breakdown at [www.ukbiobank.ac.uk](http://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk)), and the resource continues to grow. In 2017, genotyping of the whole cohort was complete, a range of blood biomarkers were released in 2019, and multimodal imaging is underway for 100,000 participants. Locality environmental factors, such as air pollution, are also available. The design of UK Biobank offers the opportunity to examine a wide range of risk factors and outcomes in a sample that has the size to provide the power to detect small effects, making UK Biobank a highly efficient resource for observational epidemiology. The impact of mental disorders on disability and quality of life is considerable,4 accounting for the equivalent of over 1.2 million person years lost to disability from mental and substance use disorders in England alone in 20135. The potential detrimental impact of mental disorders both on physical disease onset and outcomes6-8 is particularly notable for this project. The availability of mental health phenotypes in conjunction with the wealth of other data in the UK Biobank would offer considerable opportunities to study aetiological and prognostic factors. The UK Biobank baseline data collection of mental health, consisted of several questions about mood and a neuroticism scale, expanded for the last 172,729 recruited participants with questions to allow provisional categorisation of mood disorder;9 however, there was considerable scope for further characterisation of mental disorders among participants. Characterising mental disorders in a cohort such as UK Biobank poses challenges. Firstly, most mental disorders manifest before age 30 years and have fluctuating courses,10 so a “snapshot” of disorder status at one point in time, as identified by most screening tools, is likely to be less useful than a “lifetime” history. Secondly, traditional diagnostic approaches to mental disorders, relying upon clinician assessment at interview, would be prohibitively expensive in a cohort of this size. Thirdly, using self-report of diagnosis or data from record linkages relies upon recognition of illness and reflects healthcare usage patterns, whereas many people with mental disorders never seek or receive treatment.10, 11 In response to these challenges, we developed a dual approach: secondary care record linkage for identification of more severe illnesses such as schizophrenia12 and self-report of symptoms of common mental disorder, which might not have come to clinical attention. As part of our mental health phenotyping programme we therefore developed an online mental health questionnaire (MHQ) for participants to complete regarding lifetime symptoms of mental disorders. The MHQ aimed to exploit the efficiency of “e-surveys”13 and provide the detail needed to identify mental health disorders without the need for a clinical assessment. The present paper aims to describe the development, implementation and results of this questionnaire. We provide descriptive data on the numbers of UK Biobank participants meeting diagnostic criteria for specific disorders, and on the frequency of exposure to risk factors. We also evaluate the likely representativeness of respondents by comparing respondent socio-demographic characteristics to that of the UK population using census data, and comparing self-reported mental disorder diagnosis with the Health Survey for England (HSE) data.14 This will assist researchers considering or undertaking epidemiological research to evaluate the potential and power of using UK Biobank to look at mental health. ## Methods ### Questionnaire development A mental health research reference group formed of approximately 50 individuals (see supplementary material Appendix 1) participated in discussions about a strategy for mental health phenotyping in UK Biobank, including a workshop in January 2015. From this, a smaller steering group was established and led the development of the mental health questionnaire (MHQ). The group recommended that the MHQ should concentrate on depression, as it was likely to represent the greatest burden in the cohort, with some questions about other common disorders, including anxiety, alcohol misuse and addiction, plus risk factors for mental disorder not captured at participants’ baseline assessment. The intention was to create a composite questionnaire out of previously existing and validated measures, taking into account participant acceptability (time, ease of use, and ensuring questions were unlikely to offend), scope for collaborations with international studies (e.g. the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium) through making results comparable, and the need to balance depth and breadth of phenotyping. The base of the questionnaire was the measurement of lifetime depressive disorder using the Composite International Diagnostic Interview Short Form (CIDI-SF),15 modified to provide lifetime history, as used to identify cases and controls for some existing studies in the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium. The CIDI-SF uses a branching structure with screening questions and skip rules to limit detailed questions to the relevant areas for each participant. Other measures were then added to this, as summarised in supplementary material Table SM1. Where the group were unable to find existing measures that fulfilled these criteria, questions were written or adapted, as indicated in SM1. These sections have not been externally validated, but the questions can be seen, along with the full questionnaire on the UK Biobank website ([http://biobank.ctsu.ox.ac.uk/crystal/refer.cgi?id=22](http://biobank.ctsu.ox.ac.uk/crystal/refer.cgi?id=22)), for researchers to evaluate how they wish to use them. ### Testing and ethical approval The use of branching questions in the MHQ means that those with established and multiple mental disorders have a longer, more detailed, questionnaire. To improve acceptability in this group, we worked with a service user advisory group at the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at the South London and Maudsley (SLaM) NHS Foundation Trust in designing the questionnaire and invitation.16 We then piloted the questionnaire amongst an online cohort of 14,836 volunteers aged over 50 and living in the UK, who completed the questionnaire as part of signing up to take part in the Platform for Research Online to investigate Genetics and Cognition in Ageing (PROTECT).17 Of those who started the questionnaire 98.8% completed it, taking a median time of 15 minutes. Some PROTECT participants commented that they wanted the opportunity to explain why they felt they had experienced symptoms of depression. In response to this, we added a question to the depression section on loss or bereavement, and a free-text box – neither were designed to change diagnostic algorithms, but may add to future analyses. The questionnaire was approved as a substantial amendment to UK Biobank approval from the North West - Haydock Research Ethics Committee, 11/NW/0382. ### Administration to UK Biobank Participants We incorporated the final MHQ into the UK Biobank web questionnaire platform and presented it to participants as an online questionnaire entitled “thoughts and feelings”. We sent participants who had agreed to email contact a hyperlink to their personalised questionnaire. The invitation explained the importance of collecting further information about mental health and emphasised that UK Biobank was unable to respond to concerns raised by the participant in the questionnaire, instead directing them to several sources of potential support. Participants could skip questions they preferred not to answer, and they could save answers to return to the questionnaire later. We sent reminder emails at two weeks and four months to those who had not started or had partially completed the questionnaire. The MHQ will continue to be available on the participant area of the UK Biobank website, and since 2017 the annual postal newsletter contains an invitation to log on to the participant area and complete questionnaires, which will reach those for whom no email contact was possible. Data from the MHQ will therefore continue to accrue. The current numbers and aggregate data can be accessed from the public data showcase ([http://biobank.ctsu.ox.ac.uk/crystal/label.cgi?id=136](http://biobank.ctsu.ox.ac.uk/crystal/label.cgi?id=136)). More detail on the roll out and associated communications can be found on the UK Biobank website ([http://biobank.ctsu.ox.ac.uk/crystal/refer.cgi?id=22](http://biobank.ctsu.ox.ac.uk/crystal/refer.cgi?id=22)). ### Defining Cases from the MHQ Case definitions for the evaluation of the responses on the MHQ are detailed in Appendix 2 in supplementary materials. They arose either from the instruments used in the MHQ or by consensus criteria agreed by the working committee who wrote the MHQ. Diagnostic criteria were evaluated for depression (major depressive disorder), hypomania or mania, generalised anxiety disorder (GAD), alcohol use disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Addiction to substances and/or behaviour was defined based on self-report alone. Unusual experiences (describing potential symptoms of psychosis) and self-harm were also defined as phenomena that are important for phenotyping, but not disorder-specific. We combined outcomes to divide the cohort into five mood disorder groups, as shown in supplementary material Figure MD1. Fulfilling the diagnostic criteria based on a self-report questionnaire does not allow us to rule out other psychiatric disorders, psychological or situational factors that might better explain the symptoms, and may have been elicited in a clinical evaluation. Therefore, we would regard any case classification arising from the MHQ as “likely”, rather than confirmed psychiatric disorder. The issue becomes particularly problematic for disorders that are less common in the population, such as bipolar affective disorder, where literature shows that using questionnaires to screen the population may over-estimate prevalence.18 Therefore, although we report the presence of hypomania/mania symptoms for the whole population, we only make the likely diagnosis of bipolar affective disorder in people with a history of depression, a sub-population where the prevalence of bipolar affective disorder is higher, and therefore screening questionnaires have better positive predictive values.19 ### Analysis and Data Sharing Data were supplied by UK Biobank on 8th August 2017 under application number 16577. This data is open-access subject to the usual access procedures ([www.ukbiobank.ac.uk](http://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk)). Formal operational criteria (Appendix 2) written by KD based on consensus within the consortium (see Defining Cases above), with checks by JC, GB and MH (whole) and CD, NG, WL and DS (part). R code for analysis was developed by JC, with the code posted for comments during development, trialled on pilot data, and checked by KD and GB (whole). Portions of the data were analysed independently in parallel by other groups and subsequently compared (e.g. for mood disorders, by NG/BC). The code is freely available from Mendeley Data for the purpose of reproducing these analyses or developing further [https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/kv677c2th4/3](https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/kv677c2th4/3) (doi:10.17632/kv677c2th4.3). We used R version 3.4.0-3.5.1 and MS Excel for analyses. We report numbers and proportions within the sample, and do not attempt to give population prevalence estimates, and 95% confidence intervals are therefore not shown. ### Role of the funding source The questionnaire was developed and administered with UK Biobank funding. Individual authors were funded by their institutions and research grants as detailed below. No funding body influenced the study design or the writing of this article. MH had access to all data through a standard data sharing agreement (Material Transfer Agreement) with UK Biobank and retains final responsibility for the decision to submit the article for publication. ## Results The setting, recruitment and methods of selection of participants in UK Biobank have been published elsewhere.1, 9 For the mental health questionnaire study, 339,092 participants were sent an email invitation, and 157,366 (46% of those emailed) fully completed the questionnaire by July 2017 (available in August 2017) – which means that the MHQ had 31% coverage of the UK Biobank cohort. Figure 1 shows the flow chart of UK Biobank participants who completed the mental health questionnaire (MHQ). The median time for completion was 14 minutes, and 82% of respondents completed the questionnaire in under 25 minutes. ![Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2019/08/05/19001214/F1.medium.gif) [Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2019/08/05/19001214/F1) Figure 1: Flowchart of UK Biobank (UKB) participants from invitation to completion of mental health questionnaire (MHQ). Invitations were based on NHS registration, age and location. Numbers correct for July 2017. Table SM2 in supplementary material shows participant characteristics for all UK Biobank participants and those who completed the MHQ compared to population-level data for UK residents in the same age range. They were different from the whole UK Biobank cohort and the general population by being better educated (e.g. 45% hold a degree vs 32% of UK Biobank participants vs 23% in the census), of higher socio-economic status according to job type, and healthier (longstanding illness or disability 28% vs 32% vs 37%), with lower rates of current smoking. Table 1 shows that 34% of respondents reported they had received at least one psychiatric diagnosis from a professional at some time, and 12% had received two or more. The most commonly reported diagnosis was depression, followed by “anxiety or nerves”. Data are compared to the Health Survey for England (HSE) because this annual survey aims to report data that is a representative estimate for the population in England through its sample and weighting.20 The comparison shows that the pattern and prevalence of diagnosis is similar; for example, a depression diagnosis was self-reported by 21% of individuals in both samples, eating disorder by around 1%, and bipolar-related disorders by around 0.5%. The definition in the MHQ differed from that in the HSE for anxiety (MHQ definition was broader) and addiction (MHQ did not require professional diagnosis), and the higher overall prevalence in the UK Biobank MHQ compared to the HSE (35% vs 28%) may be due to those wider definitions. View this table: [Table 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2019/08/05/19001214/T1) Table 1: Respondent reports of mental health diagnoses by a professional (self-reported without physician diagnosis for addiction) compared to diagnoses reported in the Health Survey for England (HSE) 2014 NA = not reported. Table 2 shows that 45% of participants met criteria for one or more operationally defined syndromes. The most common was lifetime depression at 24%, followed by alcohol use disorder (21%), then generalised anxiety disorder (7%), PTSD (6%), unusual experiences (5%) and self-harm (4%). Hypomania/mania was the least common, at 2% of respondents. Table SM3 in supplementary material shows that women and men were approximately equally likely to have a history of one or more of the defined syndromes (women 44% vs men 46%), but differed as to which criteria were met: women were more likely to have a history of depression or anxiety disorder, while men were more likely meet criteria for a current alcohol use disorder (women 14% vs men 30%). Table 2 also shows the substantial comorbidity of defined syndromes. Notably, around three-quarters of participants who met criteria for lifetime anxiety disorder also met criteria for lifetime depression. Also, while individuals meeting criteria for PTSD had more than a two-fold risk of all of the lifetime syndromes compared to average, those identified with alcohol use disorder had little extra risk of lifetime syndromes. View this table: [Table 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2019/08/05/19001214/T2) Table 2: **Comorbidity** between operationally defined syndromes. Percentages refer to the proportion of participants with the row syndrome who also have column syndrome. See lettered table notes, and Appendix 2 for case definitions. In table 3, people meeting criteria for the lifetime occurrence of at least one of depression, bipolar disorder, generalised anxiety disorder, unusual experience or self-reported addiction are seen to be more likely than those without to come from a younger age group, report adverse life events, and have met criteria for loneliness or social isolation. They are more likely to have smoked cigarettes and/or used cannabis, and to have had a “longstanding illness” at baseline (although the presence of a mental disorder may have been the illness to which the participants refer in some cases), but all groups were equally likely to be achieving recommended levels of physical activity. Markers of deprivation (area-level deprivation and rented housing) are raised in groups with a history of mental disorders, especially bipolar affective disorder and addictions. View this table: [Table 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2019/08/05/19001214/T3) Table 3. Selected personal characteristics, socio-economic factors, risk factors and health behaviours by status for likely lifetime occurrence of operationally defined syndromes (people may be included in more than one category). The supplementary materials have a section on mood disorder, showing the results of analyses of MHQ participants by likely disorder categories (figure MD1). Table MD1 shows the features of these groups. The characteristics of people who meet diagnostic criteria for depression appear to be shared by those with subthreshold depressive symptoms. Table MD2 shows comorbidity, and demonstrates a gradient effect in the presence of a non-depression syndrome rising from 22% in no depression (mainly alcohol use disorder) to 50% in recurrent depression. Table MD3 shows that people with a history of depression or bipolar affective disorder tend to have worse scores for current mental health. ## Discussion This paper has described the development, implementation and principal descriptive findings from the UK Biobank Mental Health Questionnaire (MHQ). The implementation of this questionnaire demonstrates that a web-based questionnaire is an acceptable means of collecting mental health information at low cost and large scale. Whilst the data collection methods might force more limited data acquisition than conventional interview methods, with associated uncertainties in true diagnostic categorisation, we suggest that the survey achieved an acceptable trade-off between depth of phenotypic information and scale of sample size. The MHQ achieved a participation rate of 31% of the original UK Biobank participants and 46% of those emailed. This response rate is substantially higher than previous UK Biobank questionnaires, largely owing to the attention paid to ensure the acceptability of the invitation and questionnaire and the efficient use of reminders. Those who completed the MHQ appear to be better educated and have higher socio-economic status (on all measures: job title, household income, home ownership and area level deprivation) than those recruited into UK Biobank overall, and the UK population. Despite this, we found that rates of self-report diagnoses were similar to population estimates from the Health Survey England. The patterns of association between disorders and demographics were also broadly as predicted by previous research, which adds to the face validity of the questionnaire. For example, depression and anxiety were more common in women, while addiction and alcohol misuse were more common in men, and all disorders were less common in respondents older than 65 years. The decrease in prevalence of lifetime disorder with increasing age has been previously noted in cross-sectional studies, although the causes and implications are not clearly understood.21, 22 The high level of alcohol use disorder found using the AUDIT (Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Tool) is consistent with the Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey 2014, where they comment on increasing numbers in older age groups since 2007.23 The ‘healthy volunteer’ selection bias within the UK Biobank has been previously explored24. The impact of selection biases on disease prevalence are likely to be particularly strong for mental disorders, where disorder status or symptoms may influence participation in research,25, 26 since many risk factors for these disorders, including genetic risk as polygenic risk score for mental disorder can be associated with non-participation.27 Therefore, the results of the MHQ should not be used to provide prevalence estimates. However, the pattern of the measured risk factors among the participants with mental disorders in the MHQ, including neuroticism, trauma, loneliness and housing tenure, was in accordance with established literature, supporting the use of the data to study the relationships between exposures and outcomes. Previous work on health surveys with selection bias due to non-participation, including UK Biobank, have indicated that they can be used to give estimates of association,11, 25, 28 although bias may occur in some cases.29, 30 For example, the relative underparticipation of unskilled workers in the MHQ (around one-fifth of the proportion in the population) could mask an association with a variable that was related to unskilled work. ## Strengths and Limitations We developed a questionnaire through a consensus approach with clear aims of capturing enough data to characterise participants as having a lifetime history of depression and other phenotypes. Validated instruments were used where possible. The consortium working on the questionnaire included mental health researchers and members of the UK Biobank team working in collaboration to develop the optimum approach. The derived variables of likely categorical diagnoses will be added to the UK Biobank resource, facilitating those less familiar with mental health to use the results efficiently. The UK Biobank data, including that from the MHQ, is available to researchers and we have made the code used to derive the results in this paper freely available, allowing other researchers both to both query our findings and build upon them for their own work. The ‘healthy volunteer’ effect may limit applications of the data. Due to restrictions of time and space, the questionnaire was limited in the topics it could cover. The focus of the questionnaire was on categorical diagnoses rather than dimensional traits, which will tend to confirm conventional ICD/DSM nosology of psychiatric disorder and may not suit some research31. In particular, tools were chosen that are based on DSM-IV disorders, which reflects current practice (for example National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines on depression and anxiety use DSM IV definitions)32, 33. Of the disorders with operational classification, all would generalise to DSM-5, except post-traumatic stress disorder34, and the concepts are valid for ICD-10 disorders, although the threshold of disorder may be different, e.g. depression is diagnosed with fewer symptoms in DSM than ICD32. The questionnaire was heavily reliant on participant report, which may be affected by stigma of reporting psychiatric symptoms, and tends to underestimate lifetime prevalence through forgetting or re-evaluating distant events11, 21, 35. We hope that some of these shortcomings can be addressed in the future by a more fine-grained analyses of the MHQ data, supplemented with other data from UK Biobank to create a richer picture of mental health in the cohort. ## Conclusions UK Biobank offers a unique opportunity to research common disorders in a well characterised longitudinal cohort of UK adults. A detailed mental health questionnaire has now been completed by 157,366 participants, including self-report, operationally defined lifetime disorder status, and detailed phenotype information on mood disorder. The proportion of cases and the patterns of participants experiencing symptoms and disorders was as expected despite a “healthy volunteer” selection bias. Further work on mental health phenotyping for UK Biobank includes validation of Hospital Episode Statistics for mental health diagnoses,12 incorporation of general practice records, triangulation of health record and questionnaire data36, and investigation of further putative phenotypes37. Existing projects utilising UK Biobank mental health data can be seen in a searchable database of approved research ([http://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/approved-research/](http://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/approved-research/)). This study also demonstrates of the substantial burden of mental disorders, including potentially dangerous patterns of alcohol consumption. Given the known impact of mental health on physical health, mental health data and its associations should interest researchers from every biomedical specialty. This study suggests that UK Biobank could be a powerful tool for such studies, and since it is open to all *bona fide* health researchers for work in the public good, we hope this study will inspire both existing and new users of UK Biobank. ## Data Availability This data is open-access subject to the usual UK Biobank access procedures ([www.ukbiobank.ac.uk](http://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk)). The code is freely available from Mendeley Data. [https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/kv677c2th4/3](https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/kv677c2th4/3) ## Declarations of interest All authors have completed an ICJME conflict of interest form. GB reports grants from National Institute for Health Research during the conduct of the study; support from Illumina Ltd. and the European Commission outside the submitted work. BC reports grants from the Scottish Executive Chief Scientist Office during the conduct of the study. CS reports grants from MRC & Wellcome Trust, during the conduct of the study; and is the Chief Scientist for UK Biobank. MH reports grants for IMI RADAR-CNS and personal fees as an expert witness outside the submitted work. Other authors have nothing to declare. ## Funding This paper represents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London. High performance computing facilities were funded with capital equipment grants from the GSTT Charity (TR130505) and Maudsley Charity (980). Individual authors acknowledge the following additional funding: MA is supported by a Wellcome Trust Strategic Award (Reference 10436/Z/14/Z) BC is funded by the Scottish Executive Chief Scientist Office (DTF/14/03) and by The Dr Mortimer and Theresa Sackler Foundation. EF is supported by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013)/ERC grant agreement no: [324176]. LMH is supported by an NIHR Research Professorship (NIHR-RP-R3-12-011) in Women’s Mental Health. AJ is funded by the Farr Institute and HCRW (CA-04) WL is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care South West Peninsula. AM is supported by a Wellcome Trust Strategic Award (Reference 10436/Z/14/Z) DS receives funding from a Lister Institute Prize Fellowship (2016-2021) SZ is supported by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, Department of Health, ERC, Scottish Government, UK Biobank or other funders or institutions. ## Author Contribution All authors’ contribution met the ICMJE criteria for authorship. KD, GB, EF, LH, AJ, RM, AM, DS, CS, SZ and MH designed the study. NA and JH co-ordinated the delivery of the questionnaire. GB and JC curated data. KD, JC, MA, BC, CD, NG, WL, RP, DS and JW contributed to analysis. KD, JC and MH wrote the paper. All authors critically edited. All authors agreed to submission. ## Data Availability Available from UK Biobank subject to standard procedures ([www.ukbiobank.ac.uk](http://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk)). Code for replication available from Mendeley Data (doi:10.17632/kv677c2th4.3). ## Acknowledgements We thank the staff and participants of UK Biobank, the PROTECT study and the SLaM Service Users Group for their participation. * Received July 24, 2019. * Revision received July 24, 2019. * Accepted August 1, 2019. * © 2019, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International), CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) ## REFERENCES 1. 1.Sudlow C, Gallacher J, Allen N, Beral V, Burton P, Danesh J, et al. UK biobank: an open access resource for identifying the causes of a wide range of complex diseases of middle and old age. PLoS Medicine. 2015; 12(3): e1001779. 2. 2.Weissman MM, Brown AS, Talati A. Translational Epidemiology in Psychiatry: Linking Population to Clinical and Basic Sciences. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2011; 68(6): 600–8. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.47&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21646577&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2019%2F08%2F05%2F19001214.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000291319700007&link_type=ISI) 3. 3.Bell V. Open science in mental health research. Lancet Psychiatry. 2017: doi:10.1016/S2215-0366(17)30244-4. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S2215-0366(17)30244-4&link_type=DOI) 4. 4.Prince M, Patel V, Saxena S, Maj M, Maselko J, Phillips MR, et al. No health without mental health. Lancet. 2007; 370(9590): 859–77. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61238-0&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17804063&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2019%2F08%2F05%2F19001214.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000249733300031&link_type=ISI) 5. 5.Newton JN, Briggs ADM, Murray CJL, Dicker D, Foreman KJ, Wang H, et al. Changes in health in England, with analysis by English regions and areas of deprivation, 1990–2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. The Lancet. 2015; 386(10010): 2257–74. 6. 6.Barnett K, Mercer SW, Norbury M, Watt G, Wyke S, Guthrie B. Epidemiology of multimorbidity and implications for health care, research, and medical education: a cross-sectional study. Lancet. 2012; 380(9836): 37–43. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60240-2&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22579043&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2019%2F08%2F05%2F19001214.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000306115900031&link_type=ISI) 7. 7.Cohen BE, Edmondson D, Kronish IM. State of the art review: depression, stress, anxiety, and cardiovascular disease. Am J Hypertens. 2015; 28(11): 1295–302. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/ajh/hpv047&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25911639&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2019%2F08%2F05%2F19001214.atom) 8. 8.Chang C-K, Hayes RD, Broadbent MTM, Hotopf M, Davies E, Møller H, et al. A cohort study on mental disorders, stage of cancer at diagnosis and subsequent survival. BMJ Open. 2014; 4(1). 9. 9.Smith DJ, Nicholl BI, Cullen B, Martin D, Ul-Haq Z, Evans J, et al. Prevalence and characteristics of probable major depression and bipolar disorder within UK biobank: cross-sectional study of 172,751 participants. PLoS One. 2013; 8(11): e75362. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pone.0075362&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24282498&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2019%2F08%2F05%2F19001214.atom) 10. 10.Kessler RC, Amminger GP, Aguilar-Gaxiola S, Alonso J, Lee S, Ustun TB. Age of onset of mental disorders: A review of recent literature. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2007; 20(4): 359–64. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/YCO.0b013e32816ebc8c&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17551351&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2019%2F08%2F05%2F19001214.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000247772900009&link_type=ISI) 11. 11.Newson RS, Karlsson H, Tiemeier H. Epidemiological fallacies of modern psychiatric research. Nord J Psychiatry. 2011; 65(4): 226–37. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21138402&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2019%2F08%2F05%2F19001214.atom) 12. 12.Davis KAS, Bashford O, Jewell A, Shetty H, Stewart RJ, Sudlow CLM, et al. Using data linkage to electronic patient records to assess the validity of selected mental health diagnoses in English Hospital Episode Statistics (HES). PLoS One. 2018; DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0195002. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pone.0195002&link_type=DOI) 13. 13.Pitman A, Osborn DPJ, King MB. The use of internet-mediated cross-sectional studies in mental health research. BJPsych Adv. 2015; 21(3): 175–84. 14. 14.Bridges S. Health Survey for England 2014: Mental Health Problems. In: HSE 2014 (ed Health and Social Care Information Centre). Office of National Statistics, 2015. 15. 15.Kessler RC, Andrews G, Mroczek D, Ustun B, Wittchen HU. The World Health Organization composite international diagnostic interview short-form (CIDI-SF). Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 1998; 7(4): 171–85. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/mpr.47&link_type=DOI) 16. 16.Robotham D, Wykes T, Rose D, Doughty L, Strange S, Neale J, et al. Service user and carer priorities in a Biomedical Research Centre for mental health. Journal of Mental Health. 2016; 25(3): 185–8. 17. 17.Wesnes KA, Brooker H, Ballard C, McCambridge L, Stenton R, Corbett A. Utility, reliability, sensitivity and validity of an online test system designed to monitor changes in cognitive function in clinical trials. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2017: doi:10.1002/gps.4659. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/gps.4659&link_type=DOI) 18. 18.Cerimele JM, Chwastiak LA, Dodson S, Katon WJ. The prevalence of bipolar disorder in general primary care samples: a systematic review. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2014; 36(1): 19–25. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2013.09.008&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24144521&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2019%2F08%2F05%2F19001214.atom) 19. 19.Carvalho AF, Takwoingi Y, Sales PMG, Soczynska JK, Köhler CA, Freitas TH, et al. Screening for bipolar spectrum disorders: a comprehensive meta-analysis of accuracy studies. J Affect Disord. 2015; 172: 337–46. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jad.2014.10.024&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25451435&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2019%2F08%2F05%2F19001214.atom) 20. 20.1. R Craig, 2. E Fuller, 3. J Mindell Joint Health Surveys Unit. Health Survey for England 2014: Volume 2 Methods and Documentation (available at [http://content.digital.nhs.uk/catalogue/PUB19295](http://content.digital.nhs.uk/catalogue/PUB19295)) In: HSE 2014 (eds R Craig, E Fuller, J Mindell). Office of National Statistics 2015. 21. 21.Streiner DL, Patten SB, Anthony JC, Cairney J. Has ‘lifetime prevalence’ reached the end of its life? An examination of the concept. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2009; 18(4): 221–8. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/mpr.296&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20052690&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2019%2F08%2F05%2F19001214.atom) 22. 22.Kessler RC, Birnbaum HG, Shahly V, Bromet E, Hwang I, McLaughlin KA, et al. Age differences in the prevalence and co-morbidity of DSM-IV major depressive episodes: results from the WHO World Mental Health Survey Initiative. Depress Anxiety. 2010; 27(4): 351–64. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/da.20634&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20037917&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2019%2F08%2F05%2F19001214.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000276475100004&link_type=ISI) 23. 23.1. S McManus, 2. P Bebbington, 3. R Jenkins, 4. T Brugha Drummond C, McBride O, Fear N, Fuller E. Alcohol dependence. In: Mental health and wellbeing in England: Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey (eds S McManus, P Bebbington, R Jenkins, T Brugha). NHS Digital, 2016. 24. 24.Fry A, Littlejohns TJ, Sudlow C, Doherty N, Adamska L, Sprosen T, et al. Comparison of sociodemographic and health-related characteristics of UK Biobank participants with the general population. Am J Epidemiol. 2017: doi:10.1093/aje/kwx246. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/aje/kwx246&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=28641372&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2019%2F08%2F05%2F19001214.atom) 25. 25.Knudsen AK, Hotopf M, Skogen JC, Øverland S, Mykletun A. The health status of nonparticipants in a population-based health study: The Hordaland Health Study. Am J Epidemiol. 2010; 172(11): 1306–14. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/aje/kwq257&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20843863&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2019%2F08%2F05%2F19001214.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000284634900011&link_type=ISI) 26. 26.Atherton K, Fuller E, Shepherd P, Strachan DP, Power C. Loss and representativeness in a biomedical survey at age 45 years: 1958 British birth cohort. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2008; 62(3): 216–23. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoiamVjaCI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo4OiI2Mi8zLzIxNiI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjM5OiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDE5LzA4LzA1LzE5MDAxMjE0LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 27. 27.Martin J, Tilling K, Hubbard L, Stergiakouli E, Thapar A, Davey Smith G, et al. Association of genetic risk for schizophrenia with nonparticipation over time in a population-based cohort study. Am J Epidemiol. 2016; 183(12): 1149–58. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/aje/kww009&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=27188935&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2019%2F08%2F05%2F19001214.atom) 28. 28.Macfarlane GJ, Beasley M, Smith BH, Jones GT, Macfarlane TV. Can large surveys conducted on highly selected populations provide valid information on the epidemiology of common health conditions? An analysis of UK Biobank data on musculoskeletal pain. Br J Pain. 2015; 9(4): 203–12. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/2049463715569806&link_type=DOI) 29. 29.Hernan MA, Hernandez-Diaz S, Robins JM. A Structural Approach to Selection Bias. Epidemiology. 2004; 15(5): 615–25. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/01.ede.0000135174.63482.43&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15308962&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2019%2F08%2F05%2F19001214.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000223382600020&link_type=ISI) 30. 30.Sperrin M, Candlish J, Badrick E, Renehan A, Buchan I. Collider bias is only a partial explanation for the obesity paradox. Epidemiology. 2016; 27(4): 525–30. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/EDE.0000000000000493&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=27075676&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2019%2F08%2F05%2F19001214.atom) 31. 31.Lilienfeld SO, Treadway MT. Clashing diagnostic approaches: DSM-ICD Versus RDoC. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2016; 12(1): 435–63. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-021815-093122&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26845519&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2019%2F08%2F05%2F19001214.atom) 32. 32.National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Depression in adults: recognition and management. NICE Clinical Guideline CG90. 2009 (updated 2016). 33. 33.National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Generalised anxiety disorder and panic disorder in adults: management. NICE Clinical Guideline CG113. 2011. 34. 34.American Psychiatric Association. Highlights of Changes from DSM-IV-TR to DSM-5: psychiatry.org, 2013. 35. 35.Nevin RL. Low validity of self-report in identifying recent mental health diagnosis among US service members completing Pre-Deployment Health Assessment (PreDHA) and deployed to Afghanistan, 2007: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Public Health. 2009; 9(1): 376. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/1471-2458-9-376&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19811664&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2019%2F08%2F05%2F19001214.atom) 36. 36.Davis KAS, Cullen B, Adams M, Brailean A, Breen G, Coleman J, et al. Indicators of Mental Disorders in UK Biobank – A comparison of approaches. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research. In Press. 37. 37.Brailean A, Curtis J, Davis KAS, Dregan A, Hotopf M. Characteristics, comorbidities, and correlates of atypical depression: evidence from the UK Biobank Mental Health Survey. Psychological medicine. 2019: 1–10.