Epidemiology of childhood conduct problems in Brazil: systematic review and meta-analysis

We classify MINI as a screening instrument in the study that applied it [29] because the definition of conduct problems used in that study was “two or more behavioural symptoms”, which does not correspond to diagnostic criteria of CD or ODD. Among studies using the SDQ, one applied the “borderline” cut-point and seven studies applied the “abnormal” cut-point (as defined at www.​sdqinfo.​com). Among studies using Achenbach questionnaires, three applied the “borderline” cut-point to define children with high conduct problem scores, and two applied the “clinical” cut-point. We refer to this “clinical” cut-point as “abnormal” in Table 2, for consistency with the SDQ. Three studies using the SDQ and one using an Achenbach questionnaire also required the presence of impairment symptoms for children to be classified as having conduct problems.

These were Barros et al. [30], Bordin et al. [31], reported in Curto et al. [32], Cruzeiro et al. [29], Cuccihiaro and Dalgalarrondo [33], Cury [34], Sherman et al. [35], and Vitolo et al. [36].

Scoring in the clinical range (4–10) as reported by parents, without requirement of impairment. This was the method and definition used most frequently in the Brazilian studies.

Although several studies did not find a significant association for low socioeconomic status and conduct problems, this might have been because of lack of power or homogeneity of samples in socioeconomic position. Certainly, no study found a significant reverse association in the opposite direction, i.e. low socioeconomic status being associated with reduced probability of conduct problems.