52 Hoarding Statistics

by

These hoarding figures cover the measurement periods and populations identified in the available source material. Estimates, surveys and forecasts retain their reported scope.

Key Hoarding Statistics

The main findings are:

  • A meta-analysis pooled hoarding-disorder prevalence at 2.5% (95% CI 1.7%–3.6%) among working-age adults (Studies available through 2019; Developed-country working-age adult samples).
  • In the UK study, hoarding-disorder participants had a mean age of 62.0 years (SD 13.2), versus 43.3 years (SD 16.9) for participants without the disorder (Study fieldwork; South East London participants).
  • The HRS-SR has five items scored 0–8, producing a total range of 0–40 (Instrument description; Hoarding assessment).
  • Mean Clutter Image Rating was 3.8 (SD 1.6) across the 337-person research sample in the pooled comparison (Archival pooled comparison; Research samples).
  • In pooled data, 43% of research participants versus 89% of community clients were not employed (Archival pooled comparison; 337 research; 487 community clients).
  • Individual general-population estimates in the meta-analysis ranged from 1.5% to 6% (Pre-2019 studies; General population across included studies).
  • In the UK study, 63.2% of hoarding-disorder participants were women and 36.8% were men (Study fieldwork; South East London; n=19 with disorder).
  • BHR participants who completed the module had a mean HRS-SR score of 3.86 (SD 5.90) (Most recent module response through December 2019; 23,214 US registry adults).
  • Mean Clutter Image Rating was 5.3 (SD 1.7) across 487 community clients (Archival pooled comparison; Community-referred clients).
  • Income below $20,000 was reported for 33% of research participants versus 78% of community clients (Archival pooled comparison; Research and community hoarding samples).
  • A UK community study found unweighted hoarding-disorder prevalence of 1.3% (95% CI 0.7%–1.9%) (2011–2012 fieldwork as reported; South East London community sample).
  • In the BHR sample, mean age was 60.7 years (SD 13.0) among 23,214 module completers (Most recent module data through December 2019; US online Brain Health Registry adults).
  • More than 60% of BHR participants scored 0 on each individual HRS-SR item (Most recent module response; 23,214 US registry adults).
  • Mobility problems were recorded for 66% of research participants and 74% of community clients (Archival pooled comparison; 337 research; 487 community clients).
  • No college education was reported for 11% of research participants versus 27% of community clients (Archival pooled comparison; Research and community hoarding samples).

Contents

Hoarding disorder prevalence statistics and population estimates

  • A meta-analysis pooled hoarding-disorder prevalence at 2.5% (95% CI 1.7%–3.6%) among working-age adults (Studies available through 2019; Developed-country working-age adult samples). (Prevalence of Hoarding Disorder: A…)
  • Individual general-population estimates in the meta-analysis ranged from 1.5% to 6% (Pre-2019 studies; General population across included studies). (Prevalence of Hoarding Disorder: A…)
  • A UK community study found unweighted hoarding-disorder prevalence of 1.3% (95% CI 0.7%–1.9%) (2011–2012 fieldwork as reported; South East London community sample). (Epidemiology of hoarding disorder)
  • Weighting the UK estimate increased prevalence to 1.5% (95% CI 0.7%–2.2%) (2011–2012 fieldwork as reported; South East London community sample). (Epidemiology of hoarding disorder)
  • Applying the interviewed-case proportion to potential false negatives would raise the UK raw estimate to 1.62% (95% CI 1.04%–2.40%) (Study sensitivity analysis; South East London). (Epidemiology of hoarding disorder)
  • Among 1,383 people who screened negative in the UK study, 28 (2.02%) had home notes inconsistent with the negative screen (Study fieldwork; South East London). (Epidemiology of hoarding disorder)
  • Lay reports and interviewed hoarding-disorder status agreed in 77.9% of 99 UK participants (κ=0.41) (Study fieldwork; South East London). (Epidemiology of hoarding disorder)
  • A pooled research/community dataset contained 824 individuals with hoarding-related data (Archival datasets from three research groups and three community agencies; US and Canadian research/community samples). (How Well Do Hoarding Research…)
  • The UK community study estimated weighted hoarding-disorder prevalence at 1.5% (95% CI 0.5%–2.5%) for men (2008–2010 baseline survey; South East London adult community sample). (Epidemiology of hoarding disorder)
  • The UK community study estimated weighted hoarding-disorder prevalence at 1.5% (95% CI 0.5%–2.4%) for women (2008–2010 baseline survey; South East London adult community sample). (Epidemiology of hoarding disorder)

Random-effects estimate from 11 studies; included studies had at least 1,009 participants and were not globally representative.

Range reflects differing instruments and definitions.

DSM-5-based in-home assessment; small interviewed sample.

Survey weighting; confidence interval remains wide.

Authors’ conservative sensitivity calculation, not the primary estimate.

Review of home-environment notes; not all were diagnosed cases.

Agreement measure is not prevalence and reflects this small sample.

Convenience and archival samples; not population prevalence.

Weighted survey estimate from two London boroughs; not a national UK estimate.

Hoarding symptoms by age, gender and life stage

  • In the UK study, hoarding-disorder participants had a mean age of 62.0 years (SD 13.2), versus 43.3 years (SD 16.9) for participants without the disorder (Study fieldwork; South East London participants). (Epidemiology of hoarding disorder)
  • In the UK study, 63.2% of hoarding-disorder participants were women and 36.8% were men (Study fieldwork; South East London; n=19 with disorder). (Epidemiology of hoarding disorder)
  • In the BHR sample, mean age was 60.7 years (SD 13.0) among 23,214 module completers (Most recent module data through December 2019; US online Brain Health Registry adults). (Internet-based hoarding assessment: the reliability…)
  • Women comprised 75.5% of the 23,214 BHR hoarding-module completers (Through December 2019; US online Brain Health Registry). (Internet-based hoarding assessment: the reliability…)
  • The BHR registry had participants from all 50 US states, with about 30% in California at the time described (Through December 2019). (Internet-based hoarding assessment: the reliability…)
  • In Chinese community data, mean CHRS hoarding scores were 15.10 (SD 7.66) for ages 18–29, 16.04 (SD 7.71) for ages 30–39, and 13.68 (SD 8.10) for ages 40–59 (Cross-sectional survey; Hong Kong and Shenzhen Chinese adults). (The Prevalence of Compulsive Buying…)
  • Chinese female CHRS means were 21.09 versus 16.60 for males at ages 18–29 (Cross-sectional survey; Chinese adults ages 18–29). (The Prevalence of Compulsive Buying…)
  • Chinese female CHRS means were 21.96 versus 18.04 for males at ages 30–39 (Cross-sectional survey; Chinese adults ages 30–39). (The Prevalence of Compulsive Buying…)
  • Chinese female CHRS means were 18.56 versus 15.28 for males at ages 40–59 (Cross-sectional survey; Chinese adults ages 40–59). (The Prevalence of Compulsive Buying…)
  • In the UK community study, the mean age of participants meeting hoarding-disorder criteria was 62.0 years (SD 13.2), compared with 43.3 years (SD 16.9) among those not meeting criteria (2008–2010 baseline survey; South East London adult community sample). (Epidemiology of hoarding disorder)

Group comparison in a small community study.

Small case count; does not establish a sex difference.

Registry participants were self-selected and older/college-heavy.

Describes the registry sample, not disorder prevalence by sex.

Recruitment concentration limits geographic representativeness.

CHRS scores measure symptoms, not DSM diagnosis.

Self-report comparison; not a diagnosis or causal sex effect.

Self-report comparison.

Cross-sectional group comparison; age difference does not establish causation.

Hoarding assessment scores and clinically significant thresholds

Scale properties do not represent prevalence.

Self-selected online registry sample.

Article reports a lower bound (‘more than 60%’), not an exact item-by-item value.

Screening classification; authors note selection and age bias.

Alternative screening cutoff, not a confirmed diagnosis.

Component-based screen; not a clinical interview for every participant.

Cutoff performance depends on the validation sample and gold-standard definition.

Illustrates cutoff sensitivity; authors considered the lower cutoff too lenient for definite HD.

Hoarding clutter, impairment and home-condition statistics

  • Mean Clutter Image Rating was 3.8 (SD 1.6) across the 337-person research sample in the pooled comparison (Archival pooled comparison; Research samples). (How Well Do Hoarding Research…)
  • Mean Clutter Image Rating was 5.3 (SD 1.7) across 487 community clients (Archival pooled comparison; Community-referred clients). (How Well Do Hoarding Research…)
  • Mobility problems were recorded for 66% of research participants and 74% of community clients (Archival pooled comparison; 337 research; 487 community clients). (How Well Do Hoarding Research…)
  • Kitchen-use problems affected 47% of research participants and 44% of community clients (Archival pooled comparison; Research and community hoarding samples). (How Well Do Hoarding Research…)
  • Bathroom-use problems affected 14% of research participants and 15% of community clients (Archival pooled comparison; Research and community hoarding samples). (How Well Do Hoarding Research…)
  • Structural home problems were recorded for 12% of research participants and 13% of community clients (Archival pooled comparison; Research and community hoarding samples). (How Well Do Hoarding Research…)
  • Utility problems were recorded for 3% of research participants and 7% of community clients (Archival pooled comparison; Research and community hoarding samples). (How Well Do Hoarding Research…)
  • Squalor was recorded for 16% of research participants and 52% of community clients (Archival pooled comparison; Research and community hoarding samples). (How Well Do Hoarding Research…)
  • Fire hazards were recorded for 29% of research participants and 46% of community clients (Archival pooled comparison; Research and community hoarding samples). (How Well Do Hoarding Research…)
  • Fire-safety concerns were recorded for 33% of research participants and 69% of community clients (Archival pooled comparison; Research and community hoarding samples). (How Well Do Hoarding Research…)
  • In the pooled regression, community sample status was associated with 5.50-fold higher odds of squalor (95% CI 3.64–8.80) (Regression using Frost, Tolin and Boston data; Selected US research/community datasets). (How Well Do Hoarding Research…)
  • Community sample status was associated with 2.14-fold higher odds of fire hazards (95% CI 1.48–3.33) (Regression using Frost, Tolin and Boston data; Selected US research/community datasets). (How Well Do Hoarding Research…)
  • Community sample status was associated with 5.96-fold higher odds of fire-safety concerns (95% CI 1.75–21.74) (Regression using Frost, Tolin and Boston data; Selected US research/community datasets). (How Well Do Hoarding Research…)

CIR is a visual clutter scale; pooled archival sample.

Agency-referred cases are not representative of all people with hoarding symptoms.

Difference was not conventionally significant (p=.06).

Operationalized from study-specific home-function items.

Not a causal estimate; samples were pooled from different protocols.

Authors note utility problems were uncommon and difficult to interpret.

Community/research sample composition differs; not population risk.

Home-condition coding differed somewhat by source study.

Community clients were agency-referred and more severely affected.

Association adjusted for demographics and clutter volume; not causal.

Adjusted association, not causal.

Wide interval indicates imprecision; adjusted association, not causal.

  • In pooled data, 43% of research participants versus 89% of community clients were not employed (Archival pooled comparison; 337 research; 487 community clients). (How Well Do Hoarding Research…)
  • Income below $20,000 was reported for 33% of research participants versus 78% of community clients (Archival pooled comparison; Research and community hoarding samples). (How Well Do Hoarding Research…)
  • No college education was reported for 11% of research participants versus 27% of community clients (Archival pooled comparison; Research and community hoarding samples). (How Well Do Hoarding Research…)
  • Poor insight was recorded for 16% of research participants versus 52% of community clients (Archival pooled comparison; Research and community hoarding samples). (How Well Do Hoarding Research…)
  • The odds ratio for poor insight comparing community with research clients was 5.94 (95% CI 2.24–16.58) (Archival pooled comparison; Research versus community samples). (How Well Do Hoarding Research…)
  • The odds ratio for not being employed comparing community with research clients was 12.16 (95% CI 3.44–46.33) (Archival pooled comparison; Research versus community samples). (How Well Do Hoarding Research…)
  • The odds ratio for income below $20,000 comparing community with research clients was 7.46 (95% CI 4.83–13.21) (Archival pooled comparison; Research versus community samples). (How Well Do Hoarding Research…)
  • In the UK study, 48.5% of hoarding-disorder participants reported a common mental disorder versus 51.5% of participants without hoarding disorder in the interviewed comparison (Study fieldwork; South East London interviewed participants). (Epidemiology of hoarding disorder)
  • In the UK study, 27.3% of hoarding-disorder participants and 27.8% of nonparticipants reported fair/poor self-rated health (Study fieldwork; South East London interviewed participants). (Epidemiology of hoarding disorder)
  • In a validated hoarding-disorder sample, 28% met criteria for inattentive ADHD, compared with 3% of an OCD comparison group (2011 study; Clinical hoarding-disorder and OCD comparison samples). (Comorbidity in Hoarding Disorder)
  • Nearly 75% of participants in a validated hoarding-disorder sample had a mood and/or anxiety disorder (2011 study; Clinical hoarding-disorder sample). (Comorbidity in Hoarding Disorder)

Employment definitions and missingness varied by source.

Income is reported in study-era dollars and may not be comparable across sites.

Educational categories were harmonized across datasets.

Insight measures and thresholds were harmonized but originated in different protocols.

Association; wide interval and nonrandom samples.

Wide interval; not causal and subject to sample-selection effects.

Association in selected samples; income categories may reflect different collection years.

Small groups and wording reflects the study’s common-mental-disorder measure.

Self-rated health; small sample and comparison group.

Clinical sample; estimates are not population prevalence.

Clinical sample recruited for research; comorbidity estimate may exceed community rates.

Table of contents