Anxiety Disorders: The Relationship between Insight and Metacognition.

BACKGROUND: The exploration of metacognition in relation to anxiety has received considerable attention in recent decades. Research indicates that it plays a role in the development and maintenance of anxiety disorders while also providing benefits, including the ability to assess situations, modify behaviors, and make informed decisions. SUMMARY: We propose that having an awareness of a disorder, also known as insight, is related to metacognition in anxiety. This relationship stems from the ability it provides individuals to recognize their mental state through reflection on personal experiences. We discuss the impact of insight and metacognition on decision-making, treatment-seeking behaviors, and coping strategy selection. KEY MESSAGES: Understanding the concept of insight in anxiety disorders, as compared to other mental disorders like psychosis, requires exploring its complexities while carefully considering the balance of harms and benefits. While the medicalization of symptoms in psychosis is widely regarded as clearly beneficial, evaluating the role of insight in anxiety disorders demands a more nuanced understanding. Gaining a fuller perspective on patients' beliefs can impact their behaviors and decision-making. Clinicians can achieve this by encouraging active self-reflection to increase awareness, which includes evaluating both severity and impact on daily functioning. This also involves expressing experiences and exploring attributions of anxiety. This practical approach enables clinicians to understand engagement and treatment-seeking behaviors, allowing them to tailor treatment plans and develop effective coping and management strategies. Ultimately, this knowledge promotes a deeper comprehension of insight into anxiety disorders.

Mixed depression: clinical features and predictors of its onset associated with antidepressant use.

BACKGROUND: Mixed depression (MxD) is narrowly defined in the DSM-IV and somewhat broader in the DSM-5, although both exclude psychomotor agitation as a diagnostic criterion. This article proposes a clinical description for defining MxD, which emphasizes psychomotor excitation. METHODS: Two hundred and nineteen consecutive outpatients were diagnosed with an MxD episode using criteria proposed by Koukopoulos et al. [Acta Psychiatr Scand 2007;115(suppl 433):50-57]; we here report their clinical features and antidepressant-related effects. RESULTS: The most frequent MxD symptoms were: psychic agitation or inner tension (97%), absence of retardation (82%), dramatic description of suffering or weeping spells (53%), talkativeness (49%), and racing or crowded thoughts (48%). MxD was associated with antidepressants in 50.7% of patients, with similar frequency for tricyclic antidepressants (45%) versus selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (38.5%). Positive predictors of antidepressant-associated MxD were bipolar disorder type II diagnosis, higher index depression severity, and higher age at index episode. Antipsychotic or no treatment was protective against antidepressant-associated MxD. CONCLUSIONS: MxD, defined as depression with excitatory symptoms, can be clinically identified, is common, occurs in both unipolar depression and bipolar disorder, and is frequently associated with antidepressant use. If replicated, this view of MxD could be considered a valid alternative to the DSM-5 criteria for depression with mixed features.

Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder as an Epiphenomenon of Comorbid Bipolar Disorder? An Updated Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Bipolar disorder (BD) and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) comorbidity is an emerging condition in psychiatry, with relevant nosological, clinical, and therapeutic implications. METHODS: We updated our previous systematic review on epidemiology and standard diagnostic validators (including phenomenology, course of illness, heredity, biological markers, and treatment response) of BD-OCD. Relevant papers published until (and including) 15 October 2023 were identified by searching the electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO, and Cochrane Library, according to the PRISMA statement (PROSPERO registration number, CRD42021267685). RESULTS: We identified 38 new articles, which added to the previous 64 and raised the total to 102. The lifetime comorbidity prevalence ranged from 0.26 to 27.8% for BD and from 0.3 to 53.3% for OCD. The onset of the two disorders appears to be often overlapping, although the appearance of the primary disorder may influence the outcome. Compared to a single diagnosis, BD-OCD exhibited a distinct pattern of OC symptoms typically following an episodic course, occurring in up to 75% of cases (vs. 3%). Notably, these OC symptoms tended to worsen during depressive episodes (78%) and improve during manic or hypomanic episodes (64%). Similarly, a BD course appears to be chronic in individuals with BD-OCD in comparison to patients without. Additionally, individuals with BD-OCD comorbidity experienced more depressive episodes (mean of 8.9 ± 4.2) compared to those without comorbidity (mean of 4.1 ± 2.7). CONCLUSIONS: We found a greater likelihood of antidepressant-induced manic/hypomanic episodes (60% vs. 4.1%), and mood stabilizers with antipsychotic add-ons emerging as a preferred treatment. In line with our previous work, BD-OCD comorbidity encompasses a condition of greater nosological and clinical complexity than individual disorders.

Screening for bipolar disorders in Spanish-speaking populations: sensitivity and specificity of the Bipolar Spectrum Diagnostic Scale-Spanish Version.

BACKGROUND: Bipolar disorder is commonly misdiagnosed, perhaps more so in Latin American and Spanish-speaking populations than in the United States. The Bipolar Spectrum Diagnostic Scale (BSDS) is a 19-item screening instrument designed to assist in screening for all types of bipolar disorder. METHODS: The authors investigated the sensitivity of a Spanish-language version of the BSDS in a cohort of 65 outpatients with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder, based on a semi-structured interview and Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision criteria. To determine specificity, we assessed a control group of 36 outpatients with diagnosis of unipolar major depressive disorder. RESULTS: The overall sensitivity of the BSDS Spanish version with bipolar disorders types I, II, and NOS was 0.70, which was slightly lower than the sensitivity in the study using the English version of the BSDS (0.76). The specificity was 0.89. When the threshold was decreased from 13 to 12, the sensitivity of the Spanish BSDS increased to 0.76 and specificity dropped to 0.81. CONCLUSION: The Spanish version of the BSDS is promising as a screening instrument in Spanish-speaking populations.

Approach to Evaluating and Managing Adult Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder in Primary Care.

Requests for the evaluation of potential adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is on the rise across primary care clinics. Many health care providers, however, may feel ill equipped to diagnose and manage adults presenting with inattention and impulsivity. The diagnosis of ADHD is often complicated by medical and psychiatric conditions that can contribute to inattention symptoms. In this article, the authors provide a pragmatic clinical approach for evaluating and managing adult ADHD in the primary care setting.

Detecting mood disorder in resource-limited primary care settings: comparison of a self-administered screening tool to general practitioner assessment.

OBJECTIVES: Although efficacious treatments for mood disorders are available in primary care, under-diagnosis is associated with under-treatment and poorer outcomes. This study compares the accuracy of self-administered screening tests with routine general practitioner (GP) assessment for detection of current mood disorder. METHODS: 197 consecutive patients attending primary care centres in Santiago, Chile enrolled in this cross-sectional study, filling out the Patients Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) for depression and the Mood Disorder Questionnaire (MDQ) for bipolar disorder, after routine GP assessment. Diagnostic accuracy of these self-administered tools was compared with GP assessment, with gold standard diagnosis established by a structured diagnostic interview with trained clinicians (SCID-I). RESULTS: The sample was 75% female, with a mean age of 48.5 (SD 16.8); 37% had a current mood disorder (positive SCID-I result for depression or bipolar disorder). Sensitivity of the screening instruments (SI) was substantially higher than GP assessment (SI: 0.8, [95% CI 0.71, 0.81], versus GP: 0.2, [95% CI 0.12, 0.25]: p-value < 0.0001), without sacrifice in specificity (SI: 0.9, [95% CI 0.86, 0.96], versus GP: 0.9, [95% CI 0.88, 0.97]: p-value = 0.7). This led to improvement in both positive predictive value (SI: 0.8, [95% CI 0.82, 0.90], versus GP: 0.6, [95% CI 0.50, 0.64]: p-value < 0.001) and negative predictive value (SI: 0.9, [95% CI 0.78, 0.91] versus GP: 0.7, [95% CI 0.56, 0.72]: p-value < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Self-administered screening tools are more accurate than GP assessment in detecting current mood disorder in low-income primary care. Such screening tests may improve detection of current mood disorder if implemented in primary care settings.

The six most essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis: a pluralogue. Part 4: general conclusion.

In the conclusion to this multi-part article I first review the discussions carried out around the six essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis - the position taken by Allen Frances on each question, the commentaries on the respective question along with Frances' responses to the commentaries, and my own view of the multiple discussions. In this review I emphasize that the core question is the first - what is the nature of psychiatric illness - and that in some manner all further questions follow from the first. Following this review I attempt to move the discussion forward, addressing the first question from the perspectives of natural kind analysis and complexity analysis. This reflection leads toward a view of psychiatric disorders - and future nosologies - as far more complex and uncertain than we have imagined.

The six most essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis: a pluralogue part 1: conceptual and definitional issues in psychiatric diagnosis.

In face of the multiple controversies surrounding the DSM process in general and the development of DSM-5 in particular, we have organized a discussion around what we consider six essential questions in further work on the DSM. The six questions involve: 1) the nature of a mental disorder; 2) the definition of mental disorder; 3) the issue of whether, in the current state of psychiatric science, DSM-5 should assume a cautious, conservative posture or an assertive, transformative posture; 4) the role of pragmatic considerations in the construction of DSM-5; 5) the issue of utility of the DSM - whether DSM-III and IV have been designed more for clinicians or researchers, and how this conflict should be dealt with in the new manual; and 6) the possibility and advisability, given all the problems with DSM-III and IV, of designing a different diagnostic system. Part I of this article will take up the first two questions. With the first question, invited commentators express a range of opinion regarding the nature of psychiatric disorders, loosely divided into a realist position that the diagnostic categories represent real diseases that we can accurately name and know with our perceptual abilities, a middle, nominalist position that psychiatric disorders do exist in the real world but that our diagnostic categories are constructs that may or may not accurately represent the disorders out there, and finally a purely constructivist position that the diagnostic categories are simply constructs with no evidence of psychiatric disorders in the real world. The second question again offers a range of opinion as to how we should define a mental or psychiatric disorder, including the possibility that we should not try to formulate a definition. The general introduction, as well as the introductions and conclusions for the specific questions, are written by James Phillips, and the responses to commentaries are written by Allen Frances.

The six most essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis: a pluralogue part 3: issues of utility and alternative approaches in psychiatric diagnosis.

In face of the multiple controversies surrounding the DSM process in general and the development of DSM-5 in particular, we have organized a discussion around what we consider six essential questions in further work on the DSM. The six questions involve: 1) the nature of a mental disorder; 2) the definition of mental disorder; 3) the issue of whether, in the current state of psychiatric science, DSM-5 should assume a cautious, conservative posture or an assertive, transformative posture; 4) the role of pragmatic considerations in the construction of DSM-5; 5) the issue of utility of the DSM - whether DSM-III and IV have been designed more for clinicians or researchers, and how this conflict should be dealt with in the new manual; and 6) the possibility and advisability, given all the problems with DSM-III and IV, of designing a different diagnostic system. Part 1 of this article took up the first two questions. Part 2 took up the second two questions. Part 3 now deals with Questions 5 & 6. Question 5 confronts the issue of utility, whether the manual design of DSM-III and IV favors clinicians or researchers, and what that means for DSM-5. Our final question, Question 6, takes up a concluding issue, whether the acknowledged problems with the earlier DSMs warrants a significant overhaul of DSM-5 and future manuals. As in Parts 1 & 2 of this article, the general introduction, as well as the introductions and conclusions for the specific questions, are written by James Phillips, and the responses to commentaries are written by Allen Frances.

The six most essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis: a pluralogue part 2: Issues of conservatism and pragmatism in psychiatric diagnosis.

In face of the multiple controversies surrounding the DSM process in general and the development of DSM-5 in particular, we have organized a discussion around what we consider six essential questions in further work on the DSM. The six questions involve: 1) the nature of a mental disorder; 2) the definition of mental disorder; 3) the issue of whether, in the current state of psychiatric science, DSM-5 should assume a cautious, conservative posture or an assertive, transformative posture; 4) the role of pragmatic considerations in the construction of DSM-5; 5) the issue of utility of the DSM--whether DSM-III and IV have been designed more for clinicians or researchers, and how this conflict should be dealt with in the new manual; and 6) the possibility and advisability, given all the problems with DSM-III and IV, of designing a different diagnostic system. Part I of this article took up the first two questions. Part II will take up the second two questions. Question 3 deals with the question as to whether DSM-V should assume a conservative or assertive posture in making changes from DSM-IV. That question in turn breaks down into discussion of diagnoses that depend on, and aim toward, empirical, scientific validation, and diagnoses that are more value-laden and less amenable to scientific validation. Question 4 takes up the role of pragmatic consideration in a psychiatric nosology, whether the purely empirical considerations need to be tempered by considerations of practical consequence. As in Part 1 of this article, the general introduction, as well as the introductions and conclusions for the specific questions, are written by James Phillips, and the responses to commentaries are written by Allen Frances.

Sensitivity and specificity of the mood disorder questionnaire and the bipolar spectrum diagnostic scale in Argentinean patients with mood disorders.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the sensitivity and specificity of two self-report instruments for detection of bipolarity in a sample of Argentinean patients. METHOD: Spanish versions of the MDQ and the BSDS were administered over four months at 11 sites in Argentina. Diagnoses were made using DSM-IV criteria and the MINI. The study sample consisted of patients diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder (BD) Types I, II, or NOS. BDNOS diagnoses were made using extended guidelines for bipolar spectrum symptoms. Unipolar patients were used as a control group. Of 493 patients screened, 354 completed evaluation by MDQ and MINI, and 363 by BSDS and MINI. RESULTS: Specificity of MDQ was 0.97 and BSDS was 0.81. MDQ sensitivity was 0.70 for bipolar type I (BD-I), 0.52 for bipolar II (BD-II) and 0.31 for bipolar not otherwise specified (BDNOS). BSDS sensitivities were 0.75, 0.70 and 0.51 respectively. LIMITATIONS: This study was performed in specialized outpatient settings and thus its results are not necessarily representative for other clinical settings. There was not a systematic evaluation of comorbid psychiatric disease or test-retest reliability. CONCLUSION: The local versions of the MDQ and the BSDS showed a sensitivity and specificity comparable to previous research. Our results indicate that in this sample, MDQ was more specific for BD and BSDS was more sensitive to detect BD-II and NOS. Since BD-I is more readily recognized than bipolar spectrum disorders, enhanced sensitivity of BSDS for soft bipolarity may be an advantage.