Psychometric properties and validation of the Spanish versions of the overall anxiety and depression severity and impairment scales.

BACKGROUND: Anxiety and depressive disorders are the most frequent disorders for which patients seek care in public health settings in Spain. This study aimed at validating the Overall Anxiety Severity and Impairment Scale (OASIS) and the Overall Depression Severity and Impairment Scale (ODSIS), which are brief screening scales for anxiety and depression consisting of only five items each. METHODS: The study was conducted in a Spanish clinical sample receiving outpatient mental health treatment (N = 339). A subsample of participants (n = 219) was assessed before and after receiving a course of cognitive-behavioral treatment. RESULTS: The results revealed excellent internal consistency estimates (Cronbach's alpha for the OASIS and the ODSIS was 0.87 and 0.94, respectively), along with promising convergent and discriminant validity and test-criterion relationships (i.e., moderate correlation with other measures of depression and anxiety, as well as with neuroticism, quality of life, adjustment, and negative affect). A one-dimensional structure was obtained for the OASIS and the ODSIS. The ROC analyses indicated an area under the curve of 0.83 for the OASIS and the ODSIS when predicting moderate-to-severe anxiety and depression, respectively. Good sensitivity to therapeutic change was also evidence and the analysis of the sensitivity as a function of 1-specificity area suggested a cutoff value of 10 for both scales. LIMITATIONS: Inter-rater reliability of diagnoses with the ADIS-IV interview could not be investigated and the results obtained may not be generalizable to other samples and health settings. CONCLUSIONS: The availability of these two short and psychometrically sound measures should make screening of anxiety and depressive symptoms in routine care more feasible.

Biological risk factors for suicidal behaviors: a meta-analysis.

Prior studies have proposed a wide range of potential biological risk factors for future suicidal behaviors. Although strong evidence exists for biological correlates of suicidal behaviors, it remains unclear if these correlates are also risk factors for suicidal behaviors. We performed a meta-analysis to integrate the existing literature on biological risk factors for suicidal behaviors and to determine their statistical significance. We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, PsycInfo and Google Scholar for studies that used a biological factor to predict either suicide attempt or death by suicide. Inclusion criteria included studies with at least one longitudinal analysis using a biological factor to predict either of these outcomes in any population through 2015. From an initial screen of 2541 studies we identified 94 cases. Random effects models were used for both meta-analyses and meta-regression. The combined effect of biological factors produced statistically significant but relatively weak prediction of suicide attempts (weighted mean odds ratio (wOR)=1.41; CI: 1.09-1.81) and suicide death (wOR=1.28; CI: 1.13-1.45). After accounting for publication bias, prediction was nonsignificant for both suicide attempts and suicide death. Only two factors remained significant after accounting for publication bias-cytokines (wOR=2.87; CI: 1.40-5.93) and low levels of fish oil nutrients (wOR=1.09; CI: 1.01-1.19). Our meta-analysis revealed that currently known biological factors are weak predictors of future suicidal behaviors. This conclusion should be interpreted within the context of the limitations of the existing literature, including long follow-up intervals and a lack of tests of interactions with other risk factors. Future studies addressing these limitations may more effectively test for potential biological risk factors.

Self-injurious thoughts and behaviors as risk factors for future suicide ideation, attempts, and death: a meta-analysis of longitudinal studies.

BACKGROUND: A history of self-injurious thoughts and behaviors (SITBs) is consistently cited as one of the strongest predictors of future suicidal behavior. However, stark discrepancies in the literature raise questions about the true magnitude of these associations. The objective of this study is to examine the magnitude and clinical utility of the associations between SITBs and subsequent suicide ideation, attempts, and death. METHOD: We searched PubMed, PsycInfo, and Google Scholar for papers published through December 2014. Inclusion required that studies include at least one longitudinal analysis predicting suicide ideation, attempts, or death using any SITB variable. We identified 2179 longitudinal studies; 172 met inclusion criteria. RESULTS: The most common outcome was suicide attempt (47.80%), followed by death (40.50%) and ideation (11.60%). Median follow-up was 52 months (mean = 82.52, s.d. = 102.29). Overall prediction was weak, with weighted mean odds ratios (ORs) of 2.07 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.76-2.43] for ideation, 2.14 (95% CI 2.00-2.30) for attempts, and 1.54 (95% CI 1.39-1.71) for death. Adjusting for publication bias further reduced estimates. Diagnostic accuracy analyses indicated acceptable specificity (86-87%) and poor sensitivity (10-26%), with areas under the curve marginally above chance (0.60-0.62). Most risk factors generated OR estimates of <2.0 and no risk factor exceeded 4.5. Effects were consistent regardless of sample severity, sample age groups, or follow-up length. CONCLUSIONS: Prior SITBs confer risk for later suicidal thoughts and behaviors. However, they only provide a marginal improvement in diagnostic accuracy above chance. Addressing gaps in study design, assessment, and underlying mechanisms may prove useful in improving prediction and prevention of suicidal thoughts and behaviors.