Further validation of the Cognitive Biases Questionnaire for psychosis.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive biases are recognized as important treatment targets for reducing symptoms associated with severe mental disorders. Although cognitive biases have been linked to symptoms in most studies, few studies have looked at such biases transdiagnostically. The Cognitive Bias Questionnaire for psychosis (CBQp) is a self-reported questionnaire that assesses cognitive biases amongst individuals with a psychotic disorder, as well as individuals with other severe mental disorders. The current study aims to validate a French version of the CBQp and to explore transdiagnostic cognitive biases in individuals with psychotic disorders, individuals with depression, and in healthy controls. METHODS: The CBQp was translated into French following a protocol based on international standards. Discriminant validity and internal consistency were determined for total score and each subscale score. Confirmatory factor analyses were performed to test construct validity. Finally, cluster analyses were conducted to investigate cognitive biases across diagnostic groups. RESULTS: Our results were similar to those of the original authors, with the one-factor solution (assessment of a general thinking bias) being the strongest, but the two-factor solution (assessing biases within two themes relating to psychosis) and the five-factor solution (assessment of multiple distinct biases) being clinically more interesting. A six-cluster solution emerged, suggesting that individuals with similar diagnoses score differently on all cognitive biases, and that individuals with different diagnoses might have similar cognitive biases. CONCLUSIONS: The current findings support the validity of the French translation of the CBQp. Our cluster analyses overall support the transdiagnostic presence of cognitive biases.

'Doctor, I am so stressed out!' A descriptive study of biological, psychological, and socioemotional markers of stress in individuals who self-identify as being 'very stressed out' or 'zen'.

Surveys report that about three-quarters of visits to general practitioners in America are for stress-related complaints. Animal and human studies have consistently demonstrated that exposure to acute and/or chronic stress leads to the activation of the autonomic nervous system (ANS) and/or hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, and to the production of catecholamines and glucocorticoids. Yet, many studies performed in humans do not report significant associations between subjective feelings of stress and increases in these stress biomarkers. Consequently, it is not clear whether the stress-related complaints of individuals are associated with significant increases in these stress biomarkers. In the present study, we measured whether individuals who self-identify as being 'very stressed out' or 'zen' present differences in psychological (depression and anxiety symptoms), biological (basal and reactive levels of glucocorticoids and alpha-amylase) and socioemotional (emotion regulation, mind wandering, personality, resilience and positive mental health) factors associated with stress. Salivary levels of cortisol and alpha-amylase were obtained in the home environment and in reaction to the Trier Social Stress Test in 123 adults aged between 19 and 55 years. All participants completed questionnaires assessing the psychological and socioemotional factors described above. The results showed that groups significantly differed on almost all psychological and socioemotional factors, although we found no significant group differences on biological markers of stress (cortisol or alpha-amylase). These results suggest that when people complain of being 'very stressed out', what they may really be alluding to is an experience of psychological distress that is related to poor emotion regulation capacities. It is thus possible that the construct of stress used by people to discuss their internal state of 'stress' is quite different than the construct of stress measured in animal and human laboratories using biomarkers of 'stress'.

Healthy Minds: Group Cognitive-Behavioral Intervention for Sustainable Return to Work After a Sick Leave Due to Depression.

Background Depression is one of the major causes for sick leave and loss of productivity at work. Many studies have investigated return to work (RTW) interventions for people with common mental disorders. However, a paucity of studies has targeted depressive symptoms in the workplace, as well as work productivity. Objectives This study presents preliminary results on a novel group intervention based on cognitive behavioral principles in order to optimize sustainable RTW, by reducing clinical symptoms (anxiety and depression) and improving work productivity. Method This pilot study followed a quasi-experimental design, with participants randomly receiving the group intervention (N = 19) or only receiving usual services (N = 11, control group). The group intervention called Healthy Minds for Sustainable RTW consists of eight sessions based on cognitive behavioral therapy principles and techniques. Outcome measures on depressive and anxiety symptoms and work productivity were administered at baseline (i.e. the start of return-to-work or gradual RTW), as well 2 months later (post-intervention), and at 6-month follow-up. Results The results did not show a time × group interaction for symptoms of depression or anxiety (p = 0.07). Those who received the group intervention however did see a within-group reduction in anxiety and depressive symptoms over time, clinically significant for the group intervention only. A significant time × group interaction for work productivity was found, with those in the intervention group improving over time compared to the control condition. Conclusion Although replication is needed, these results suggest that a brief group cognitive-behavioral intervention specifically tailored to work-related issues is promising. Future studies are warranted, particularly with larger samples and remote webconferencing delivery.