Coping with racial discrimination: a preliminary examination of coping strategies in college students at a University in Northeastern U.S.

OBJECTIVE: We examined the associations between coping strategies in response to racism and distress symptoms. SAMPLE: One hundred forty-four racially minoritized students at a northeastern university completed an online survey. METHODS: Participants completed self-report active and emotion-focused coping and distress symptom (i.e., depression and anxiety) measures. Hierarchical regressions were conducted to test: 1) correlations between coping strategies in response to racism and distress symptoms, and 2) whether emotional acceptance moderates the association between active coping in response to racism and distress symptoms. RESULTS: Students' self-compassionate responses to their emotional reactions to discrimination uniquely predicted less distress. In contrast, reports of using resistance and education in response to discrimination were positively correlated with distress symptoms; however, these associations were no longer significant when accounting for emotional acceptance. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that emotional acceptance coping may be associated with lower distress symptoms. Active coping was associated with increased distress symptoms, except when accounting for emotional acceptance coping.

Comparative effectiveness of a mindfulness-based intervention (M-Body) on depressive symptoms: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial in a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC).

BACKGROUND: Mindfulness-based interventions have been shown to improve psychological outcomes including stress, anxiety, and depression in general population studies. However, effectiveness has not been sufficiently examined in racially and ethnically diverse community-based settings. We will evaluate the effectiveness and implementation of a mindfulness-based intervention on depressive symptoms among predominantly Black women at a Federally Qualified Health Center in a metropolitan city. METHODS: In this 2-armed, stratified, individually randomized group-treated controlled trial, 274 English-speaking participants with depressive symptoms ages 18-65 years old will be randomly assigned to (1) eight weekly, 90-min group sessions of a mindfulness-based intervention (M-Body), or (2) enhanced usual care. Exclusion criteria include suicidal ideation in 30 days prior to enrollment and regular (>4x/week) meditation practice. Study metrics will be assessed at baseline and 2, 4, and 6 months after baseline, through clinical interviews, self-report surveys, and stress biomarker data including blood pressure, heart rate, and stress related biomarkers. The primary study outcome is depressive symptom score after 6 months. DISCUSSION: If M-Body is found to be an effective intervention for adults with depressive symptoms, this accessible, scalable treatment will widely increase access to mental health treatment in underserved, racial/ethnic minority communities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03620721. Registered on 8 August 2018.

The role of experiential avoidance in the relation between racial discrimination and negative mental health outcomes.

Objective Racial discrimination has been shown to be associated with negative mental health outcomes among people of color (POC), and students of color (SOC) specifically. The current study examines experiential avoidance (EA) as a potential moderator in the relation between discrimination and mental health outcomes. Sample: Two-hundred students of color at a large, public university in Northeastern United States. Methods: We evaluated the associations between racial discrimination frequency and stress appraisal (GEDS and GEDS-A), EA (AAQ), and the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scales (DASS). Results: Discrimination frequency and appraised stress were associated with each DASS subscale. EA moderated the relation between GEDS and depression, and between GEDS-A and the stress subscale. Conclusions: Discrimination frequency and appraised stress were positively associated with DASS subscales, and at low EA scores, frequency and appraised stress of discrimination were no longer associated with depressive or stress symptoms, respectively.

Mindfulness and Valued Living in the Face of Racism­Related Stress.

Objectives: Racism-related stress is associated with significant mental health costs, necessitating the development of coping strategies to mitigate the negative sequelae. Mindfulness and valued living (MVL)-based strategies may be uniquely beneficial in addressing the negative effects of racism-related stress for people of color (POC) by decreasing internalized messages, while increasing self-compassion, coping flexibility, and engagement in values-based actions. It is imperative that clinicians applying or recommending MVL strategies to POC for coping with racism-related stress understand the complex nature of racism and, given that complexity, consider how MVL may need to be adapted to be effective. This paper offers guidance to clinicians seeking to use MVL strategies with clients of color to cope with racism-related stress. Methods: We provide a brief contextual literature review on the nature of racism, mental health impacts of racism-related stress for POC, and selected models of coping with racism-related stress. We also review existing mindfulness literature in relation to coping with racism-related stress, while offering considerations for adapting MVL strategies specifically for coping with racism-related stress. Results: Altogether, the research points to the promise of MVL strategies as beneficial interventions for coping with racism-related stress, although more research is warranted. We recommend that clinicians consider the suggestions outlined to present MVL strategies to clients in culturally responsive, validating ways. Conclusions: Further research is needed to evaluate links between MVL strategies and mental health, and to evaluate whether discrimination-specific adaptations are beneficial in mitigating the mental health impacts of racism-related stress.

Mental health stigma among people of color: An examination of the impact of racial discrimination.

OBJECTIVE: The primary goal of this study was to examine the relations between racial discrimination experiences and different dimensions of mental health stigma among a diverse sample of people of color. METHOD: Participants were recruited through blast emails at a large public university and completed an online survey (N = 205). Four linear regressions were completed predicting from recent racial discrimination experiences to (1) negative beliefs about mental health problems, (2) treatments, (3) treatment seeking and (4) anticipated stigma. RESULTS: Results indicated that recent racial discrimination experiences contributed unique variance in anticipated stigma from loved ones, as well as negative beliefs about mental health problems. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Racial discrimination contributes to increased anticipated stigma and negative beliefs about mental health problems. Addressing the impact of racial discrimination as it influences these dimensions of mental health stigma is important to promote recovery among people of color.

A clinically useful self-report measure of the DSM-5 mixed features specifier of major depressive disorder.

BACKGROUND: To acknowledge the clinical significance of manic features in depressed patients, DSM-5 included criteria for a mixed features specifier for major depressive disorder (MDD). In the present report from the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services (MIDAS) project we modified our previously published depression scale to include a subscale assessing the DSM-5 mixed features specifier. METHODS: More than 1100 psychiatric outpatients with MDD or bipolar disorder completed the Clinically Useful Depression Outcome Scale (CUDOS) supplemented with questions for the DSM-5 mixed features specifier (CUDOS-M). To examine discriminant and convergent validity the patients were rated on clinician severity indices of depression, anxiety, agitation, and irritability. Discriminant and convergent validity was further examined in a subset of patients who completed other self-report symptom severity scales. Test-retest reliability was examined in a subset who completed the CUDOS-M twice. We compared CUDOS-M scores in patients with MDD, bipolar depression, and hypomania. RESULTS: The CUDOS-M subscale had high internal consistency and test-retest reliability, was more highly correlated with another self-report measure of mania than with measures of depression, anxiety, substance use problems, eating disorders, and anger, and was more highly correlated with clinician severity ratings of agitation and irritability than anxiety and depression. CUDOS-M scores were significantly higher in hypomanic patients than depressed patients, and patients with bipolar depression than patients with MDD. LIMITATIONS: The study was cross-sectional, thus we did not examine whether the CUDOS-M detects emerging mixed symptoms when depressed patients are followed over time. Also, while we examined the correlation between the CUDOS-M and clinician ratings of agitation and irritability, we did not examine the association with a clinician measure of manic symptomatology such as the Young Mania Rating Scale CONCLUSIONS: In the present study of a large sample of psychiatric outpatients, the CUDOS-M was a reliable and valid measure of the DSM-5 mixed features specifier for MDD.

An Integrated, Acceptance-Based Behavioral Approach for Depression With Social Anxiety: Preliminary Results.

Depression and social anxiety disorder (SAD) are highly comorbid, resulting in greater severity and functional impairment compared with each disorder alone. Although recently transdiagnostic treatments have been developed, no known treatments have addressed this comorbidity pattern specifically. Preliminary support exists for acceptance-based approaches for depression and SAD separately, and they may be more efficacious for comorbid depression and anxiety compared with traditional cognitive-behavioral approaches. The aim of the current study was to develop and pilot test an integrated acceptance-based behavioral treatment for depression and comorbid SAD. Participants included 38 patients seeking pharmacotherapy at an outpatient psychiatry practice, who received 16 individual sessions of the therapy. Results showed significant improvement in symptoms, functioning, and processes from pre- to post-treatment, as well as high satisfaction with the treatment. These results support the preliminary acceptability, feasibility, and effectiveness of this treatment in a typical outpatient psychiatry practice, and suggest that further research on this treatment in larger randomized trials is warranted.

Speaking a more consistent language when discussing severe depression: a calibration study of 3 self-report measures of depressive symptoms.

OBJECTIVE: We recently found marked disparities between 3 self-report scales that assess the DSM-IV criteria for major depressive disorder in the percentage of depressed outpatients considered to have severe depression. The goal of the present report from the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services (MIDAS) project was to calibrate the measures against a clinician-rated criterion standard and to establish a cutoff point on each scale that identifies a similar prevalence of severe depression and increases the level of agreement between the scales in identifying severe depression. METHOD: 353 depressed outpatients (DSM-IV) completed the Clinically Useful Depression Outcome Scale, Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology, and Patient Health Questionnaire from June 2010 to January 2013. The patients were also rated on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS). The goal of the analyses was to identify the cutoff point on each of the self-report scales that would identify a prevalence of severe depression similar to that identified by the HDRS (defined as a score of 25 and above). RESULTS: On the basis of the scale developers' recommended cutoffs, the prevalence of severe depression varied greatly (range, 15.3%-67.4%), and the level of agreement between the pairs of scales was low. After calibration, the self-report scales identified a similar percentage of patients as severely depressed (range, 22.2%-26.5%), and the level of agreement between the scales in identifying severe depression increased. DISCUSSION: If clinicians are to follow treatment guidelines' recommendations to base initial treatment selection, in part, on depression severity, then it is important to have a consistent method of determining depression severity. The present calibration study of 3 self-report depression questionnaires identified cutoff scores that resulted in similar prevalence rates of severe depression and increased the level of agreement between the scales.

The remission from depression questionnaire as an outcome measure in the treatment of depression.

BACKGROUND: The Remission from Depression Questionnaire (RDQ) assesses multiple domains considered by depressed patients to be relevant to the construct of remission. The present study is the first to examine the validity of the RDQ as an outcome measure. METHODS: One hundred fifty-three depressed patients who presented for treatment, or who were in ongoing treatment and had their medication changed, were evaluated at baseline and at 4-month follow-up. In addition to the RDQ, the patients completed the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS), and they were rated on 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD). RESULTS: The patients showed significant levels of improvement from baseline to 4 months on each scale. The effect size of the RDQ total score was similar to the effect sizes of the HAMD and QIDS. Both the RDQ and QIDS were significantly associated with patients' self-reported remission status. However, the RDQ remained significantly associated with remission status after controlling for QIDS scores, whereas the QIDS was not associated with remission status after controlling for RDQ scores. DISCUSSION: The RDQ is as sensitive to change as purely symptom-based scales such as the QIDS and HAMD. Moreover, the RDQ accounts for variation in patients' self-perceived remission status after controlling for QIDS scores, but the reverse was not true. The RDQ allows clinicians and researchers to gain a broader perspective of depressed patients' status than purely symptom measures, and is more consistent with a biopsychosocial approach toward the treatment of depression.

Is the distinction between adjustment disorder with depressed mood and adjustment disorder with mixed anxious and depressed mood valid?

BACKGROUND: In the DSM-IV, adjustment disorder is subtyped according to the predominant presenting feature. The different diagnostic code numbers assigned to each subtype suggest their significance in DSM-IV. However, little research has examined the validity of these subtypes. In the present report from the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services (MIDAS) project, we compared the demographic and clinical profiles of patients diagnosed with adjustment disorder subtypes to determine whether there was enough empirical evidence supporting the retention of multiple adjustment disorder subtypes in future versions of the DSM. METHODS: A total of 3,400 psychiatric patients presenting to the Rhode Island Hospital outpatient practice were evaluated with semistructured diagnostic interviews for DSM-IV Axis I and Axis II disorders and measures of psychosocial morbidity. RESULTS: Approximately 7% (224 of 3,400) of patients were diagnosed with current adjustment disorder. Adjustment disorder with depressed mood and with mixed anxious and depressed mood were the most common subtypes, accounting for 80% of the patients diagnosed with adjustment disorder. There was no significant difference between these 2 groups with regard to demographic variables, current comorbid Axis I or Axis II disorders, lifetime history of major depressive disorder or anxiety disorders, psychosocial morbidity, or family history of psychiatric disorders. The only difference between the groups was lifetime history of drug use, which was significantly higher in the patients diagnosed with adjustment disorder with depressed mood. CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence supporting the retention of both of these adjustment disorder subtypes, and DSM-IV previously set a precedent for eliminating adjustment disorder subtypes in the absence of any data. Therefore, in the spirit of nosologic parsimony, consideration should be given to collapsing the 2 disorders into 1: adjustment disorder with depressed mood.

Distinguishing bipolar II depression from major depressive disorder with comorbid borderline personality disorder: demographic, clinical, and family history differences.

OBJECTIVE: Because of the potential treatment implications, it is clinically important to distinguish between bipolar II depression and major depressive disorder with comorbid borderline personality disorder. The high frequency of diagnostic co-occurrence and resemblance of phenomenological features has led some authors to suggest that borderline personality disorder is part of the bipolar spectrum. Few studies have directly compared patients with bipolar disorder and borderline personality disorder. In the present study from the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services project, we compared these 2 groups of patients on demographic, clinical, and family history variables. METHOD: From December 1995 to May 2012, 3,600 psychiatric patients presenting to the outpatient practice at Rhode Island Hospital (Providence, Rhode Island) were evaluated with semistructured diagnostic interviews for DSM-IV Axis I and Axis II disorders. The focus of the present study is the 206 patients with DSM-IV major depressive disorder and borderline personality disorder (MDD-BPD) and 62 patients with DSM-IV bipolar II depression without borderline personality disorder. RESULTS: The patients with MDD-BPD were significantly more often diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder (P < .001), a current substance use disorder (P < .01), somatoform disorder (P < .05), and other nonborderline personality disorder (P < .05). Clinical ratings of anger, anxiety, paranoid ideation, and somatization were significantly higher in the MDD-BPD group (all P < .01). The MDD-BPD patients were rated significantly lower on the Global Assessment of Functioning (P < .001), their current social functioning was poorer (P < .01), and they made significantly more suicide attempts (P < .01). The patients with bipolar II depression had a significantly higher morbid risk for bipolar disorder in their first-degree relatives than the MDD-BPD patients (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Patients diagnosed with bipolar II depression and major depressive disorder with comorbid borderline personality disorder differed on a number of clinical and family history variables, thereby supporting the validity of this distinction.

Severity classification on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.

BACKGROUND: Symptom severity as a moderator of treatment response has been the subject of debate over the past 20 years. Each of the meta- and mega-analyses examining the treatment significance of depression severity used the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD), wholly, or in part, to define severity, though the cutoff used to define severe depression varied. There is limited empirical research establishing cutoff scores for bands of severity on the HAMD. The goal of the study is to empirically establish cutoff scores on the HAMD in their allocation of patients to severity groups. METHODS: Six hundred twenty-seven outpatients with current major depressive disorder were evaluated with a semi-structured diagnostic interview. Scores on the 17-item HAMD were derived from ratings according to the conversion method described by Endicott et al. (1981). The patients were also rated on the Clinical Global Index of Severity (CGI). Receiver operating curves were computed to identify the cutoff that optimally discriminated between patients with mild vs. moderate and moderate vs. severe depression. RESULTS: HAMD scores were significantly lower in patients with mild depression than patients with moderate depression, and patients with moderate depression scored significantly lower than patients with severe depression. The cutoff score on the HAMD that maximized the sum of sensitivity and specificity was 17 for the comparison of mild vs. moderate depression and 24 for the comparison of moderate vs. severe depression. LIMITATIONS: The present study was conducted in a single outpatient practice in which the majority of patients were white, female, and had health insurance. Although the study was limited to a single site, a strength of the recruitment procedure was that the sample was not selected for participation in a treatment study, and exclusion and inclusion criteria did not reduce the representativeness of the patient groups. The analyses were based on HAMD scores extracted from ratings on the SADS. However, we used Endicott et al.'s (1981) empirically established formula for deriving a HAMD score from SADS ratings, and our results concurred with other small studies of the mean and median HAMD scores in severity groups. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this large study of psychiatric outpatients with major depressive disorder we recommend the following severity ranges for the HAMD: no depression (0-7); mild depression (8-16); moderate depression (17-23); and severe depression (≥24).

"Subthreshold" depression: is the distinction between depressive disorder not otherwise specified and adjustment disorder valid?

OBJECTIVE: Patients with clinically significant symptoms of depression who do not meet the criteria for major depressive disorder or dysthymic disorder are considered to have subthreshold depression. According to DSM-IV, such patients should be diagnosed with depressive disorder not otherwise specified (NOS) if the development of the symptoms is not attributable to a stressful event or with adjustment disorder if the symptoms follow a stressor. Research on the treatment of subthreshold depression rarely addresses the distinction between depressive disorder NOS and adjustment disorder. In the present report from the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services (MIDAS) project, we examined the validity of this distinction. METHOD: From December 1995 to June 2011, 3,400 psychiatric patients presenting to the Rhode Island Hospital outpatient practice were evaluated with semistructured diagnostic interviews for DSM-IV Axis I and Axis II disorders and measures of psychosocial morbidity. RESULTS: Slightly less than 10% (n = 300) of the 3,400 patients were diagnosed with depressive disorder NOS or adjustment disorder with depressed mood. The patients with depressive disorder NOS were significantly more often diagnosed with social phobia (P < .05) and a personality disorder (P < .01). The patients with depressive disorder NOS reported more anhedonia, increased appetite, increased sleep, and indecisiveness, whereas the patients with adjustment disorder reported more weight loss, reduced appetite, and insomnia. There was no significant difference between the groups in overall level of severity of depression or impaired functioning. The patients with depressive disorder NOS had a nonsignificantly elevated morbid risk of depression in their first-degree relatives. DISCUSSION: Clinically significant subthreshold depression was common in psychiatric outpatients, and the present results support the validity of distinguishing between depressive disorder NOS and adjustment disorder with depressed mood. Future studies of the treatment of subthreshold depression should account for this diagnostic distinction.

Determining severity subtypes of depression with a self-report questionnaire.

The American Psychiatric Association's recently revised guidelines for the treatment of major depressive disorder indicated that it is important to consider symptom severity in initial treatment selection. In the present report from the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services (MIDAS) project, we conducted two studies of psychiatric outpatients examining the correlates of severity classification based on a self-report depression scale. The first sample consisted of 470 depressed outpatients who completed the Clinically Useful Depression Outcome Scale (CUDOS) and measures of psychosocial morbidity at the time of presentation. The second sample consisted of 112 depressed outpatients who completed the CUDOS and were evaluated with the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale at baseline and after 3 months of treatment. Compared to mildly depressed patients, moderately depressed patients reported significantly more psychosocial morbidity across all functional domains. The same differences were found between moderately and severely depressed patients. Greater severity of depression was associated with lower rates of response and remission. The results of the present studies suggest that a self-report depression questionnaire can validly subtype depressed patients according to gradations of severity.

Should criteria be specified for depressive disorder not otherwise specified?

BACKGROUND: Many patients have clinically significant symptoms of depression that do not meet the DSM-IV diagnostic thresholds for major depressive disorder (MDD) or dysthymic disorder. DSM-IV does not specify criteria for depressive disorder not otherwise specified (DDNOS). While it is not surprising that research on subthreshold depression has used diverse criteria, some consensus has emerged to define minor depression analogous to MDD, though requiring fewer than the 5 symptoms required to diagnose MDD. In the present report from the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services (MIDAS) project, we examined how many patients diagnosed with DDNOS met the DSM-IV proposed research criteria for minor depression, and we compared the demographic and clinical profiles of patients diagnosed with DDNOS who did and did not meet the criteria for minor depression METHODS: Three thousand four hundred psychiatric patients presenting to the Rhode Island Hospital outpatient practice were evaluated with semi-structured diagnostic interviews for DSM-IV Axis I and Axis II disorders and measures of psychosocial morbidity. RESULTS: More than 6% of the 3400 patients were diagnosed with DDNOS (n=227). Only a minority of the patients with DDNOS met the criteria for minor depression (39.8%). There was no difference between patients with "subthreshold" depression who did and did not meet the DSM-IV research criteria for minor depression in demographic characteristics, the prevalence of comorbid Axis I or Axis II disorders, history of major depressive disorder, and family history of depression. LIMITATIONS: The present study was conducted in a single outpatient practice in which the majority of patients were white, female, and had health insurance. Although the study was limited to a single site, a strength of the recruitment procedure was that the sample was not selected for participation in a treatment study, and exclusion and inclusion criteria did not reduce the representativeness of the patient groups. While we examined a number of validators, we did not systematically record the treatment the patients received and the outcome of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Amongst psychiatric outpatients with clinically significant depression not meeting criteria for MDD or dysthymic disorder, there was little difference between patients who did and did not meet the DSM-IV research criteria for minor depressive disorder.

A new type of scale for determining remission from depression: the Remission from Depression Questionnaire.

Current standards for treating major depressive disorder (MDD) recommend that achieving remission should be considered the principal goal of treatment. Recent research suggests that the symptom-based definitions of remission used in efficacy studies do not adequately reflect the perspective of depressed patients receiving treatment in routine clinical settings. We developed the Remission from Depression Questionnaire (RDQ) to capture the broader array of domains considered by patients to be relevant to the construct of remission--symptoms of depression, nondepressive symptoms, features of positive mental health, coping ability, functioning, life satisfaction and a general sense of well-being. The current report is the first study of the reliability and validity of the RDQ. The test-retest reliability of the RDQ was studied in 60 depressed outpatients in ongoing treatment. The convergent and discriminant validity of the RDQ was studied in 274 depressed outpatients who were rated on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Scale (HAM-D) and who completed several self-report scales including the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS). The RDQ demonstrated excellent internal consistency, with a Cronbach's α of .97 for the total scale and above .80 for each of the 7 subscales. The test-retest reliability of the total scale was .85 and above .60 for each subscale. Both the RDQ and QIDS were significantly associated with patients' self-reported remission status. However, the RDQ remained significantly associated with remission status after controlling for QIDS scores (r = -.32, p < .001) whereas the QIDS was not associated with remission status after controlling for RDQ scores (r = -.06). The RDQ is a reliable and valid measure that evaluates the multiple domains that depressed patients consider important in determining remission. The results are consistent with prior research suggesting that depressed patients' perspective of remission goes beyond symptom resolution.

Sustained unemployment in psychiatric outpatients with bipolar depression compared to major depressive disorder with comorbid borderline personality disorder.

OBJECTIVES: The morbidity associated with bipolar disorder is, in part, responsible for repeated calls for improved detection and recognition. No such clinical commentary exists for improved detection of borderline personality disorder in depressed patients. Clinical experience suggests that borderline personality disorder is as disabling as bipolar disorder; however, no studies have directly compared the two disorders. For this reason we undertook the current analysis from the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services (MIDAS) project comparing unemployment and disability rates in patients with bipolar disorder and borderline personality disorder. METHODS: Patients were interviewed with semi-structured interviews. We compared three non-overlapping groups of depressed patients: (i) 181 patients with DSM-IV major depressive disorder and borderline personality disorder, (ii) 1068 patients with major depressive disorder without borderline personality disorder, and (iii) 84 patients with bipolar depression without borderline personality disorder. RESULTS: Compared to depressed patients without borderline personality disorder, depressed patients with borderline personality disorder were significantly more likely to have been persistently unemployed. A similar difference was found between patients with bipolar depression and major depressive disorder without borderline personality disorder. No differences were found between patients with bipolar depression and depression with borderline personality disorder. CONCLUSIONS: Both bipolar disorder and borderline personality disorder were associated with impaired occupational functioning and thus carry a significant public health burden. Efforts to improve detection of borderline personality disorder in depressed patients might be as important as the recognition of bipolar disorder.

How can we use depression severity to guide treatment selection when measures of depression categorize patients differently?

OBJECTIVE: Treatment guidelines for depression suggest that severity should be taken into account when initiating treatment. If clinicians are to consider illness severity in selecting among treatment options for depression, then it is important to have reliable, valid, and clinically useful methods of distinguishing between levels of depression severity. In the present report from the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services (MIDAS) project, we compared 3 self-report scales that assess the DSM-IV criteria for major depressive disorder on the basis of how these scales distribute patients into severity categories. METHOD: From June 2010 to November 2011, 245 depressed outpatients completed the Clinically Useful Depression Outcome Scale (CUDOS), Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS), and Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). The study was conducted at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, Rhode Island. The patients were subdivided into severity categories according to the cutoff scores recommended by each scales' developers. The patients were also rated on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17). RESULTS: The correlations between the HDRS-17 and the 3 self-report scales were nearly identical. Yet the scales significantly differed in their distribution of patients into severity categories. On the CUDOS and HDRS-17, moderate depression was the most frequent severity category, whereas on the PHQ-9 and QIDS, the majority of the patients were classified as severe. Significantly fewer patients were classified as severely depressed on the CUDOS compared to the PHQ-9 (McNemar = 153.8; P < .001) and QIDS (McNemar = 114.0; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: If clinicians are to follow treatment guidelines' recommendations to base initial treatment selection on the severity of depression, then it is important to have a consistent method of determining depression severity. The marked disparity between standardized scales in the classification of depressed outpatients into severity groups indicates that there is a problem with the use of such instruments to classify depression severity. Caution is warranted in the use of these scales to guide treatment selection until the thresholds to define severity ranges have been empirically established.

Web-based assessment of depression in patients treated in clinical practice: reliability, validity, and patient acceptance.

OBJECTIVE: Calls for the use of standardized assessments in clinical practice have been increasing. A Web-based administration of outcome assessments offers several potential advantages over paper-and-pencil assessments, such as patient convenience, reduced missing data, reduced costs, automatic scoring, and generation of large databases. The present study from the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessments and Services (MIDAS) project evaluated the acceptability, reliability, and validity of a Web-based administration of a depression scale in patients receiving ongoing care for depression. METHOD: From June 2009 to July 2010, fifty-three depressed outpatients completed a Web-based and a paper version of the Clinically Useful Depression Outcome Scale (CUDOS). The vast majority of patients met DSM-IV criteria for either major depressive disorder (n = 36) or bipolar disorder (n = 9). Patients were also asked to complete a brief 6-question survey of the acceptability of the 2 modes of scale administration. At the time of the visit, the patients' psychiatrist completed the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and rated patients on the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) scale and Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF). RESULTS: The correlation between the Web-administered and paper versions of the CUDOS was high (P < .001). The mean scores were similar on the paper and Internet administrations. The internal consistency of the paper and Internet administrations of the CUDOS was high (both values, Cronbach α = .93), and all item-scale correlations for the paper and Internet versions were significant (median for paper administration = 0.76; median for Internet administration = 0.74). The paper and Internet versions of the CUDOS were equally correlated with clinicians' ratings on the MADRS, CGI-S, and GAF (all P values < .001). Patients reported high levels of satisfaction with Internet administration and preferred this method of monitoring outcome to paper administration in the office (all P values < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this first study of the use of a Web-based system of monitoring outcome in routine clinical practice supported the reliability and validity of Internet administration of a depression scale, and patients clearly preferred Internet administration to completion of a paper-and-pencil questionnaire in the office.