Patient Perceptions of Illness Causes and Treatment Preferences for Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: A Mixed-Methods Study.

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a condition with high patient morbidity and mortality. Research shows that eliciting patient explanations about illness causes and treatment preferences promotes cross-cultural work and engagement in health services. These topics are in the Cultural Formulation Interview (CFI), a semi-structured interview first published in DSM-5 that applies anthropological approaches within mental health services to promote person-centered care. This study focuses on the New York City site of an international multi-site study that used qualitative-quantitative mixed methods to: (1) analyze CFI transcripts with 55 adults with OCD to explore perceived illness causes and treatment preferences, and (2) explore whether past treatment experiences are related to perceptions about causes of current symptoms. The most commonly named causes were circumstantial stressors (n = 16), genetics (n = 12), personal psychological traits (n = 9), an interaction between circumstantial stressors and participants' brains (n = 6), and a non-specific brain problem (n = 6). The most common treatment preferences were psychotherapy (n = 42), anything (n = 4), nothing (n = 4), and medications (n = 2). Those with a prior medication history had twice the odds of reporting a biological cause, though this was not a statistically significant difference. Our findings suggest that providers should ask patients about illness causes and treatment preferences to guide treatment choice.

Toward identifying reproducible brain signatures of obsessive-compulsive profiles: rationale and methods for a new global initiative.

BACKGROUND: Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) has a lifetime prevalence of 2-3% and is a leading cause of global disability. Brain circuit abnormalities in individuals with OCD have been identified, but important knowledge gaps remain. The goal of the new global initiative described in this paper is to identify robust and reproducible brain signatures of measurable behaviors and clinical symptoms that are common in individuals with OCD. A global approach was chosen to accelerate discovery, to increase rigor and transparency, and to ensure generalizability of results. METHODS: We will study 250 medication-free adults with OCD, 100 unaffected adult siblings of individuals with OCD, and 250 healthy control subjects at five expert research sites across five countries (Brazil, India, Netherlands, South Africa, and the U.S.). All participants will receive clinical evaluation, neurocognitive assessment, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The imaging will examine multiple brain circuits hypothesized to underlie OCD behaviors, focusing on morphometry (T1-weighted MRI), structural connectivity (Diffusion Tensor Imaging), and functional connectivity (resting-state fMRI). In addition to analyzing each imaging modality separately, we will also use multi-modal fusion with machine learning statistical methods in an attempt to derive imaging signatures that distinguish individuals with OCD from unaffected siblings and healthy controls (Aim #1). Then we will examine how these imaging signatures link to behavioral performance on neurocognitive tasks that probe these same circuits as well as to clinical profiles (Aim #2). Finally, we will explore how specific environmental features (childhood trauma, socioeconomic status, and religiosity) moderate these brain-behavior associations. DISCUSSION: Using harmonized methods for data collection and analysis, we will conduct the largest neurocognitive and multimodal-imaging study in medication-free subjects with OCD to date. By recruiting a large, ethno-culturally diverse sample, we will test whether there are robust biosignatures of core OCD features that transcend countries and cultures. If so, future studies can use these brain signatures to reveal trans-diagnostic disease dimensions, chart when these signatures arise during development, and identify treatments that target these circuit abnormalities directly. The long-term goal of this research is to change not only how we conceptualize OCD but also how we diagnose and treat it.

Assessing harmonized intelligence measures in a multinational study.

Studies examining the neurocognitive and circuit-based etiology of psychiatric illness are moving toward inclusive, global designs. A potential confounding effect of these associations is general intelligence; however, an internationally validated, harmonized intelligence quotient (IQ) measure is not available. We describe the procedures used to measure IQ across a five-site, multinational study and demonstrate the harmonized measure's cross-site validity. Culturally appropriate intelligence measures were selected: four short-form Wechsler intelligence tests (Brazil, Netherlands, South Africa, United States) and the Binet Kamat (India). Analyses included IQ scores from 255 healthy participants (age 18-50; 42% male). Regression analyses tested between-site differences in IQ scores, as well as expected associations with sociodemographic factors (sex, socioeconomic status, education) to assess validity. Harmonization (e.g., a priori selection of tests) yielded the compatibility of IQ measures. Higher IQ was associated with higher socioeconomic status, suggesting good convergent validity. No association was found between sex and IQ at any site, suggesting good discriminant validity. Associations between higher IQ and higher years of education were found at all sites except the United States. Harmonized IQ scores provide a measure of IQ with evidence of good validity that can be used in neurocognitive and circuit-based studies to control for intelligence across global sites.

Cross-national harmonization of neurocognitive assessment across five sites in a global study.

OBJECTIVE: Cross-national work on neurocognitive testing has been characterized by inconsistent findings, suggesting the need for improved harmonization. Here, we describe a prospective harmonization approach in an ongoing global collaborative study. METHOD: Visuospatial N-Back, Tower of London (ToL), Stop Signal task (SST), Risk Aversion (RA), and Intertemporal Choice (ITC) tasks were administered to 221 individuals from Brazil, India, the Netherlands, South Africa, and the USA. Prospective harmonization methods were employed to ensure procedural similarity of task implementation and processing of derived task measures across sites. Generalized linear models tested for between-site differences controlling for sex, age, education, and socioeconomic status (SES). Associations with these covariates were also examined and tested for differences by site with site-by-covariate interactions. RESULTS: The Netherlands site performed more accurately on N-Back and ToL than the other sites, except for the USA site on the N-Back. The Netherlands and the USA sites performed faster than the other three sites during the go events in the SST. Finally, the Netherlands site also exhibited a higher tolerance for delay discounting than other sites on the ITC, and the India site showed more risk aversion than other sites on the RA task. However, effect size differences across sites on the five tasks were generally small (i.e., partial eta-squared < 0.05) after dropping the Netherlands (on ToL, N-Back, ITC, and SST tasks) and India (on the RA task). Across tasks, regardless of site, the N-Back (sex, age, education, and SES), ToL (sex, age, and SES), SST (age), and ITC (SES) showed associations with covariates. CONCLUSIONS: Four out of the five sites showed only small between-site differences for each task. Nevertheless, despite our extensive prospective harmonization steps, task score performance deviated from the other sites in the Netherlands site (on four tasks) and the India site (on one task). Because the procedural methods were standardized across sites, and our analyses were adjusted for covariates, the differences found in cognitive performance may indicate selection sampling bias due to unmeasured confounders. Future studies should follow similar cross-site prospective harmonization procedures when assessing neurocognition and consider measuring other possible confounding variables for additional statistical control. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Measurement fidelity of clinical assessment methods in a global study on identifying reproducible brain signatures of obsessive-compulsive disorder.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the steps of ensuring measurement fidelity of core clinical measures in a five-country study on brain signatures of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). METHOD: We collected data using standardized instruments, which included the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (YBOCS), the Dimensional YBOCS (DYBOCS), the Brown Assessment of Beliefs Scale (BABS), the 17-item Hamilton Depression Scale (HAM-D), the Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A), and the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 (SCID). Steps to ensure measurement fidelity included translating instruments, developing a clinical decision manual, and continuing reliability training with 11-13 transcripts of each instrument by 13 independent evaluators across sites over 4 years. We use multigroup confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA) to report interrater reliability (IRR) among the evaluators and factor structure for each scale in 206 participants with OCD. RESULTS: The overall IRR for most scales was high (ICC > 0.94) and remained good to excellent throughout the study. Consistent factor structures (configural invariance) were found for all instruments across the sites, while similarity in the factor loadings for the items (metric invariance) could be established only for the DYBOCS and the BABS. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to achieve measurement fidelity of clinical measures in multisite, multilinguistic global studies, despite the challenges inherent to such endeavors. Future studies should not only report IRR but also consider reporting methods of standardization of data collection and measurement invariance to identify factor structures of core clinical measures. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).