Psychiatry - Research Publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8
-
ItemAn online cross-sectional survey of the health risk behaviours among informal caregivers.(Wiley, 2020-09)ISSUE ADDRESSED: Informal caregivers may experience unique barriers to engaging in healthy lifestyles, consequently increasing their risk of chronic disease. Among a convenience sample of informal caregivers, this study aimed to: (a) assess the self-reported health risk behaviours of low fruit and vegetable consumption, low physical activity, current smoking and hazardous alcohol consumption; (b) examine the demographic, caree condition and country of residence variables associated with each health risk behaviour; and (c) report the engagement in multiple health risk behaviours. METHODS: An online cross-sectional survey among caregivers in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States was conducted. Self-reported health risk behaviours were assessed and compared to key Australian healthy living guidelines. Logistic regression modelling identified participant factors associated with each health risk behaviour. RESULTS: Overall, 384 caregivers were included in the analysis. Hazardous alcohol consumption was the only self-reported health risk behaviour which was much higher than in the general population (60.0%). Caregiver age (P = .018) and country of residence (P = .015) were associated with hazardous alcohol consumption. A majority of caregivers reported engaging in three health risk behaviours (55.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Caregivers are engaging in a range of health risk behaviours; however, rates of hazardous alcohol consumption among the sample were high. Health promotion interventions targeted to address alcohol consumption should consider caregiver age and country of residence. SO WHAT?: This study highlights the health risk behaviours caregivers engage in across a number of countries, and suggests that caregivers require further support to manage alcohol consumption in particular.
-
ItemClinical and demographic characteristics of people who smoke versus inject crystalline methamphetamine in Australia: Findings from a pharmacotherapy trial(WILEY, 2021-11)INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: There has been a rapid increase in smoking crystalline methamphetamine in Australia. We compare the clinical and demographic characteristics of those who smoke versus inject the drug in a cohort of people who use methamphetamine. DESIGN AND METHODS: Participants (N = 151) were dependent on methamphetamine, aged 18-60 years, enrolled in a pharmacotherapy trial for methamphetamine dependence, and reported either injecting (n = 54) or smoking (n = 97) methamphetamine. Measures included the Timeline Followback, Severity of Dependence Scale, Amphetamine Withdrawal Questionnaire, Craving Experience Questionnaire and the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (symptoms of depression, hostility, psychosis and suicidality). Simultaneous regression was used to identify independent demographic correlates of smoking methamphetamine and to compare the clinical characteristics of participants who smoked versus injected. RESULTS: Compared to participants who injected methamphetamine, those who smoked methamphetamine were younger and less likely to be unemployed, have a prison history or live alone. Participants who smoked methamphetamine used methamphetamine on more days in the past 4 weeks than participants who injected methamphetamine (26 vs. 19 days, P = 0.001); they did not differ significantly in their severity of methamphetamine dependence, withdrawal, craving or psychiatric symptoms (P > 0.05). After adjustment for demographic differences, participants who smoked had lower craving [b (SE) = -1.1 (0.5), P = 0.021] and were less likely to report psychotic symptoms [b (SE) = -1.8 (0.7), P = 0.013] or antidepressant use [b (SE) = -1.1 (0.5), P = 0.022]. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Smoking crystalline methamphetamine is associated with a younger less marginalised demographic profile than injecting methamphetamine, but a similarly severe clinical profile.
-
ItemNo Preview AvailableProbability of major depression diagnostic classification based on the SCID, CIDI and MINI diagnostic interviews controlling for Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale - Depression subscale scores: An individual participant data meta-analysis of 73 primary studies(PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD, 2020-02)OBJECTIVE: Two previous individual participant data meta-analyses (IPDMAs) found that different diagnostic interviews classify different proportions of people as having major depression overall or by symptom levels. We compared the odds of major depression classification across diagnostic interviews among studies that administered the Depression subscale of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS-D). METHODS: Data accrued for an IPDMA on HADS-D diagnostic accuracy were analysed. We fit binomial generalized linear mixed models to compare odds of major depression classification for the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID), Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI), and Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), controlling for HADS-D scores and participant characteristics with and without an interaction term between interview and HADS-D scores. RESULTS: There were 15,856 participants (1942 [12%] with major depression) from 73 studies, including 15,335 (97%) non-psychiatric medical patients, 164 (1%) partners of medical patients, and 357 (2%) healthy adults. The MINI (27 studies, 7345 participants, 1066 major depression cases) classified participants as having major depression more often than the CIDI (10 studies, 3023 participants, 269 cases) (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.70 (0.84, 3.43)) and the semi-structured SCID (36 studies, 5488 participants, 607 cases) (aOR = 1.52 (1.01, 2.30)). The odds ratio for major depression classification with the CIDI was less likely to increase as HADS-D scores increased than for the SCID (interaction aOR = 0.92 (0.88, 0.96)). CONCLUSION: Compared to the SCID, the MINI may diagnose more participants as having major depression, and the CIDI may be less responsive to symptom severity.
-
ItemNo Preview AvailablePatient Health Questionnaire-9 scores do not accurately estimate depression prevalence: individual participant data meta-analysis.(Elsevier BV, 2020-06)OBJECTIVES: Depression symptom questionnaires are not for diagnostic classification. Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores ≥10 are nonetheless often used to estimate depression prevalence. We compared PHQ-9 ≥10 prevalence to Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (SCID) major depression prevalence and assessed whether an alternative PHQ-9 cutoff could more accurately estimate prevalence. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Individual participant data meta-analysis of datasets comparing PHQ-9 scores to SCID major depression status. RESULTS: A total of 9,242 participants (1,389 SCID major depression cases) from 44 primary studies were included. Pooled PHQ-9 ≥10 prevalence was 24.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 20.8%, 28.9%); pooled SCID major depression prevalence was 12.1% (95% CI: 9.6%, 15.2%); and pooled difference was 11.9% (95% CI: 9.3%, 14.6%). The mean study-level PHQ-9 ≥10 to SCID-based prevalence ratio was 2.5 times. PHQ-9 ≥14 and the PHQ-9 diagnostic algorithm provided prevalence closest to SCID major depression prevalence, but study-level prevalence differed from SCID-based prevalence by an average absolute difference of 4.8% for PHQ-9 ≥14 (95% prediction interval: -13.6%, 14.5%) and 5.6% for the PHQ-9 diagnostic algorithm (95% prediction interval: -16.4%, 15.0%). CONCLUSION: PHQ-9 ≥10 substantially overestimates depression prevalence. There is too much heterogeneity to correct statistically in individual studies.
-
ItemNo Preview AvailableThe Accuracy of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 Algorithm for Screening to Detect Major Depression: An Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis(KARGER, 2020-01)BACKGROUND: Screening for major depression with the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) can be done using a cutoff or the PHQ-9 diagnostic algorithm. Many primary studies publish results for only one approach, and previous meta-analyses of the algorithm approach included only a subset of primary studies that collected data and could have published results. OBJECTIVE: To use an individual participant data meta-analysis to evaluate the accuracy of two PHQ-9 diagnostic algorithms for detecting major depression and compare accuracy between the algorithms and the standard PHQ-9 cutoff score of ≥10. METHODS: Medline, Medline In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO, Web of Science (January 1, 2000, to February 7, 2015). Eligible studies that classified current major depression status using a validated diagnostic interview. RESULTS: Data were included for 54 of 72 identified eligible studies (n participants = 16,688, n cases = 2,091). Among studies that used a semi-structured interview, pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% confidence interval) were 0.57 (0.49, 0.64) and 0.95 (0.94, 0.97) for the original algorithm and 0.61 (0.54, 0.68) and 0.95 (0.93, 0.96) for a modified algorithm. Algorithm sensitivity was 0.22-0.24 lower compared to fully structured interviews and 0.06-0.07 lower compared to the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview. Specificity was similar across reference standards. For PHQ-9 cutoff of ≥10 compared to semi-structured interviews, sensitivity and specificity (95% confidence interval) were 0.88 (0.82-0.92) and 0.86 (0.82-0.88). CONCLUSIONS: The cutoff score approach appears to be a better option than a PHQ-9 algorithm for detecting major depression.
-
ItemNo Preview AvailableEquivalency of the diagnostic accuracy of the PHQ-8 and PHQ-9: a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis.(Cambridge University Press (CUP), 2020)BACKGROUND: Item 9 of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) queries about thoughts of death and self-harm, but not suicidality. Although it is sometimes used to assess suicide risk, most positive responses are not associated with suicidality. The PHQ-8, which omits Item 9, is thus increasingly used in research. We assessed equivalency of total score correlations and the diagnostic accuracy to detect major depression of the PHQ-8 and PHQ-9. METHODS: We conducted an individual patient data meta-analysis. We fit bivariate random-effects models to assess diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: 16 742 participants (2097 major depression cases) from 54 studies were included. The correlation between PHQ-8 and PHQ-9 scores was 0.996 (95% confidence interval 0.996 to 0.996). The standard cutoff score of 10 for the PHQ-9 maximized sensitivity + specificity for the PHQ-8 among studies that used a semi-structured diagnostic interview reference standard (N = 27). At cutoff 10, the PHQ-8 was less sensitive by 0.02 (-0.06 to 0.00) and more specific by 0.01 (0.00 to 0.01) among those studies (N = 27), with similar results for studies that used other types of interviews (N = 27). For all 54 primary studies combined, across all cutoffs, the PHQ-8 was less sensitive than the PHQ-9 by 0.00 to 0.05 (0.03 at cutoff 10), and specificity was within 0.01 for all cutoffs (0.00 to 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: PHQ-8 and PHQ-9 total scores were similar. Sensitivity may be minimally reduced with the PHQ-8, but specificity is similar.
-
ItemPersonality disorder and functioning in major depressive disorder: a nested study within a randomized controlled trial(ASSOC BRASILEIRA PSIQUIATRIA, 2020)OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine if personality disorder (PD) predicted functional outcomes in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). METHODS: Data (n=71) from a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled 12-week trial assessing the efficacy of 200 mg/day adjunctive minocycline for MDD were examined. PD was measured using the Standardized Assessment of Personality Abbreviated Scale. Outcome measures included Clinical Global Impression - Improvement (CGI-I), Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire (Q-LES-Q), Social and Occupational Functioning Scale (SOFAS), and Range of Impaired Functioning (RIFT). Analysis of covariance was used to examine the impact of PD (dichotomized factor [≥ 3] or continuous measure) on the outcome measures-treatment group correlation. RESULTS: PD was identified in 69% of the sample. After adjusting for age, sex, and baseline scores for each of the outcome measures, there was no significant difference between participants with and without PD on week 12 scores for any of the outcome measures (all p > 0.14). CONCLUSION: In this secondary analysis of a primary efficacy study, PD was a common comorbidity among those with MDD, but was not a significant predictor of functional outcomes. This study adds to the limited literature on PD in randomized controlled trials for MDD. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12612000283875.
-
ItemMinocycline for the treatment of mental health and neurological conditions: study protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis(BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP, 2020-03)INTRODUCTION: Due to the anti-inflammatory, antioxidant and anti-apoptotic properties of minocycline, clinical trials have evaluated the potential of this drug to treat several psychiatric and neurological disorders, including major depressive disorder, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, stroke and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. This protocol proposes a systematic review (and potential meta-analysis) that aims to identify and critically evaluate randomised controlled trials of minocycline for treating psychiatric and neurological disorders. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials, PsycINFO and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) will be used to identify randomised controlled trials that used minocycline to treat psychiatric and neurological disorders. Double-blind, randomised, controlled, clinical trials of participants aged 18 years or older and written in English will be included in the review. Data will be extracted by two independent reviewers. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines will be followed and the Cochrane Collaboration's 'Risk of Bias' tool will be used to assess the risk of bias in all studies included in the systematic review. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system will be used to access the overall quality of the level of evidence of the studies. If sufficient evidence is identified, a meta-analysis will be conducted using the standardised mean difference approach and reported with 95% CIs. Heterogeneity of evidence will be evaluated using the I2 model. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This systematic review will evaluate only published data; therefore, ethical approval is not required. The systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant research conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020153292.