Pharmacological interventions for adjustment disorders in adults

Adjustment Disorder: Empirical Study of a New Diagnostic Concept for Icd-11 in the General Population in Lithuania

Objective

Adjustment disorder (AD) is one of the most debated diagnoses in psychiatry since it has been recognised as vaguely defined and causing a lot of difficulties in clinical practice. We aimed to analyse the structure of adjustment disorder based on International Classification of Diseases (ICD)–11 proposals by the WHO ICD-11 Working Group on the Classification of Disorders Specifically Associated with Stress in the general population in Lithuania. Three structural models of adjustment disorder were tested using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).

Method

Data from the sample of 649 participants who experienced at least one significant stressor during the last two years was included in CFA analysis. Stressor exposure and AD symptoms were measured with the Lithuanian version of the Adjustment Disorder New Module (ADNM-20).

Results

The CFA analysis revealed that the two core factor model of the AD with two core symptoms: preoccupation and failure to adapt fitted data the best in contrast to other two models.

Conclusion

The study supports the ICD-11 proposal for the structure of adjustment disorder with two core symptoms: preoccupation and failure to adapt. Further studies are needed to analyse the structure of AD in other populations.

Adjustment disorder as proposed for ICD-11: Dimensionality and symptom differentiation

Although Adjustment Disorder as a diagnostic category is widely used in clinical practice it is critically discussed that it has not been conceptualized as a category with unique symptoms. Hence, the conceptualization of Adjustment Disorder is subject to substantive change in ICD-11 including core symptoms and additional features in a uni-faceted concept. Adjustment Disorder was assessed with a self-rating instrument in a representative sample of the German general population (N=2512). Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were applied to test the dimensionality of symptoms according to the new diagnostic concept. Latent class analysis (LCA) was applied to test whether there are distinguishable subgroups with respect to symptomatology. 2.0% of the sample were diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder according to the new diagnostic algorithm. The proposed six factor model shows best fit with good reliability of the factors in the CFA compared to competing models. However the factors are highly correlated and not distinguishable. The LCA identified three latent classes, reflecting low, mild and moderate to severe symptoms. The findings support the uni-faceted concept of Adjustment Disorder as it is conceptualized in the new diagnostic concept in ICD-11 in a general population sample. This clearer diagnostic concept will inform research as well as clinical practice.

Adjustment disorder: new developments

Adjustment disorders (ADs) have been included in the psychiatric classifications since 1952 although their name has changed over time. In DSM 5 they have been classified under the trauma and stress related disorders for the first time. Despite this positive step, there are still problems with the classification of ADs. There is no guidance on the distinction from normal stress reactions, it remains a subthreshold category, and the subtypes are not strongly underpinned by research. There are no specific diagnostic criteria in terms of symptom numbers or combinations of these, unlike most other conditions classified in DSM. Apart from epidemiological studies in those with medical illnesses, recent prevalence studies in other populations are scarce. Research is lacking in many aspects of AD, especially their biological underpinnings and treatments. One factor contributing to this is the absence of adequate diagnostic interview schedules. Interest in ADs may increase now that they are classified with the trauma-related group of disorders.

Adjustment disorders as a stress-related disorder: a longitudinal study of the associations among stress, resources, and mental health

OBJECTIVE

Adjustment disorders are re-conceptualized in the DSM-5 as a stress-related disorder; however, besides the impact of an identifiable stressor, the specification of a stress concept, remains unclear. This study is the first to examine an existing stress-model from the general population, in patients diagnosed with adjustment disorders, using a longitudinal design.

METHODS

The study sample consisted of 108 patients consecutively admitted for adjustment disorders. Associations of stress perception, emotional distress, resources, and mental health were measured at three time points: the outpatients' presentation, admission for inpatient treatment, and discharge from the hospital. To evaluate a longitudinal stress model of ADs, we examined whether stress at admission predicted mental health at each of the three time points using multiple linear regressions and structural equation modeling. A series of repeated-measures one-way analyses of variance (rANOVAs) was performed to assess change over time.

RESULTS

Significant within-participant changes from baseline were observed between hospital admission and discharge with regard to mental health, stress perception, and emotional distress (p<0.001). Stress perception explained nearly half of the total variance (44%) of mental health at baseline; the adjusted R2 increased (0.48), taking emotional distress (i.e., depressive symptoms) into account. The best predictor of mental health at discharge was the level of emotional distress (i.e., anxiety level) at baseline (β= -0.23, R2corr=0.56, p<0.001). With a CFI of 0.86 and an NFI of 0.86, the fit indices did not allow for acceptance of the stress-model (Cmin/df=15.26; RMSEA=0.21).

CONCLUSIONS

Stress perception is an important predictor in adjustment disorders, and mental health-related treatment goals are dependent on and significantly impacted by stress perception and emotional distress.