Creating a map of psychiatric patients based on psychopathological symptom profiles

The validity of self-rated psychotic symptoms in depressed inpatients

Background

Self-ratings of psychotic experiences might be biased by depressive symptoms.

Method

Data from a large naturalistic multicentre trial on depressed inpatients (n = 488) who were assessed on a biweekly basis until discharge were analyzed. Self-rated psychotic symptoms as assessed with the 90-Item Symptom Checklist (SCL-90) were correlated with the SCL-90 total score, the SCL-90 depression score, the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale 21 item (HAMD-21) total score, the Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score and the clinician-rated paranoid-hallucinatory score of the Association for Methodology and Documentation in Psychiatry (AMDP) scale.

Results

At discharge the SCL-90 psychosis score correlated highest with the SCL-90 depression score (0.78, P<0.001) and with the BDI total score (0.64, P<0.001). Moderate correlations were found for the MADRS (0.34, P<0.001), HAMD (0.37, P<0.001) and AMDP depression score (0.33, P<0.001). Only a weak correlation was found between the SCL-90 psychosis score and the AMDP paranoid-hallucinatory syndrome score (0.15, P<0.001). Linear regression showed that change in self-rated psychotic symptoms over the treatment course was best explained by a change in the SCL-90 depression score (P<0.001). The change in clinician-rated AMDP paranoid-hallucinatory score had lesser influence (P = 0.02).

Conclusions

In depressed patients self-rated psychotic symptoms correlate poorly with clinician-rated psychotic symptoms. Caution is warranted when interpreting results from epidemiological surveys using self-rated psychotic symptom questionnaires as indicators of psychotic symptoms. Depressive symptoms which are highly prevalent in the general population might influence such self-ratings.

Comprehensive Psychopathological Assessment Based on the Association for Methodology and Documentation in Psychiatry (AMDP) System: Development, Methodological Foundation, Application in Clinical Routine, and Research

The documentation of psychopathology is core to the clinical practice of the psychiatrist and clinical psychologist. However, both in initial as well as further training and specialization in their fields, this particular aspect of their work receives scanty attention only. Yet, for the past 50 years, the Association for Methodology and Documentation in Psychiatry (AMDP) System has been in existence and available as a tool to serve precisely the purpose of offering a systematic introduction to the terminology and documentation of psychopathology. The motivation for its development was based on the need for an assessment procedure for the reliable documentation of the effectiveness of newly developed psychopharmacological substances. Subsequently, the AMDP-System began to be applied in the context of investigations into a number of methodological issues in psychiatry (e.g., the frequency and specificity of particular symptoms, the comparison of rating scales). The System then became increasingly important also in clinical practice and, today, represents the most used instrument for the documentation of psychopathology in the German-speaking countries of Europe. This paper intends to offer an overview of the AMDP-System, its origins, design, and functionality. After an initial account of the history and development of the AMDP-System, the discussion will in turn focus on the System's underlying methodological principles, the transfer of clinical skills and competencies in its practical application, and its use in research and clinical practice. Finally, potential future areas of development in relation to the AMDP-System are explored.

DSM-5 reviewed from different angles: goal attainment, rationality, use of evidence, consequences--part 1: general aspects and paradigmatic discussion of depressive disorders

DSM-5 was published in 2013 after about 10 years of preparation. Part 1 of this paper discusses several more general aspects of DSM-5 and offers a detailed, paradigmatic analysis of changes made to the chapter on depressive disorders. The background for the changes is analysed on the basis of a PubMed search and review papers on the classification of mental disorders in general and on empirical knowledge about individual disorders. Contrary to the original plans, DSM-5 has not introduced a primarily dimensional diagnostic system but has widely preserved the categorical system of disorders. Also, it has not adopted a more neurobiological approach to disorders by including biological markers to increase the objectivity of psychiatric diagnoses but has maintained the primarily symptom-based, descriptive approach. The criteria for some disorders have been changed, including affective, schizophrenic and addiction disorders, and a few new disorders have been added. A minimal version of the dimensional approach was realised through the introduction of several transnosological specifiers and the option to make symptom- or syndrome-related severity and dimensional assessments. These specifiers and assessments might allow a more individualised description of a patient's psychopathological state and more personalised treatment. However, most of the symptom- and syndrome-related assessments are not mandatory and therefore may not be used in clinical practice.

Understanding psychopathology in migrants: a mixed categorical-dimensional approach

BACKGROUND

Literature on mental disorders in migrants is constantly increasing. Only a few studies describe psychopathological dimensions in migrants over their nosographic diagnoses; however, there is a growing literature about the greater utility of a categorical-dimensional approach, rather than a solely categorical approach, in the understanding of mental disorders. The aim of this paper is to describe the phenomenology of mental disorders in migrants referred to the Transcultural Psychiatric Team of Bologna (BoTPT), by analysing the psychopathological dimensions that underlie their clinical diagnoses.

METHODS

We recruited all migrants who attended the BoTPT between May 1999 and July 2009. The psychopathological assessment was conducted with the Association for Methodology and Documentation in Psychiatry (AMDP) and clinical diagnoses were formulated according to ICD-10. We proceeded through a two-step analysis: (1) comparing the prevalence rates of psychopathological symptoms across diagnoses; then (2) conducting a factor analysis to assess how those symptoms configure psychopathological dimensions and how these dimensions underlie clinical diagnoses.

RESULTS

As expected, we found significant associations between diagnoses and the prevalence of their core psychopathological symptoms. Factor analysis revealed a strong polymorphism of the psychopathological presentation of mental disorders and unexpectedly showed that in each diagnostic cluster, the first extracted factor was not composed of core symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

A mixed categorical-dimensional approach seems to improve the description of the psychopathology among migrants, as it adds relevant information regarding psychopathological dimensions useful to the understanding of the peculiar clinical expressivity of our patients.

[Syndromal versus nosological diagnosis]

Against the background of the current preparation of ICD-11 and DSM-5, there is a discussion whether syndromal approaches should replace the traditional nosological diagnosis in psychiatry. From a historical point of view the syndromal approach results from a reaction to the nosological model of Emil Kraepelin. Later the syndromal diagnostic approach became more important because it enabled a quantitative-dimensional assessment and analysis of psychopathological data using modern statistical procedures. However, attempts to ascribe the traditional nosological categories to psychopathological syndromes using multivariate statistical methods have failed. The syndromal approach allows a differentiated recording of the cross-sectional symptomatology; however, a plurality of different syndromes might be registered without considering meaningful principles of classification and longitudinal aspects. The syndromal approach should be complemented by a nosological classification based mainly on the psychopathological course due to the absence of consistent neurobiological findings.

Exploring the structure of psychopathological symptoms: a re-analysis of AMDP data by robust nonmetric multidimensional scaling

This paper investigates the structure of psychopathological symptoms. Based on AMDP symptom profiles, a symptom space was calculated by robust nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) and the symptom structures of a sample dating from 1980 and a sample from 2002/2003 were compared. The method of NMDS presented in this study allows results from other studies to be confirmed and complemented. The symptom factors identified in the past by factor-analytic studies were replicated as clusters in two-dimensional symptom maps. Additionally, some theoretically assumed clusters of symptoms were detected that were not found in previous factor analysis approaches. From the results, which are depicted in a continuous space, new insights can be gained, especially with regard to questions of categorical and dimensional classifications. The comparison of the structural aspects of the symptomatology across more than two decades resulted in only small divergences and allows conclusions to be drawn about the stability of these structures and consequently of the symptom clusters and dimensions.

Does psychopathology at admission predict the length of inpatient stay in psychiatry? Implications for financing psychiatric services

BACKGROUND

The debate on appropriate financing systems in inpatient psychiatry is ongoing. In this context, it is important to control resource use in terms of length of stay (LOS), which is the most costly factor in inpatient care and the one that can be influenced most easily. Previous studies have shown that psychiatric diagnoses provide only limited justification for explaining variation in LOS, and it has been suggested that measures such as psychopathology might be more appropriate to predict resource use. Therefore, we investigated the relationship between LOS and psychopathological syndromes or symptoms at admission as well as other characteristics such as sociodemographic and clinical variables.

METHODS

We considered routine medical data of patients admitted to the Psychiatric University Hospital Zurich in the years 2008 and 2009. Complete data on psychopathology at hospital admission were available in 3,220 inpatient episodes. A subsample of 2,939 inpatient episodes was considered in final statistical models, including psychopathology as well as complete datasets of further measures (e.g. sociodemographic, clinical, treatment-related and psychosocial variables). We used multivariate linear as well as logistic regression analysis with forward selection procedure to determine the predictors of LOS.

RESULTS

All but two syndrome scores (mania, hostility) were positively related to the length of stay. Final statistical models showed that syndromes or symptoms explained about 5% of the variation in length of stay. The inclusion of syndromes or symptoms as well as basic treatment variables and other factors led to an explained variation of up to 25%.

CONCLUSIONS

Psychopathological syndromes and symptoms at admission and further characteristics only explained a small proportion of the length of inpatient stay. Thus, according to our sample, psychopathology might not be suitable as a primary indicator for estimating LOS and contingent costs. This might be considered in the development of future costing systems in psychiatry.

Combining the categorical and the dimensional perspective in a diagnostic map of psychotic disorders

We introduce a diagnostic map that was calculated by robust non-metric multidimensional scaling based on AMDP symptom profiles of patients with schizophrenic and affective disorders to demonstrate a possibility to combine the categorical and the dimensional perspective at the same time. In the diagnostic map, a manic, a depressive, and a non-affective cluster clearly emerged. At the same time, the mania dimension (r = 0.82), the depression dimension (r = 0.68), and the apathy dimension (r = 0.74) showed high multiple regression values in the map. We found substantial overlaps of the diagnostic groups with regard to the affective spectrum but irrespective of the ICD-10 classification. Within this sample, we found the association and quality of mood symptoms to be a structuring principle in a diagnostic map. We demonstrate that this approach represents a promising way of combining the categorical and the dimensional perspective. As a practical implementation of these findings, a multidimensional diagnostic map could serve as an automated diagnostic tool based on psychopathological symptom profiles.

Development of DSM-V and ICD-11: tendencies and potential of new classifications in psychiatry at the current state of knowledge

A reason for the necessity to revise ICD-10 and DSM-IV is the increase of knowledge in the past 20 years, especially neurobiological knowledge. But is this increase of knowledge, for example in the field of neurogenetics, of such magnitude that a revision of the psychiatric classification is necessary and promises to be fruitful? The current plans for DSM-V or ICD-11, respectively, focus on different improvements. In this context also the introduction of a purely syndromatic/dimensional approach without including etiopathogenetic hypotheses, is discussed. A switch to such a dimensional approach, which was discussed among others in the DSM-V task force Deconstructing Psychosis, would be the most radical development. It could avoid many theoretical pre-assumptions about causal hypotheses, which are still associated with ICD-10 and DSM-IV. This would indeed increase the validity of psychiatric classification, but it would also reduce the information as compared to traditional diagnostic categories with all the current implications concerning etiopathogenesis, therapy and prognosis. Such a dimensional approach would also mean that the syndromes would have to be assessed in a standardized way for each person seeking help from the psychiatric service system or for each person undergoing psychiatric research. This would have to be a multi-dimensional assessment covering all syndromes existing within different psychiatric disorders. Based on the different aspects that must be considered in this context, a careful revision seems more advisable than a radical change of classification.