The right not to know: the case of psychiatric disorders

This paper will consider the right not to know in the context of psychiatric disorders. It will outline the arguments for and against acquiring knowledge about the results of genetic testing for conditions such as breast cancer and Huntington's disease, and examine whether similar considerations apply to disclosing to clients the results of genetic testing for psychiatric disorders such as depression and Alzheimer's disease. The right not to know will also be examined in the context of the diagnosis of psychiatric disorders that are associated with stigma or for which there is no effective treatment. \ud \u

Shared Genetics of Psychiatric Disorders

Until recently, advances in understanding the genetic architecture of psychiatric disorders have been impeded by a historic, and often mandated, commitment to the use of traditional, and unvalidated, categorical diagnoses in isolation as the relevant phenotype. Such studies typically required lengthy structured interviews to delineate differences in the character and duration of behavioral symptomatology amongst disorders that were thought to be etiologic, and they were often underpowered as a result. Increasing acceptance of the fact that co-morbidity in psychiatric disorders is the rule rather than the exception has led to alternative designs in which shared dimensional symptomatology is analyzed as a quantitative trait and to association analyses in which combined polygenic risk scores are computationally compared across multiple traditional categorical diagnoses to identify both distinct and unique genetic and environmental elements. Increasing evidence that most mental disorders share many common genetic risk variants and environmental risk modifiers suggests that the broad spectrum of psychiatric pathology represents the pleiotropic display of a more limited series of pathologic events in neuronal development than was originally believed, regulated by many common risk variants and a smaller number of rare ones

Psychiatric Disorders and Labor Market Outcomes: Evidence from the National Latino and Asian American Study

This paper investigates to what extent psychiatric disorders and mental distress affect labor market outcomes among ethnic minorities of Latino and Asian descent, most of whom are immigrants. Using data from the National Latino and Asian American Study, we examine the labor market effects of meeting diagnostic criteria for any psychiatric disorder in the past 12 months as well as the effects of psychiatric distress in the past year. Among Latinos, psychiatric disorders and mental distress are associated with detrimental effects on employment and absenteeism, similar to effects found in previous analyses of mostly white, American born populations. Among Asians, we find mixed evidence that psychiatric disorders and mental distress detract from labor market outcomes.

Psychiatric Disorders

A psychiatric disorder is defined as any complex condition that involves the impairment of cognitive, emotional, or behavioral functioning. Aside from knowing the physical organic factors, its causal pathology has remained a mystery. Regarding recent advances in psychiatry and neurosciences, psychiatric disorders have been closely associated with socio-cultural, psychological, biochemical, epigenetic or neural-networking factors. A need for diverse approaches or support strategies is present, which should serve as common knowledge, empathetic views or useful skills for specialists in the filed. This book contains multifarious and powerful papers from all over the world, addressing themes such as the neurosciences, psychosocial interventions, medical factors, possible vulnerability and traumatic events. Doubtlessly, this book will be fruitful for future development and collaboration in "world psychiatry"

Pharmacologic labour analgesia and its relationship to postpartum psychiatric disorders: a scoping review.

PurposeThis scoping review aimed to summarize the current literature on postpartum psychiatric disorders (e.g., postpartum depression, postpartum anxiety, postpartum post-traumatic stress disorder) and the possible relationship of these disorders to the use of pharmacologic labour analgesia (e.g., epidural analgesia, nitrous oxide, parenteral opioids) to identify knowledge gaps that may aid in the planning of future research.SourcesPubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and EMBASE were searched from inception to November 9, 2018 for studies that included both labour analgesia and the postpartum psychiatric disorders specified above.Principal findingsTwo reviewers assessed the studies and extracted the data. Of the 990 identified citations, 17 studies were included for analysis. Existing studies have small sample sizes and are observational cohorts in design. Patient psychiatric risk factors, method of delivery, and type of labour analgesia received were inconsistent among studies. Most studies relied on screening tests for diagnosing postpartum psychiatric illness and did not assess the impact of labour analgesia on postpartum psychiatric illness as the primary study objective.ConclusionsFuture studies should correlate screen-positive findings with clinical diagnosis; consider adjusting the timing of screening to include the antepartum period, early postpartum, and late postpartum periods; and consider the degree of labour pain relief and the specific pharmacologic labour analgesia used when evaluating postpartum psychiatric disorders

Routinely administered questionnaires for depression and anxiety : systematic review

Objectives To examine the effect of routinely administered psychiatric questionnaires on the recognition, management, and outcome of psychiatric disorders in non-psychiatric settings. Data sources Embase, Medline, PsycLIT, Cinahl, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register,and hand searches of key journals. Methods A systematic review of randomised controlled trials of the administration and routine feedback of psychiatric screening and outcome questionnaires to clinicians in non-psychiatric settings. narrative overview of key design features and end points, together with a random effects quantitative synthesis of comparable studies. Main outcome measures Recognition of psychiatric disorders after feedback of questionnaire results; interventions for psychiatric disorders and outcome of psychiatric disorders. Results Nine randomised studies were identified that examined the use of common psychiatric instruments in primary care and general hospital settings. Studies compared the effect of the administration of these instruments followed by the feedback of the results to clinicians, with administration with no feedback. Meta-analytic pooling was possible for four of these studies (2457 participants), which measured the effect of feedback on the recognition of depressive disorders. Routine administration and feedback of scores for all patients (irrespective of score) did not increase the overall rate of recognition of mental disorders such as anxiety and depression (relative risk of detection of depression by clinician after feedback 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.83 to 1.09). Two studies showed that routine administration followed by selective feedback for only high scores increased the rate of recognition of depression (relative risk of detection of depression after feedback 2.64, 1.62 to 4.31). This increased recognition, however, did not translate into an increased rate of intervention. Overall, studies of routine administration of psychiatric measures did not show an effect on patient outcome. Conclusions The routine measurement of outcome is a costly exercise. Little evidence shows that it is of benefit in improving psychosocial outcomes of those with psychiatric disorder managed in non-psychiatric settings

Association of genetic liability for psychiatric disorders with accelerometer-assessed physical activity in the UK Biobank.

Levels of activity are often affected in psychiatric disorders and can be core symptoms of illness. Advances in technology now allow the accurate assessment of activity levels but it remains unclear whether alterations in activity arise from shared risk factors for developing psychiatric disorders, such as genetics, or are better explained as consequences of the disorders and their associated factors. We aimed to examine objectively-measured physical activity in individuals with psychiatric disorders, and assess the role of genetic liability for psychiatric disorders on physical activity. Accelerometer data were available on 95,529 UK Biobank participants, including measures of overall mean activity and minutes per day of moderate activity, walking, sedentary activity, and sleep. Linear regressions measured associations between psychiatric diagnosis and activity levels, and polygenic risk scores (PRS) for psychiatric disorders and activity levels. Genetic correlations were calculated between psychiatric disorders and different types of activity. Having a diagnosis of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression, or autism spectrum disorders (ASD) was associated with reduced overall activity compared to unaffected controls. In individuals without a psychiatric disorder, reduced overall activity levels were associated with PRS for schizophrenia, depression, and ASD. ADHD PRS was associated with increased overall activity. Genetic correlations were consistent with PRS findings. Variation in physical activity is an important feature across psychiatric disorders. Whilst levels of activity are associated with genetic liability to psychiatric disorders to a very limited extent, the substantial differences in activity levels in those with psychiatric disorders most likely arise as a consequences of disorder-related factors

Infant psychiatric disorders

Infant mental health problems include difficulties to regulate emotions or attention, crying, sleeping or feeding problems as well as aggressive behavior. Early identifications of these problems help to change developmental trajectories and improve developmental outcomes. Psychiatric assessment and classification have to take into account the rapid processes of development as well as the inseparable linkage between symptoms of the infant, psychosocial risks in the family environment, and parent-child relations. The proposed DSM-5 classification system presents a systematic description of mental health disorders which are relevant for infant psychiatry. However, the proposal has provided rather limited attention to developmental differences and parent-infant relations. Therefore, additional classification systems, like the Zero-to-Three (DC: 0-3R), are strongly recommended. In terms of assessment and in accordance with the guidelines of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, infant psychiatrists have to consider the close relation between somatic and mental health and the interplay between behaviors of the caregiver and the infant. Therefore, the assessment has to be multidisciplinary and relationship based. A standard assessment in infancy includes a clinical interview, behavior observations, caregiver questionnaires, and a pediatric screening. All assessments should pay attention to motor, cognitive, language, and social-emotional development. Because infant development is embedded in the family context, socio-economic factors, parents' mental problems, including drug abuse, domestic violence, and trauma history should be assessed. The treatment has to be oriented toward symptoms and development and has to address underlying medical conditions. The focus should be on parent-child interactions. Evidence-based interventions are based on attachment theory, use social-learning perspectives, and behavioral approache