A Validation Study of the Web Screening Questionnaire (WSQ) Compared With the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview-Plus (MINI-Plus)

Background: There is a need for brief screening methods for psychiatric disorders in clinical practice. This study assesses the validity and accuracy of a brief self-report screening questionnaire, the Web Screening Questionnaire (WSQ), in detecting psychiatric disorders in a study group comprising the general population and psychiatric outpatients aged 18 years and older. Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate whether the WSQ is an adequate test to screen for the presence of depressive and anxiety disorders in clinical practice. Methods: Participants were 1292 adults (1117 subjects from the general population and 175 psychiatric outpatients), aged 18 to 65 years. The discriminant characteristics of the WSQ were examined in relation to the (“gold standard”) Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview-Plus (MINI-Plus) disorders, by means of sensitivity, specificity, area under the curve (AUC), and positive and negative predictive values (PPVs, NPVs). Results: The specificity of the WSQ to individually detect depressive disorders, anxiety disorders, and alcohol abuse or dependence ranged from 0.89 to 0.97 for most disorders, with the exception of post-traumatic stress disorder (0.52) and specific phobia (0.73). The sensitivity values ranged from 0.67 to 1.00, with the exception of depressive disorder (0.56) and alcohol abuse or dependence (0.56). Given the low prevalence of separate disorders in the general population sample, NPVs were extremely high across disorders (≥0.97), whereas PPVs were of poor strength (range 0.02-0.33). Conclusions: In this study group, the WSQ was a relatively good screening tool to identify individuals without a depressive or anxiety disorder, as it accurately identified those unlikely to suffer from these disorders (except for post-traumatic stress disorders and specific phobias). However, in case of a positive WSQ screening result, further diagnostic procedures are required

The clinical effectiveness of concise cognitive behavioral therapy with or without pharmacotherapy for depressive and anxiety disorders; a pragmatic randomized controlled equivalence trial in clinical practice

Background: Depressive and anxiety disorders contribute to a high disease burden. This paper investigates whether concise formats of cognitive behavioral- and/or pharmacotherapy are equivalent with longer standard care in the treatment of depressive and/or anxiety disorders in secondary mental health care. Methods: A pragmatic randomized controlled equivalence trial was conducted at five Dutch outpatient Mental Healthcare Centers (MHCs) of the Regional Mental Health Provider (RMHP) \u27Rivierduinen\u27. Patients (aged 18-65 years) with a mild to moderate anxiety and/or depressive disorder, were randomly allocated to concise or standard care. Data were collected at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months by Routine Outcome Monitoring (ROM). Primary outcomes were the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) and the Web Screening Questionnaire (WSQ). We used Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) to assess outcomes. Results: Between March 2010 and December 2012, 182 patients, were enrolled (n = 89 standard care; n = 93 concise care). Both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses demonstrated equivalence of concise care and standard care at all time points. Severity of illness reduced, and both treatments improved patient\u27s general health status and subdomains of quality of life. Moreover, in concise care, the beneficial effects started earlier. Discussion: Concise care has the potential to be a feasible and promising alternative to longer standard secondary mental health care in the treatment of outpatients with a mild to moderate depressive and/or anxiety disorder. For future research, we recommend adhering more strictly to the concise treatment protocols to further explore the beneficial effects of the concise treatment

The day-to-day bidirectional longitudinal association between objective and self-reported sleep and affect:An ambulatory assessment study

Background: Ambulatory assessments offer opportunities to evaluate daily dynamics of sleep and momentary affect using mobile technologies. This study examines day-to-day bidirectional associations between sleep and affect using mobile monitoring, and evaluates whether these associations differ between people without and with current or remitted depression/anxiety. Methods: Two-week ecological momentary assessment (EMA) and actigraphy data of 359 participants with current (n = 93), remitted (n = 176) or no (n = 90) CIDI depression/anxiety diagnoses were obtained from the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety. Objective sleep duration (SD) and efficiency were obtained from actigraphy data. Self-reported SD, sleep quality (SQ), positive affect (PA) and negative affect (NA) were assessed by electronic diaries through EMA. Results: A bidirectional longitudinal association was found between self-reported SQ and affect, while no association was found for self-reported SD and objective SD and efficiency. Better SQ predicted affect the same day (higher PA: b = 0.035, p < 0.001; lower NA: b = -0.022, p < 0.001), while lower NA on the preceding day predicted better SQ (b = -0.102, p = 0.001). The presence of current depression/anxiety disorders moderated the association between better SQ and subsequent lower NA; it was stronger for patients compared to controls (p = 0.003). Limitations: Observational study design can only point to areas of interest for interventions. Conclusions: This 2-week ambulatory monitoring study shows that, especially among depression/anxiety patients, better self-reported SQ predicts higher PA and lower NA the same day, while lower NA predicts better self-reported SQ. The value of mobile technologies to monitor and potentially intervene in patients to improve their affect should be explored

The effectiveness of critical time intervention for abused women leaving women’s shelters: a randomized controlled trial

Objectives: To examine the effectiveness of critical time intervention (CTI)—an evidence-based intervention—for abused women transitioning from women’s shelters to community living. Methods A randomized controlled trial was conducted in nine women’s shelters across the Netherlands. 136 women were assigned to CTI (n = 70) or care-as-usual (n = 66). Data were analyzed using intention-to-treat three-level mixed-effects models. Results: Women in the CTI group had significant fewer symptoms of post-traumatic stress (secondary outcome) (adjusted mean difference - 7.27, 95% CI - 14.31 to - 0.22) and a significant fourfold reduction in unmet care needs (intermediate outcome) (95% CI 0.06–0.94) compared to women in the care-as-usual group. No differences were found for quality of life (primary outcome), re-abuse, symptoms of depression, psychological distress, self-esteem (secondary outcomes), family support, and social support (intermediate outcomes). Conclusions: This study shows that CTI is effective in a population of abused women in terms of a reduction of posttraumatic stress symptoms and unmet care needs. Because follow-up ended after the prescribed intervention period, further research is needed to determine the full long-term effects of CTI in this population

Basal and LPS-stimulated inflammatory markers and the course of individual symptoms of depression

Multiple studies show an association between inflammatory markers and major depressive disorder (MDD). People with chronic low-grade inflammation may be at an increased risk of MDD, often in the form of sickness behaviors. We hypothesized that inflammation is predictive of the severity and the course of a subset of MDD symptoms, especially symptoms that overlap with sickness behavior, such as anhedonia, anorexia, low concentration, low energy, loss of libido, psychomotor slowness, irritability, and malaise. We tested the association between basal and lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced inflammatory markers with individual MDD symptoms (measured using the Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology Self-Report) over a period of up to 9 years using multivariate-adjusted mixed models in 1147–2872 Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA) participants. At baseline, participants were on average 42.2 years old, 66.5% were women and 53.9% had a current mood or anxiety disorder. We found that basal and LPS-stimulated inflammatory markers were more strongly associated with sickness behavior symptoms at up to 9-year follow-up compared with non-sickness behavior symptoms of depression. However, we also found significant associations with some symptoms that are not typical of sickness behavior (e.g., sympathetic arousal among others). Inflammation was not related to depression as a unified syndrome but rather to the presence and the course of specific MDD symptoms, of which the majority were related to sickness behavior. Anti-inflammatory strategies should be tested in the subgroup of MDD patients who report depressive symptoms related to sickness behavior

Familial risk for depressive and anxiety disorders:associations with genetic, clinical, and psychosocial vulnerabilities

BACKGROUND: In research and clinical practice, familial risk for depression and anxiety is often constructed as a simple Yes/No dichotomous family history (FH) indicator. However, this measure may not fully capture the liability to these conditions. This study investigated whether a continuous familial loading score (FLS), incorporating family- and disorder-specific characteristics (e.g. family size, prevalence of depression/anxiety), (i) is associated with a polygenic risk score (PRS) for major depression and with clinical/psychosocial vulnerabilities and (ii) still captures variation in clinical/psychosocial vulnerabilities after information on FH has been taken into account. METHODS: Data came from 1425 participants with lifetime depression and/or anxiety from the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety. The Family Tree Inventory was used to determine FLS/FH indicators for depression and/or anxiety. RESULTS: Persons with higher FLS had higher PRS for major depression, more severe depression and anxiety symptoms, higher disease burden, younger age of onset, and more neuroticism, rumination, and childhood trauma. Among these variables, FH was not associated with PRS, severity of symptoms, and neuroticism. After regression out the effect of FH from the FLS, the resulting residualized measure of FLS was still associated with severity of symptoms of depression and anxiety, rumination, and childhood trauma. CONCLUSIONS: Familial risk for depression and anxiety deserves clinical attention due to its associated genetic vulnerability and more unfavorable disease profile, and seems to be better captured by a continuous score that incorporates family- and disorder-specific characteristics than by a dichotomous FH measure

Cohort profile of the longitudinal Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA) on etiology, course and consequences of depressive and anxiety disorders

INTRODUCTION: The Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA, www.nesda.nl) is a longitudinal, multi-site, naturalistic, case-control cohort study set up to examine the etiology, course and consequences of depressive and anxiety disorders. This paper presents a cohort profile of NESDA. METHODS AND RESULTS: The NESDA sample recruited initially 2329 persons with a remitted or current DSM-IV based depressive (major depressive disorder, dysthymia) and/or anxiety disorder (panic disorder, social phobia, agoraphobia, generalized anxiety disorder), 367 of their siblings and 652 healthy controls, yielding a total of 3348 participants. Half-day face-to-face assessments of participants started in 2004 and since then have been repeated six times over a period of 9 years. A 13-year follow-up assessment is ongoing, at what time we also recruit offspring of participants. Retention rates are generally high, ranging from 87.1% (after 2 years) to 69.4% (after 9 years). Psychiatric diagnostic interviews have been administered at all face-to-face assessments, as was monitoring of clinical characteristics, psychosocial functioning and somatic health. Assessed etiological factors include e.g. early and current environmental risk factors, psychological vulnerability and resilience factors as well as (neuro)biology through hypothesis-driven biomarker assessments, genome-wide and large-scale '-omics' assessments, and neuroimaging assessments. LIMITATIONS: The naturalistic design allows research into course and consequences of affective disorders but is limited in treatment response interpretation. CONCLUSIONS: NESDA provides a strong research infrastructure for research into depressive and/or anxiety disorders. Its data have been used for many scientific papers describing either NESDA-based analyses or joint collaborative consortia-projects, and are in principle available to researchers outside the NESDA consortium

Basal and LPS-stimulated inflammatory markers and the course of anxiety symptoms

A cross-sectional relationship between low-grade inflammation -characterized by increased blood levels of Creactive protein (CRP) and pro-inflammatory cytokines- and anxiety has been reported, but the potential longitudinal relationship has been less well studied. We aimed to examine whether basal and lipopolysaccharide (LPS-)induced levels of inflammatory markers are associated with anxiety symptom severity over the course of nine years. We tested the association between basal and LPS-induced inflammatory markers with anxiety symptoms (measured with the Beck's Anxiety Inventory; BAI, Fear Questionnaire; FQ and Penn's State Worry Questionnaire; PSWQ) at 5 assessment waves over a period up nine years. We used multivariate-adjusted mixed models in up to 2867 participants of the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA). At baseline, 43.6% of the participants had a current anxiety disorder, of which social phobia (18.5%) was most prevalent. Our results demonstrated that baseline inflammatory markers were significantly associated with several outcomes of anxiety at baseline over nine subsequent years. BAI subscale of somatic (arousal) symptoms of anxiety, and FQ subscale of agoraphobia demonstrated the strongest effects with standardized betacoefficients of up to 0.14. The associations were attenuated by 25%-30% after adjusting for the presence of (comorbid) major depressive disorder (MDD), but remained statistically significant. In conclusion, we found that participants with high levels of inflammatory markers have on average high levels of anxiety consisting of physical arousal and agoraphobia, which tended to persist over a period of nine years, albeit with small effect sizes. These associations were partly driven by co-morbid depression.Stress-related psychiatric disorders across the life spa

Comparative responsiveness of generic versus disorder-specific instruments for depression:An assessment in three longitudinal datasets

Background: Routine outcome monitoring (ROM) may enhance individual treatment and is also advocated as a means to compare the outcome of different treatment programs or providers. There is debate on the optimal instruments to be used for these separate tasks.  Methods: Three sets with longitudinal data from ROM were analyzed with correlational analysis and repeated measures ANOVAs, allowing for a head-to-head comparison of measures regarding their sensitivity to detect change. The responsiveness of three disorder-specific instruments, the Beck Depression Inventory, the Inventory of Depressive Symptoms, and the Mood and Anxiety Symptoms Questionnaire, was compared to three generic instruments, the Symptom Checklist (SCL-90), the Outcome Questionnaire (OQ-45), and the Brief Symptom Inventory, respectively.  Results: In two of the three datasets, disorder-specific measures were more responsive compared to the total score on generic instruments. Subscale scores for depression embedded within generic instruments are second best and almost match disorder-specific scales in responsiveness. No evidence of a desynchronous response on outcome measures was found.  Limitations: The present study compares measures head-to-had, and responsiveness is not assessed against an external criterion, such as clinical recovery.  Discussion: Disorder-specific measures yield the most precise assessment for individual treatment and are recommended for clinical use. Generic measures may allow for comparisons across diagnostic groups and their embedded subscales approach the responsiveness of disorder-specific measures