Comparison of depression and anxiety symptom networks in reporters and non-reporters of lifetime trauma in two samples of differing severity

Background: Reported trauma is associated with differences in the course and outcomes of depression and anxiety. However, no research has explored the association between reported trauma and patterns of clinically relevant symptoms of both depression and anxiety. / Methods: We used network analysis to investigate associations between reported trauma and depression and anxiety symptom interactions in affected individuals from the Genetic Links to Anxiety and Depression (GLAD) Study (n = 17720), and population volunteers from the UK Biobank (n = 11120). Participants with current moderate symptoms of depression or anxiety were grouped into reporters and non-reporters of lifetime trauma. Networks of 16 depression and anxiety symptoms in the two groups were compared using the network comparison test. / Results: In the GLAD Study, networks of reporters and non-reporters of lifetime trauma did not differ on any metric. In the UK Biobank, the symptom network of reporters had significantly greater density (7.80) than the network of non-reporters (7.05). / Limitations: The data collected in the GLAD Study and the UK Biobank are self-reported with validated or semi-validated questionnaires. / Conclusions: Reported lifetime trauma was associated with stronger interactions between symptoms of depression and anxiety in population volunteers. Differences between reporters and non-reporters may not be observed in individuals with severe depression and/or anxiety due to limited variance in the presentation of disorder

Comparison of symptom-based versus self-reported diagnostic measures of anxiety and depression disorders in the GLAD and COPING cohorts

Background: Understanding and improving outcomes for people with anxiety or depression often requires large sample sizes. To increase participation and reduce costs, such research is typically unable to utilise “gold-standard” methods to ascertain diagnoses, instead relying on remote, self-report measures. Aims: Assess the comparability of remote diagnostic methods for anxiety and depression disorders commonly used in research. Method: Participants from the UK-based GLAD and COPING NBR cohorts (N = 58,400) completed an online questionnaire between 2018 and 2020. Responses to detailed symptom reports were compared to DSM-5 criteria to generate symptom-based diagnoses of major depressive disorder (MDD), generalised anxiety disorder (GAD), specific phobia, social anxiety disorder, panic disorder, and agoraphobia. Participants also self-reported any prior diagnoses from health professionals, termed self-reported diagnoses. “Any anxiety” included participants with at least one anxiety disorder. Agreement was assessed by calculating accuracy, Cohen’s kappa, McNemar’s chi-squared, sensitivity, and specificity. Results: Agreement between diagnoses was moderate for MDD, any anxiety, and GAD, but varied by cohort. Agreement was slight to fair for the phobic disorders. Many participants with self-reported GAD did not receive a symptom-based diagnosis. In contrast, symptom-based diagnoses of the phobic disorders were more common than self-reported diagnoses. Conclusions: Agreement for MDD, any anxiety, and GAD was higher for cases in the case-enriched GLAD cohort and for controls in the general population COPING NBR cohort. For anxiety disorders, self-reported diagnoses classified most participants as having GAD, whereas symptom-based diagnoses distributed participants more evenly across the anxiety disorders. Further validation against gold standard measures is required