The interface between physical and mental disorders: The need to dismantle the biopsychosocialneuroimmunological model of disease

An epidemiological study of externally determined and self-identified mental and physical disability across the spectrum of bipolar disorders

BACKGROUND

Studies exploring disability in bipolar disorder (BD) have primarily assessed clinical samples of full-threshold BD-I and BD-II alongside so-called objective criteria such as unemployment or receipt of government disability payments. This study extends research on disability by examining externally determined and self-identified disability in a community sample and by including subthreshold BD (BDS).

METHODS

Data were extracted from the USA Collaborative Psychiatric Epidemiology Surveys about individuals who met recognized criteria for BD-I, BD-II and BDS who had completed self-ratings of physical and mental disability, comorbidities, and health risk factors (e.g., obesity). Rates of disability were estimated, and logistic regression analyses were used to determine demographic and clinical variables associated with externally determined and self-identified of disability.

RESULTS

Of 408 individuals who met eligibility criteria (BD-I = 100; BD-II=104; BDS=204), 35% met criteria for externally determined disability, about 40% self-reported mental disability and about 23% self-reported physical disability. The odds were three-fold (Odds Ratio (OR): 3.05; 95% Confidence Intervals (CI): 1.69, 5.53) that someone with self-identified physical disability would meet criteria for externally determined disability, but associations with mental disability were non-significant (OR: 1.06; 95% CI: 0.63, 1.80). Regression analyses demonstrated that mental disability was associated with being a current or past smoker and physical disability was associated with BD-I.

LIMITATIONS

the adequacy of the assessments of disability and definition of BDS can be questioned.

CONCLUSIONS

Future clinical and community studies need to consider both externally determined and self-identified disability across the entire Bd spectrum.

Physical-psychiatric comorbidity: patterns and explanations for ethnic group differences

OBJECTIVE

This paper examines ethnic differences in the co-occurrence of physical and psychiatric health problems (physical-psychiatric comorbidity) for women and men. The following ethnic groups are included: Non-Latino Whites, African Americans, Caribbean Blacks, Spanish Caribbean Blacks, Mexicans, Cubans, Puerto Ricans, Other Latinos, Chinese, Filipinos, Vietnamese, and Other Asian Americans. In addition, the study assesses the extent to which social factors (socioeconomic status, stress exposure, social support) account for ethnic differences in physical-psychiatric comorbidity (PPC).

DESIGN

This study uses data from the Collaborative Psychiatric Epidemiology Surveys (CPES) (N = 12,787). Weighted prevalence rates of physical-psychiatric comorbidity (PPC) - the co-occurrence of physical and psychiatric health problems - are included to examine ethnic group differences among women and men. Multinomial logistic regression analysis was used to determine group differences in PPC before and after adjusting for social factors.

RESULTS

Puerto Rican men have significantly higher risk of PPC in comparison to Non-Latino White men. Among women, Blacks and Cubans were more likely than Non-Latino Whites to experience PPC as opposed to 'Psychiatric Only' health problems. Social factors account for the Puerto Rican/Non-Latino White difference in comorbid health among men, but have little explanatory power for understanding ethnic differences in comorbidity among women.

CONCLUSION

These findings have implications for medical care and can guide intervention programs in targeting a specific constellation of co-occurring physical and psychiatric health problems for diverse ethnic groups in the United States. As comorbidity rates increase, it is crucial to identify the myriad factors that give rise to ethnic group differences therein.

Physical-psychiatric comorbidity: Implications for health measurement and the Hispanic Epidemiological Paradox

Few studies examine the co-occurrence of physical and psychiatric health problems (physical-psychiatric comorbidity), and whether these patterns differ across social groups. Using the National Comorbidity Survey-Replication and National Latino and Asian American Study, the current study asks: what are the patterns of physical-psychiatric comorbidity (PPC) between non-Hispanic Whites and Latino subgroups, further differentiated by gender and nativity? Does the PPC measurement approach reveal different patterns across groups compared to when only physical or only psychiatric health problems are the health outcomes of interest? To what extent do sociodemographic characteristics (SES, stress exposure, social support, immigration-related factors) explain PPC differences between groups? Results reveal that compared to U.S.-born non-Hispanic White men, island-born Puerto Rican men experience elevated PPC risk. Mexican and Other Latino women and men experience relatively lower risk of PPC relative to their non-Hispanic White counterparts. Social factors explain some of the health disadvantage of island-born Puerto Rican men, but do not explain the health advantage of Mexicans and Other Latinos.

Depression and burn wounds

The biopsychosocial impact of a burn injury on the individual hospitalized for severe burn wounds begins at the moment of injury and extends throughout that person's life. Medical and emotional problems do not exist in clinical isolation but instead interact to confound and complicate treatment outcomes, accentuating the importance of providing optimal treatment of patients' medical illnesses without neglecting their mental distress. Identifying, and responding to, the signs and symptoms of depression is integral to the burn patient's recovery and rehabilitation.

Psychology and mind-body segregation: Are we part of the problem?

Despite advances in behavioral medicine and health psychology, the health care system and medical education continue to show resistance to a truly biopsychosocial model of medical practice. Psychologists in medical settings have generally been identified as challenging the concept of mind-body duality and the segregation of biologic and psychosocial sciences in medicine. However, examples are presented of how psychologists contribute to and perpetuate mind-body segregation via exclusive theoretical conceptualizations, arbitrary definitions of professional behavior, and dogmatic constraints on the limits of psychology's field of knowledge.