Clinical stability, diagnosis and catchment area: the patients of a university-based psychiatric outpatient clinic

Operational criteria application does not change clinicians' opinion on the diagnosis of mental disorder: a pre- and post-intervention validity study

Objective

Our objective was to check if the ICD-10 operational criteria application changes non-operational, prototype-based diagnoses obtained in a real-life scenario.

Methods

Psychiatry residents applied the diagnostic criteria of the ICD-10 as a "diagnostic test" to five outpatient patients they were already following who had a prototype-based diagnosis. Tests were used to ascertain whether changes in opinion were significant and if any of the diagnostic groups were more prone to change than others. The present paper is part of the study with UTN U1111-1260-1212.

Results

Seventeen residents reviewed their last five case files, retrieving 85 diagnostic pairs of non-operational-based vs. operational-based diagnoses. The Stuart-Maxwell test did not indicate a significant opinion change (χ2 = 5.25, p = 0.39; power = 0.94) besides 30% of diagnostic changes. Despite not being statistically significant, 20.2% of all evaluations resulted in a change that would affect treatment choices. Using ICD-10 operational criteria slightly increased the number of observed diagnoses, but probably without clinical relevance. None of the non-operational diagnoses have a higher tendency to change with operational criteria application (χ2 = 11.6, p = 0.07). The female gender was associated with a higher diagnostic change tendency.

Conclusion

Applying ICD-10 operational criteria as a diagnostic test does not induce a statistically significant diagnostic opinion change in residents and no diagnostic group seems more sensible to diagnostic change. Gender-related differences in diagnostic opinion changes might be evidence of sunk cost bias. Although not statistically significant, using operational criteria after diagnostic elaboration might help to deal with subjects without adequate treatment response.

Inter-Rater Reliability between Structured and Non-Structured Interviews Is Fair in Schizophrenia and Bipolar Disorders-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

We aimed to find agreement between diagnoses obtained through standardized (SDI) and non-standardized diagnostic interviews (NSDI) for schizophrenia and Bipolar Affective Disorder (BD).

METHODS

A systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted. Publications from 2007 to 2020 comparing SDI and NSDI diagnoses in adults without neurological disorders were screened in MEDLINE, ISI Web of Science, and SCOPUS, following PROSPERO registration CRD42020187157, PRISMA guidelines, and quality assessment using QUADAS-2.

RESULTS

From 54231 entries, 22 studies were analyzed, and 13 were included in the final meta-analysis of kappa agreement using a mixed-effects meta-regression model. A mean kappa of 0.41 (Fair agreement, 95% CI: 0.34 to 0.47) but high heterogeneity (β = 92%) were calculated. Gender, mean age, NSDI setting (Inpatient vs. Outpatient; University vs. Non-university), and SDI informant (Self vs. Professional) were tested as predictors in meta-regression. Only SDI informant was relevant for the explanatory model, leaving 79% unexplained heterogeneity. Egger's test did not indicate significant bias, and QUADAS-2 resulted in "average" data quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Most studies using SDIs do not report the original sample size, only the SDI-diagnosed patients. Kappa comparison resulted in high heterogeneity, which may reflect the influence of non-systematic bias in diagnostic processes. Although results were highly heterogeneous, we measured a fair agreement kappa between SDI and NSDI, implying clinicians might operate in scenarios not equivalent to psychiatry trials, where samples are filtered, and there may be more emphasis on maintaining reliability. The present study received no funding.

COVID-19 and psychosis, depression, obsession and quality of life in Lebanese patients with schizophrenia: Any changes after 5 months of quarantine?

BACKGROUND

Previous research revealed an absence of any previous studies reporting the impact that pandemics may have on psychotic symptomology, nor on the physical health of people with psychosis in response to the epidemics of the COVID-19. The direction of the impact of the COVID-19 on schizophrenia is unknown, as the risk of infection could vary from patients to patients according to clinical comorbidities, cognitive impairment, acute symptoms, and family support. To the best of our knowledge, no study has provided details on the variation of symptoms in patients with schizophrenia during the quarantine of COVID-19 outbreak. Therefore, the primary objective of the study is to investigate the variation of psychotic symptoms, depression, obsession and quality of life in patients with schizophrenia before and after 5 months of quarantine and evaluate factors associated with these variations during the quarantine period.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was performed on a sample of 190 chronic patients institutionalized for schizophrenia for more than 1 year at the Psychiatric Hospital of the Cross. The baseline assessment was done in December 2019; the second assessment was done in August 2020 (5 months after the lockdown).

RESULTS

Getting updates about the coronavirus minimally, some and most of the times were significantly associated with a decrease in positive psychotic and psychopathologic symptoms 5 months after quarantine compared to before it. Practicing religiosity some and all the time versus not was significantly associated with a decrease in negative, psychopathology symptoms and total PANSS score after 5 months of quarantine compared to before it. Finally, female gender (B = 1.77) was significantly associated with an increase in the WHO Domain 3 score (better social relations) after 5 months of quarantine compared to before it.

CONCLUSION

Patients with schizophrenia fare better symptomatically after 5 months of quarantine if they receive constant updates about COVID-19 and if they tended to practice religiosity.

Patients and physician’s self-assessment regarding clinical stability in severe mental disorders: a cross-sectional study

ABSTRACT Objective This study explores the relationship between patients’ self-assessment and physicians’ evaluation regarding clinical stability. Methods This cross-sectional study was carried out at the general outpatient clinic of the Instituto de Psiquiatria da Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (IPUB-UFRJ) in a large sample (1,447) of outpatients, of which 67.9% were patients with severe mental disorders (SMD). We collected information using a structured questionnaire developed for this purpose, filled in by the patient’s physician. Clinical stability was assessed by means of five psychiatric instability criteria and by the physician’s global clinical impression over the six previous months. The patients’ self-assessment was based on a question about how they evaluated their health status: stable/better, worse, does not know. For the analyses, patients’ self-evaluation was considered as our standard. Results The sample was composed of 824 (57%) women with an average age of 49 years. The most prevalent diagnoses within the SMD category corresponded to 937 patients, of whom 846 (90.3%) assessed themselves as stable/better. The physicians’ evaluations agreed more with patients with bipolar disorders and less with schizophrenics regarding stability. As for patients with depressive disorder, physicians agreed more with them regarding instability. Conclusion The data analysis confirms our hypothesis that the self-assessment made by patients with SMD was accurate regarding their health condition, and that the self-assessment made by patients who considered themselves stable agree with the physicians’ evaluation.

Intra-rater Kappa Accuracy of Prototype and ICD-10 Operational Criteria-Based Diagnoses for Mental Disorders: A Brief Report of a Cross-Sectional Study in an Outpatient Setting

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The use of "operational criteria" is a solution for low reliability, contrasting with a prototypical classification that is used in clinics. We aim to measure the reliability of prototypical and ICD-10 diagnoses.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study, with a convenience sample of subjects treated in a university clinic. Residents reviewed their diagnosis using ICD-10 criteria, and Cohen's kappa statistic was performed on operational and prototype diagnoses.

RESULTS

Three out of 30 residents participated, reviewing 146 subjects under their care. Diagnoses were grouped in eight classes: organic (diagnoses from F00 to F09), substance disorders (F10-F19), schizophrenia spectrum disorders (F20-F29), bipolar affective disorder (F30, F31, F34.0, F38.1), depression (F32, F33), anxiety-related disorders (F40-F49), personality disorders (F60-F69), and neurodevelopmental disorders (F70-F99). Overall, agreement was high [K = 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.69-0.85], with a lower agreement related to personality disorders (K = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.38-0.76) and higher with schizophrenia spectrum disorders (K = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.82-0.99).

DISCUSSION

Use of ICD-10 criteria did not significantly increase the number of diagnoses. It changed few diagnoses, implying that operational criteria were irrelevant to clinical opinion. This suggests that reliability among interviewers is more related to information gathering than diagnostic definitions. Also, it suggests an incorporation of diagnostic criteria according to training, which then became part of the clinician's prototypes. Residents should be trained in the use of diagnostic categories, but presence/absence checking is not needed to achieve operational compatible diagnoses.