Use of the Functioning Assessment Short Test (FAST) in defining functional recovery in bipolar I disorder. Post-hoc analyses of long-term studies of aripiprazole once monthly as maintenance treatment

Functional assessment short test (FAST): Self-administration in outpatient mental health settings

The Functional Assessment Short Test (FAST) is a clinician-administered assessment scale of psychosocial dysfunction across various domains typically impacted in individuals with bipolar disorder. The FAST is formally validated as a clinician-administered measure, but support for self-administration would allow its wider use. Therefore, this study aimed to determine whether the FAST could reliably serve as a self-report measure in individuals seeking mental health treatment. Participants completed both the self-report and clinician-administered versions of the FAST as part of their routine outpatient clinical care at the Bipolar Disorders Clinic at The University of Texas Health Austin (UTHA). We investigated correlations between self-report and clinician-administered FAST scores. There were significant positive correlations between self-report and clinician-administered scores in a diverse group of 84 individuals undergoing outpatient mental health treatment (Total FAST scores r_S = 0.75; p < .001). These findings support using the FAST as a self-report scale, further increasing its utility to measure functional disability in mental health conditions such as bipolar disorder. Self-report application will increase the utility of the FAST in busy clinical workflows and, therefore, contribute to a more comprehensive clinical assessment of recovery and spur interventions that improve psychosocial functioning and quality of life.

Recovery beyond clinical improvement - Recovery outcomes measured for people with bipolar disorder between 1980 and 2020

BACKGROUND

Outcome measurement in bipolar disorder (BD) traditionally focused on clinical improvement without considering other domains. Improvement trajectories in clinical and social-functional domains are different and can simultaneously appear in one while not in other domains. Measuring personal recovery (PR) has become a priority internationally. This review explored the shift in research investigating operational recovery definitions and underpinning factors of recovery in BD over the past four decades.

METHODS

Studies defining recovery domains (other than clinical recovery) in BD were systematically reviewed; operational recovery definitions and factors assessed in association with recovery were thematically categorised and integrated in a narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

Thirty-three studies, comprising 3638 participants from 19 countries were included. Identified operational recovery definition themes included i) PR ii) social-functional (SFR), and iii) occupational-residential (ORR) recovery. Examined factors were grouped as demographic, clinical and psychosocial factors. Predominantly demographic factors were linked to ORR and clinical factors to SFR. Depressive symptomatology was the only clinical factor associated with PR. Research investigating psychosocial factors in PR is emerging and has showed that resilience and appraisals of mood seem to be associated with PR.

LIMITATIONS

Studies not available in English or examining functioning without defining recovery were excluded.

CONCLUSIONS

Earlier operational recovery definitions of ORR and SFR were often arbitrary and inconsistent, and predominantly focused on clinical and demographic underpinning factors. While research attempts to follow the significant policy shifts towards personalised care by measuring what matters to individuals and exploring broader underpinning psychosocial factors, it is still lagging behind.

Process and Outcome Evaluations of Smartphone Apps for Bipolar Disorder: Scoping Review

Background

Mental health apps (MHAs) provide opportunities for accessible, immediate, and innovative approaches to better understand and support the treatment of mental health disorders, especially those with a high burden, such as bipolar disorder (BD). Many MHAs have been developed, but few have had their effectiveness evaluated.

Objective

This systematic scoping review explores current process and outcome measures of MHAs for BD with the aim to provide a comprehensive overview of current research. This will identify the best practice for evaluating MHAs for BD and inform future studies.

Methods

A systematic literature search of the health science databases PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Embase, EBSCO, Scopus, and Web of Science was undertaken up to January 2021 (with no start date) to narratively assess how studies had evaluated MHAs for BD.

Results

Of 4051 original search results, 12 articles were included. These 12 studies included 435 participants, and of these, 343 had BD type I or II. Moreover, 11 of the 12 studies provided the ages (mean 37 years) of the participants. One study did not report age data. The male to female ratio of the 343 participants was 137:206. The most widely employed validated outcome measure was the Young Mania Rating Scale, being used 8 times. The Hamilton Depression Rating Scale-17/Hamilton Depression Rating Scale was used thrice; the Altman Self-Rating Mania Scale, Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology, and Functional Assessment Staging Test were used twice; and the Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations, EuroQoL 5-Dimension Health Questionnaire, Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale-7, Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology, Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale, Major Depression Index, Morisky-Green 8-item, Perceived Stress Scale, and World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF were used once. Self-report measures were captured in 9 different studies, 6 of which used MONARCA. Mood and energy levels were the most commonly used self-report measures, being used 4 times each. Furthermore, 11 of the 12 studies discussed the various confounding factors and barriers to the use of MHAs for BD.

Conclusions

Reported low adherence rates, usability challenges, and privacy concerns act as barriers to the use of MHAs for BD. Moreover, as MHA evaluation is itself developing, guidance for clinicians in how to aid patient choices in mobile health needs to develop. These obstacles could be ameliorated by incorporating co-production and co-design using participatory patient approaches during the development and evaluation stages of MHAs for BD. Further, including qualitative aspects in trials that examine patient experience of both mental ill health and the MHA itself could result in a more patient-friendly fit-for-purpose MHA for BD.