337 M1 Flashcards
Wakefield’s Harmful Dysfunction
- harmful: value based on social norms
- dysfunction: failure of an organ system to perform according to its evolutionary design
- the cause of symptoms must be mental to be a ‘mental disorder’
Skeptical view
- Thomas Szasz
- mental disorder is a label to justify medical intervention in a socially undesirable behaviour
- labels result in stigma and social control
- mental disorder should be an extension of physical and only be applicable to physical lesions
Pure Value Concept view
- mental and physical disorders are judgments of desirability
- disorder is a deviation from an ideal state
As Biological Disadvantage
- purely biological
- decreases survival and reproductive fitness
- must also include statistical deviance view
Lillienfeld critique
- questions what is natural function (the primary function of an organ system) and what is a by-product
Widiger proposal
- disorders are constructs that must be measured indirectly
- conceptualization will evolve as knowledge evolves
- multimodal: latent constructs are multiply determined and multiply expressed (a single etiology would be ideal, but is unlikely)
five factors necessary for a valid classification system
- Clinical description: common clustered signs and symptoms
- Course: similar trajectory
- Treatment response
- Family history: should run in families
- Laboratory studies: biological and psychophysiological associations
challenges of a categorical system
- Heterogeneity: people in one group should look similar to each other and different from people in a separate group (this isn’t always the case)
- Comorbidity: 50% of people with one disorder meet criteria for another; how do you know which problem to treat first? Will affect Tx, severity, and prognosis
DSM-I and DSM-II
- 1952 and 1968
- few categories with no requirement for number of symptoms
- based on psychoanalytic definitions
- a first attempt to standardize
DSM-III and DSM-III-TR
- 1980 and 1987
- based on a medical model
- empirical (not psychoanalytic, based on symptoms instead of etiology)
- based on a consensus of professionals to define inclusion/exclusion criteria and duration
- multi-axial classification
I: Major Clinical Disorders (the problem to treat)
II: Personality Disorders (not to treat, but could affect axis I)
III: Medical Conditions
IV: Psychosocial Stressors (context)
V: Global Assessment of Functioning (somewhat arbitrary)
DSM-IV
- 1994 and 2000
- introduced distress and impairment as factors
- gave a definition of mental illness
- polythetic approach: certain signs and symptoms are neither necessary or sufficient
DSM-5
- 2013
- removes multi-axial system
- some diagnoses get dimensional criteria
- new categories (OCD, PTSD is moved to Trauma)
what could comorbidities be due to
- chance (partly)
- sampling bias (more severe clinical populations)
- diagnostic criteria (overlap between diagnoses)
- multiformity (comorbid disorders represent a third independent disorder)
- causal (one disorder is a risk factor for another)
- shared etiology causes multiple disorders
which disorders are where in HiTOP
- SAD: internalizing - fear
- Agoraphobia: internalizing - fear
- Phobias: internalizing - fear
- Panic: internalizing - fear
- OCD: internalizing - fear
- MDD: internalizing - distress
- GAD: internalizing - distress
- PTSD: internalizing - distress
- Bipolar: internalizing - mania AND thought - mania (also closely related to psychosis)
1-year prevalences of disorders from most common to least
- MDD
- SAD (specific phobias may be 2nd most common)
- PTSD
- GAD
- Panic
- PDD
- OCD
lifetime prevalences of disorder categories from most to least common
- anxiety disorder
- mood disorder
- substance use disorders
- prevalence for any disorder is 46%
vulnerability-stress correlations
- demonstrate that diatheses and stress aren’t independent
- stress generation: people who are more vulnerable may behave in ways that increase their stress
- scars: having had one illness may change your view of the world which can exacerbate your stress
etiological heterogeneity
- there are many pathways to disorder
- captured by dimensional diathesis-stress models: low diathesis might still be capable of developing disorders at high enough levels of stress (not all-or-none like the original categorical diathesis-stress model)
differentiation between syndrome, disorder, disease
- syndrome: cluster of signs and symptoms that tend to co-occur, but pathology and etiology aren’t well-understood
- disorder: syndromes that cannot be explained by other conditions
- disease: most understood - both pathology and etiology
endophenotype approach vs. exophenotype approach
- endo: focus on identifying reliable biomarkers or lab indicators that are only present in the disordered population
- exo: focus on traditional signs and symptoms (DSM’s approach)
follow-up design
- start with people who are already ill and follow-up over time (prospective)
- studying the natural course of a disorder
high-risk design
- start with a sample likely to develop psychopathology and follow-up over time (prospective)
- temporal ordering
vulnerability marker
- should be present before, during, and after the illness
- if only after, could be a scar
- if it resolves with the illness, could be a subthreshold presentation
- should be over-represented in high-risk populations
case control design
compare group with disorder to group without disorder (useful for rare disorders)
cohort design
single large sample, some of whom have the disorder (to compare to many control groups, useful when the disorder is common)
family studies
- identify proband and assess their family members
- rates of illness should be higher than in the general population
- family tends to have subthreshold presentations (we inherit traits or predispositions, not disorders)
- coaggregation: disorders run in families in a nonspecific way (depression and anxiety coaggregate in familires)
- can suggest a genetic role but doesn’t prove it (move to adoption studies)
adoption studies
- parent as proband: find the kids they gave up for adoption to see if they’re ill
- adoptee as proband: compare their adopted/biological families to disentangle environment/genetic contributions
- cross-fostering: kids of parents without a disorder raised in families of people with disorders compare to kids of parents with disorders raised in families of people without disorders
twin studies
- gives an additive genetic component (A) that is roughly the difference between the Mz concordance and Dz concordance
- common environment: shared environment
- unique environment: nonshared environment
- heritability estimate is sample-specific and varies according to environment - tends to increase with age and is higher when there’s less environmental variance
endophenotypes
- intermediate between genotype and phenotype
- must correlate with illness in the population
- must not be state-dependent
- must be heritable (more in Mz than Dz)
- must see family similarities
- must be more present in families than in the general population
- must be specific to a particular illness (ideally)
- able to be measured
fear
response to a real/perceived threat (prep for action) that is current, response is immediate and not mediated by conscious thought)
panic
physiologically similar to fear but evoked without an identifiable or current threat
anxiety
future-oriented (feeling threatened by potential occurrences that have not yet happened)
epidemiology of specific phobias
- 2F:1M
- tends to have childhood onsets, but kids usually outgrow them (except for agoraphobia which onsets in 30s)
- high comorbidity with other anxiety disorders and depression
- prevalence is 12.5% for specific and 1.5% for agoraphobia
etiological models of specific phobias
- classical conditioning: averse learning experiences = acquired fears (doesn’t explain all cases)
- fears maintained through operant conditioning (avoidance is negatively reinforced and fear cannot be disconfirmed - two-factor model)
- evolutionary preparedness: evolved sensitivity to certain stimuli
- immunizing effect of prior experience (kids have very little experience with anything)
Klein’s theory of panic
- physiological sensations becomes the CS that was paired with a full-blown panic attack (the CR)
- leads to reinforcement through avoidance
epidemiology of panic disorder
- 2F:1M
- 4-5% lifetime prevalence
- onset is about 24 years and very abrupt (rare before adolescence and after middle age)
- heritability estimate about 30-40%
- very comorbid with other Axis I disorders (and personality disorders common too)
Clark’s theory of panic
- catastrophic misinterpretation of bodily sensations = more arousal = vicious cycle (initial symptoms are usually internally-generated, but could be due to caffeine, cocaine, etc.)
anxiety sensitivity
- trait-like fear about sensations related to anxiety
- belief that if you keep having the panic symptoms, your health will eventually decline
- more likely to panic when you experience anxiety
behavioural signs of PD
- safety behaviours: maladaptive coping contributes to maintenance of PDP
- interoceptive avoidance: avoidance of internal symptoms that reproduce high arousal (caffeine, having sex, saunas)
- experiential avoidance: distraction from anxiety sx, thought suppression
temperament relation to panic
- neuroticism, negative affectivity
- fear of fear could lead to behaviours that exacerbate stress
- related to anxiety sensitivity
etiology ideas from reading about panic
- anxious attachment (unpredictable/unresponsive caregiver) = anxiety disorders
- respiratory disease is common (could be a diathesis)
- reduced amygdala volume
- increased HPA reactivity to environmental cues (difficulty differentiating between threat and safety cues)
treatment for PD
- CBT: panic control treatment uses cognitive aspects, conditioning, behavioural exposure (Clark’s model is more focused on cognitions)
- ACT useful if you use behavioural exposure
- exposure + relaxation + breathing training
- SSRIs most useful, benzos also effective (both have withdrawal effects that could prompt relapse)
epidemiology of GAD
- 2F:1M
- 5-6% (lifetime) or 3.1% (6-month)
- onset is around 30 years, but highly variable
- gradual onset
- very chronic (similar to personality disorders)
- high comorbidities (controversial diagnosis because of this - could just be conceptualized as negative affectivity that predisposes generally to psychopathology)
- trait anxiety runs in families, so does GAD
differentiation of GAD from MDD
- GAD: attentional biases toward threat
- MDD: more likely to have memory biases
- MDD: low positive affect (people with GAD can experience joy, but both have tendencies toward high negative affect)
- MDD: precipitating event is humiliation vs. GAD: precipitating event is danger events
- MDD: emotion context insensitivity (ECI), disengagement from the environment
- GAD: hyperresponsivity to threat and normal responses to positive stimuli
temporal course MDD and GAD
- extreme goal-focus in GAD = burnout = motivational disengagement in MDD
- uncertainty about future in GAD = certainty about negative future in MDD
- beliefs of helplessness in GAD = hopelessness in MDD
- Or MDD could be a stressor, so after recovery people worry to prevent another episode
cognitive avoidance
- rather than feel fear, worry about what to do about fear
Tom Borkovec
- worry = cognitive avoidance about low-probability events
- when those events don’t occur, they believe their worry was effective, so they keep worrying to keep preventing the bad outcomes
- worry is a verbal/cognitive process that buffers form emotional arousal (no vivid imagery = cannot change fear structure)
- thought suppression = more intrusive worry = increases sense of lack of control = more worry