Abstract
Background: It is unclear whether the bipolar disorders (i.e. BP-I/BP-II) differ dimensionally or categorically. This study sought to clarify this issue. Methods: We recruited 165 patients, of which 69 and 96 had clinician-assigned diagnoses of BP-I and BP-II respectively. Their psychiatrists completed a data sheet seeking information on clinical variables about each patient, while the patients completed a different data sheet and scored a questionnaire assessing the prevalence and severity of 96 candidate manic/hypomanic symptoms. Results: We conducted a series of analyses examining a set (and two sub-sets) of fifteen symptoms that were significantly more likely to be reported by the clinically diagnosed BP-I patients. Latent class analyses favoured two-class solutions, while mixture analyses demonstrated bimodality, thus arguing for a BP-I/BP-II categorical distinction. Statistically defined BP-I class members were more likely when manic to have experienced psychotic features and over-valued ideas. They were also more likely to have been hospitalised, and to have been younger when they received their bipolar diagnosis and first experienced a depressive or manic episode. Limitations: The lack of agreement between some patients and managing clinicians in judging the presence of psychotic features could have compromised some analyses. It is also unclear whether some symptoms (e.g. grandiosity, noting mystical events) were capturing formal psychotic features or not. Conclusions: Findings replicate our earlier study in providing evidence to support the modelling of BP-I and BP-II as categorically discrete conditions. This should advance research into aetiological factors and determining optimal (presumably differing) treatments for the two conditions.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 225-231 |
Number of pages | 7 |
Journal | Journal of Affective Disorders |
Volume | 277 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - Dec 1 2020 |
Bibliographical note
Funding Information:The study was funded by grants (#1037196, #1176689) received from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). The contents of the published material are solely the responsibility of the individual authors and do not reflect the views of the NHMRC.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020
ASJC Scopus Subject Areas
- Clinical Psychology
- Psychiatry and Mental health