In half of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) patients the disorder runs a chronic course despite treatment. The factors determining this unfavourable outcome remain unknown. The Netherlands Obsessive Compulsive Disorder Association (NOCDA) study is a multicentre naturalistic cohort study of the biological, psychological and social determinants of chronicity in a clinical sample. Recruitment of OCD patients took place in mental health organizations. Its design is a six-year longitudinal cohort study among a representative clinical sample of 419 OCD patients. All five measurements within this six-year period involved validated semi-structured interviews and self-report questionnaires which gathered information on the severity of OCD and its co-morbidity as well as information on general wellbeing, quality of life, daily activities, medical consumption and key psychological and social factors. The baseline measurements also include DNA and blood sampling and data on demographic and personality variables. The current paper presents the design and rationale of the study, as well as data on baseline sample characteristics. Demographic characteristics and co-morbidity ratings in the NOCDA sample closely resemble other OCD study samples. Lifetime co-morbid Axis I disorders are present in the majority of OCD patients, with high current and lifetime co-morbidity ratings for affective disorders (23.4% and 63.7%, respectively) and anxiety disorders other than OCD (36% current and 46.5% lifetime).
BackgroundAnxiety scales may help primary care physicians to detect specific anxiety disorders among the many emotionally distressed patients presenting in primary care. The anxiety scale of the Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ) consists of an admixture of symptoms of specific anxiety disorders. The research questions were: (1) Is the anxiety scale unidimensional or multidimensional? (2) To what extent does the anxiety scale detect specific DSM-IV anxiety disorders? (3) Which cut-off points are suitable to rule out or to rule in (which) anxiety disorders?MethodsWe analyzed 5 primary care datasets with standardized psychiatric diagnoses and 4DSQ scores. Unidimensionality was assessed through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). We examined mean scores and anxiety score distributions per disorder. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to determine optimal cut-off points.ResultsTotal n was 969. CFA supported unidimensionality. The anxiety scale performed slightly better in detecting patients with panic disorder, agoraphobia, social phobia, obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) and post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) than patients with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) and specific phobia. ROC-analysis suggested that ≥4 was the optimal cut-off point to rule out and ≥10 the cut-off point to rule in anxiety disorders.ConclusionsThe 4DSQ anxiety scale measures a common trait of pathological anxiety that is characteristic of anxiety disorders, in particular panic disorder, agoraphobia, social phobia, OCD and PTSD. The anxiety score detects the latter anxiety disorders to a slightly greater extent than GAD and specific phobia, without being able to distinguish between the different anxiety disorder types. The cut-off points ≥4 and ≥10 can be used to separate distressed patients in three groups with a relatively low, moderate and high probability of having one or more anxiety disorders.
Fifty articles were included. The prevalence of harming intrusions is up to 100% in both women with and without psychiatric disorders. Stress and cognitive misinterpretation are important keys in its appearance and severity. Literature consistently states that isolated harming intrusions contain no increased risk of violence; instead, compulsive behavior is very common. Psychoeducation is found to release a lot of distress; so might cognitive-behavioral therapy and psychotropic medications.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.