Comorbidity burden and its impact on psychosocial morbidity in depressed outpatients

McDermut, Wilson; Mattia, Jill I.; Zimmerman, Mark

doi:10.1016/s0165-0327(00)00220-2

Cited by 56 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Of note, our finding is consistent with those of several previous reports suggesting that a co-morbidity with other axis I and II psychiatric disorders is often associated with poorer social adjustment in patients with affective disorders (Isometsa et al, 2000;McDermut et al, 2001;Rytsala et al, 2005Rytsala et al, , 2006. In particular, a comorbidity with anxiety disorders has been one of the factors most widely associated with poor social adjustment in affective disorder patients both in remission and during a full-blown episode (Feske et al, 2000;Rytsala et al, 2005Rytsala et al, , 2006.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Social adjustment among treatment responder patients with mood disorders

Serretti

Chiesa

Souery

et al. 2013

Journal of Affective Disorders

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Social adjustment among treatment responder patients with mood disorders

Serretti

Chiesa

Souery

et al. 2013

Journal of Affective Disorders

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The more severe clinical profile among those with the more complex mental health comorbidity is also consistent with the evidence from samples drawn from mental health services (McDermott, Mattia, and Zimmerman 2001) as well as general population surveys (Andrews, Henderson, and Hall 2001;Gamma and Angst 2001;Merikangas et al 1998), showing that individuals with multiple mental disorders have more serious problems in several life areas. This same pattern is found in comorbidity studies in the physical health domain (e.g., Angst, Sellaro, and Ries 2002) and reinforces the notion that "multimorbidity," expressed as a count of specific conditions or broad subtypes of conditions, can represent the cumulative lifetime consequences of illness experiences (e.g., loss of resources, physical and social disability, quality of life, risk of additional disorders, family burden, help seeking, use of health services; van den Akker, Buntinx, and Knottnerus 1996).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 74%

The Interaction of Co-Occurring Mental Disorders and Recovery Management Checkups on Substance Abuse Treatment Participation and Recovery

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines the effectiveness of quarterly Recovery Management Checkups (RMCs) for people with substance disorders by level of co-occurring mental disorders (34% none, 27% internalizing disorders, and 39% internalizing and externalizing) across two randomized experiments with 92% to 97% follow-up. The 865 participants are 82% African American, 53% female, and age 37 on average. RMC involves identification of those in need of treatment, motivational interviews, and treatment linkage assistance. It is effective in linking participants in need to treatment, with equal or better outcomes among those with more mental disorders. The data support the utility of monitoring and re-intervention for clients with co-occurring disorders.Keywords co-occurring disorders; recovery management; substance abuse treatment outcome Given that substance use disorders are often chronic conditions that may last decades, it is hardly surprising that it takes an average of three to four admissions to treatment for 9 years to reach a sustained recovery Dennis et al. 2005;Grella and Joshi 1999;Hser et al. 1997;Hser et al. 1998). In recognition of these findings and other Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Please address correspondence to Brian R. Rush, Center for Addiction and Mental Health, Room T304, 33 Russell St., Toronto, Ontario, M5S 2S1 Canada; phone: (416) 535-8501 (ext. 6625); brian_rush@camh.net. Questions about the Recovery Management Checkup intervention can be addressed to Christy K. Scott, Chestnut Health Systems, 221 W. Walton, Chicago, IL 60610; phone: (312) 664-4321; fax: (312) 664-4324; cscott@chestnut.org. Questions about the broader early re-intervention studies can be addressed to Michael L. Dennis, Chestnut Health Systems, 720 West Chestnut, Bloomington, IL 61701; mdennis@chestnut.org. Matzger, and Kaskutas 2003). This public health approach to longitudinal monitoring and early re-intervention (ERI) provides the foundation for Recovery Management Checkups (RMCs; Scott and Dennis 2003), an evidence-based approach for managing substance users through multiple episodes of treatment. The RMC intervention targets individuals who have previously participated in treatment and are now living in the community using substances. The intervention (described in more detail later) aims to provide immediate linkage back to substance abuse treatment on the basis of need, thus expediting the recovery process. Key components include, for example, assessing eligibility for the intervention and need for treatment, transferring participants in need of treatment from the interviewer to a linkage manager for a brief intervention, linking participants to the intake assessment, and ultimately linking participants to treatment. The intervention does not target or address concurrent disorders specifically. In two closely related experiments (Dennis, Scott, and Funk 2003; Scott and Dennis under review), participants randomly assigned to RMC or a control group were just as likely to be in need of treat...

show abstract

“…However, even after adjusting for current severity and other possible confounding factors, the number of previous episodes of depression was significantly associated with current level of functioning. Our results further support findings that poorer functional status is associated with older age (Lyness et al, 1993) and personality disorders (McDermut et al, 2001;Skodol et al, 2002). There were also interesting albeit slight differences between our findings with the SOFAS and the SAS-SR.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Functional and Work Disability in Major Depressive Disorder

Rytsälä

Melartin²,

Leskelä³

et al. 2005

Journal of Nervous &Amp; Mental Disease

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examined factors related to social and occupational disability, social adjustment, and work disability among patients with major depressive disorder (MDD), the dominant mental disorder causing functional and work disability. The Vantaa Depression Study comprises a cohort of 269 psychiatric inpatients and outpatients with MDD in the city of Vantaa, Finland. Axis I and II diagnoses were assessed via semistructured WHO Schedules for Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry Version 2.0 and Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R personality disorders interviews. Global disability, social and work adjustment, and being at work or on sick leave were assessed. The most important factors associated with level of social, functional, and work disability were severity and recurrence of depression, but older age and current Axis I and II comorbidity also significantly contributed. Of those employed, almost half (43%) were on sick leave. The most pervasive factors explaining level of functional and work disability among patients with MDD were severity and recurrence of depression. However, older age and comorbidity also contributed.

show abstract

Comorbidity burden and its impact on psychosocial morbidity in depressed outpatients

Cited by 56 publications

References 16 publications

Social adjustment among treatment responder patients with mood disorders

Social adjustment among treatment responder patients with mood disorders

The Interaction of Co-Occurring Mental Disorders and Recovery Management Checkups on Substance Abuse Treatment Participation and Recovery

Functional and Work Disability in Major Depressive Disorder

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About