scholarly journals Evaluating the CANSAS self-report (CANSAS-P) as a screening instrument for care needs in people with psychotic and affective disorders

2011 ◽  
Vol 188 (3) ◽  
pp. 456-458 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lian van der Krieke ◽  
Sjoerd Sytema ◽  
Durk Wiersma ◽  
Hanneke Tielen ◽  
Albert M. van Hemert
Keyword(s):  
Affective Disorders ◽  
Screening Instrument ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Care Needs

Prediction of major affective disorders in adolescents by self-report measures

2009 ◽  
Vol 115 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 140-149 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcel Aebi ◽  
Christa Winkler Metzke ◽  
Hans-Christoph Steinhausen
Keyword(s):  
Affective Disorders ◽  
Self Report

Pharmacopalliation of Pain

2019 ◽  
pp. 250-265
Author(s):  
James B. Ray
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Effect ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
Common Factors ◽  
Underlying Disease ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Protective Mechanism ◽  
Effective Management ◽  
Care Needs ◽  
Spiritual Impact ◽  
Palliative Care Needs

Pain is one of the most common symptoms that a surgeon may encounter in their patients with palliative care needs. Pain no longer serves an adaptive, protective mechanism but one that is maladaptive and has no redeeming purpose except to add to the patient’s suffering. Effective management requires the surgeon to consider the bio-psychosocial-spiritual impact of the underlying disease when assessing the patient’s self-report of pain. This chapter is a primer and provides an overview of the most common factors that a surgeon may want to consider in providing primary pharmacopalliation of pain, including analgesic selection and adverse effect management.

Screening for Borderline Personality Disorder With the McLean Screening Instrument: A Review and Critique of the Literature

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Zimmerman ◽  
Caroline Balling
Keyword(s):  
Borderline Personality Disorder ◽  
Personality Disorder ◽  
High Sensitivity ◽  
Screening Instrument ◽  
Borderline Personality ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Cutoff Score ◽  
Cutoff Scores ◽  
Diagnostic Detection

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is underdiagnosed in clinical practice. One approach towards improving diagnostic detection is the use of screening questionnaires. It is important for a screening test to have high sensitivity because the more time-intensive/expensive follow-up diagnostic inquiry will presumably only occur in patients who are positive on the initial screen. The most commonly studied self-report scale specific for BPD is the McLean Screening Instrument for Borderline Personality Disorder (MSI-BPD). We summarize the performance of the scale across studies, examine the performance of the scale using different cutoff scores, and highlight the approach used by investigators in recommending a cutoff score. Most studies of the scale have taken a case-finding approach in deriving the cutoff score on the scale instead of a screening approach. For the purposes of screening, it may be more appropriate for the cutoff score on the MSI-BPD to be less than the currently recommended cutoff of 7.

scholarly journals Psychiatry in post-apartheid Namibia: a troubled legacy

2002 ◽  
Vol 26 (8) ◽  
pp. 310-312 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony Feinstein
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
South Africa ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
Mental Health Disorders ◽  
Screening Instrument ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Meaningful Context ◽  
Health Disorders ◽  
Guggenheim Foundation

I recently spent 6 months in Namibia as a Fellow of the John Simon Guggenheim Foundation. The purpose of my visit was twofold: the establishment of a database for trauma-related mental health disorders and the development of a validated, self-report screening instrument for mental illness. In the process, I was able to meet with Namibian colleagues and visit a number of health care centres in the country. This article will focus on my impressions of psychiatry in Namibia that were formed during my visit. A brief summary of Namibian history, in particular the country's relations with neighbouring South Africa, will help place my observations in a more meaningful context.

Self-report gender differences in affective disorders

1996 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 338s ◽  
Author(s):  
C. De las Cuevas ◽  
A. García-Estrada ◽  
J. De la Fuente ◽  
J.L.G. de Rivera
Keyword(s):  
Gender Differences ◽  
Affective Disorders ◽  
Self Report

Mental Health Screening in Juvenile Justice Settings: Evaluating the Utility of the Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument, Version 2

2016 ◽  
Vol 29 (8) ◽  
pp. 849-872 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth P. Shulman ◽  
Jordan Bechtold ◽  
Erin L. Kelly ◽  
Elizabeth Cauffman
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Juvenile Justice ◽  
Health Resources ◽  
Screening Instrument ◽  
Self Report ◽  
General Mental Health ◽  
Mental Health Screen ◽  
Juvenile Facilities ◽  
Health Screen ◽  
Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument

Allocating limited mental health resources is a challenge for juvenile justice facilities. We evaluated the clinical utility of the Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument, Version 2 (MAYSI-2)—an instrument designed to aid in this process—in three subsamples of justice-involved youth (ages 14-17): detained girls ( n = 69), detained boys ( n = 130), and incarcerated boys ( n = 373). For perspective, we compared its performance (in the incarcerated subsample) to that of the Youth Self-Report (YSR), a more widely-used screen. The MAYSI-2 subscales were moderately useful for detecting relevant diagnoses, and differences were observed across samples. However, as a general mental health screen, the MAYSI-2 performed well (and comparably to the YSR), correctly classifying 66% to 75% of youth. When used to differentiate youth with any and without any disorder, both instruments were effective. Given the MAYSI-2’s practical advantages over the YSR (lower cost, easier administration), it may be a better option for juvenile facilities.

Labelling and drug effects in the treatment of neurotic affective disorders: an experimental investigation

1983 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 399-405 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clive Hyde ◽  
David Goldberg
Keyword(s):  
Affective Disorders ◽  
Significant Interaction ◽  
Therapeutic Response ◽  
Drug Effects ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Anxiety State ◽  
Reactive Depression ◽  
Diagnostic Labels ◽  
Diagnostic Label ◽  
Depressive States

SYNOPSISThis study investigates the effects of assigned diagnostic labels, with their accompanying predictions of therapeutic response, and prescribed psychotropic drugs. It was thought that such ‘labelling’ effects might be important in ambiguous situations, such as neurotic anxiety–depressive states, where diagnoses of ‘reactive depression’ or ‘anxiety state’ might justifiably be made and treatment with either diazepam or nortripyline legitimately given. The depression label and its concomitant two-weekly prediction of improvement with antidepressants produced a set towards slower response with higher self-report depression. Nortriptyline produced significantly more improvement in self-report depression than diazepam in the first 2 weeks of treatment. No significant interaction effects were detected between diagnosis or drug. One month after the initial diagnostic evaluation there were no significant effects from either diagnostic label or drug.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document