Kathryn Fletcher1, Gordon B Parker, Vijaya Manicavasagar. 1. School of Psychiatry, University of New South Wales, NSW, Australia; Black Dog Institute, NSW, Australia. Electronic address: k.fletcher@unsw.edu.au.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: As coping responses have the capacity to distinctly influence the illness course in affective disorders, they form targets for psychological intervention. Beneficial effects have been reported for interventions incorporating adaptive coping in bipolar disorder. Identification of differential coping preferences in bipolar disorder sub-types has etiological and clinical implications. As most studies to date have focused exclusively on bipolar I disorder, the current study examines coping profiles in those with a bipolar I or II disorder, contrasted with unipolar depressive and healthy controls. METHODS: Groups were derived on the basis of agreement between clinician and DSM-IV diagnoses. Participants (94 bipolar I, 114 bipolar II, 109 unipolar recurrent depression, 100 healthy controls) completed coping style measures including the Brief Cope, Responses to Positive Affect questionnaire, Response Styles Questionnaire, the Coping Inventory for Prodromes of Mania, and the Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire. RESULTS: Bipolar (I and II) participants were more likely than unipolar participants to ruminate about positive affect, and engage in risk taking when faced with negative affect. Medication status and current mood symptoms influenced risk-taking scores in the bipolar sub-sets, however rumination about positive affect appeared to represent a trait-like response in those with a bipolar II disorder. Behavioral coping strategies differentiated bipolar sub-types, with bipolar II participants being less likely to seek support when faced with stress, and less likely to engage in strategies to down-regulate hypomania. CONCLUSION: Coping style differences were observed between bipolar sub-types. Further consideration of such differentiating characteristics should serve to direct the focus towards specific targets for clinical intervention, reflecting nuances integral to the differing conditions.
OBJECTIVE: As coping responses have the capacity to distinctly influence the illness course in affective disorders, they form targets for psychological intervention. Beneficial effects have been reported for interventions incorporating adaptive coping in bipolar disorder. Identification of differential coping preferences in bipolar disorder sub-types has etiological and clinical implications. As most studies to date have focused exclusively on bipolar I disorder, the current study examines coping profiles in those with a bipolar I or II disorder, contrasted with unipolar depressive and healthy controls. METHODS: Groups were derived on the basis of agreement between clinician and DSM-IV diagnoses. Participants (94 bipolar I, 114 bipolar II, 109 unipolar recurrent depression, 100 healthy controls) completed coping style measures including the Brief Cope, Responses to Positive Affect questionnaire, Response Styles Questionnaire, the Coping Inventory for Prodromes of Mania, and the Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire. RESULTS: Bipolar (I and II) participants were more likely than unipolar participants to ruminate about positive affect, and engage in risk taking when faced with negative affect. Medication status and current mood symptoms influenced risk-taking scores in the bipolar sub-sets, however rumination about positive affect appeared to represent a trait-like response in those with a bipolar II disorder. Behavioral coping strategies differentiated bipolar sub-types, with bipolar IIparticipants being less likely to seek support when faced with stress, and less likely to engage in strategies to down-regulate hypomania. CONCLUSION: Coping style differences were observed between bipolar sub-types. Further consideration of such differentiating characteristics should serve to direct the focus towards specific targets for clinical intervention, reflecting nuances integral to the differing conditions.
Authors: Fiona Lobban; Nadia Akers; Duncan Appelbe; Rossella Iraci Capuccinello; Lesley Chapman; Lizzi Collinge; Susanna Dodd; Sue Flowers; Bruce Hollingsworth; Mahsa Honary; Sonia Johnson; Steven H Jones; Ceu Mateus; Barbara Mezes; Elizabeth Murray; Katerina Panagaki; Naomi Rainford; Heather Robinson; Anna Rosala-Hallas; William Sellwood; Andrew Walker; Paula R Williamson Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Natalio Extremera; Cirenia Quintana-Orts; Nicolás Sánchez-Álvarez; Lourdes Rey Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-08-28 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Fiona Lobban; Nadia Akers; Duncan Appelbe; Lesley Chapman; Lizzi Collinge; Susanna Dodd; Sue Flowers; Bruce Hollingsworth; Sonia Johnson; Steven H Jones; Ceu Mateus; Barbara Mezes; Elizabeth Murray; Katerina Panagaki; Naomi Rainford; Heather Robinson; Anna Rosala-Hallas; William Sellwood; Andrew Walker; Paula Williamson Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2020-04-14 Impact factor: 3.630