S Marwaha1, Z He1, M Broome1, S P Singh1, J Scott2, J Eyden3, D Wolke1. 1. Division of Mental Health and Wellbeing, Warwick Medical School,University of Warwick,Coventry,UK. 2. Academic Psychiatry, Institute of Neuroscience,Newcastle University,Newcastle upon Tyne,UK. 3. Department of Psychology,University of Warwick,Coventry,UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Affective instability (AI) is poorly defined but considered clinically important. The aim of this study was to examine definitions and measures of AI employed in clinical populations. METHOD: This study was a systematic review using the PRISMA guidelines. MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, PsycArticles and Web of Science databases were searched. Also five journals were hand searched. Primary empirical studies involving randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs, controlled before and after, and observational investigations were included. Studies were selected, data extracted and quality appraised. A narrative synthesis was completed. RESULTS: A total of 11 443 abstracts were screened and 37 studies selected for final analysis on the basis that they provided a definition and measure of AI. Numbers of definitions for each of the terms employed in included studies were: AI (n = 7), affective lability (n = 6), affective dysregulation (n = 1), emotional dysregulation (n = 4), emotion regulation (n = 2), emotional lability (n = 1), mood instability (n = 2), mood lability (n = 1) and mood swings (n = 1); however, these concepts showed considerable overlap in features. A total of 24 distinct measures were identified that could be categorized as primarily measuring one of four facets of AI (oscillation, intensity, ability to regulate and affect change triggered by environment) or as measuring general emotional regulation. CONCLUSIONS: A clearer definition of AI is required. We propose AI be defined as 'rapid oscillations of intense affect, with a difficulty in regulating these oscillations or their behavioural consequences'. No single measure comprehensively assesses AI and a combination of current measures is required for assessment. A new short measure of AI that is reliable and validated against external criteria is needed.
BACKGROUND: Affective instability (AI) is poorly defined but considered clinically important. The aim of this study was to examine definitions and measures of AI employed in clinical populations. METHOD: This study was a systematic review using the PRISMA guidelines. MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, PsycArticles and Web of Science databases were searched. Also five journals were hand searched. Primary empirical studies involving randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs, controlled before and after, and observational investigations were included. Studies were selected, data extracted and quality appraised. A narrative synthesis was completed. RESULTS: A total of 11 443 abstracts were screened and 37 studies selected for final analysis on the basis that they provided a definition and measure of AI. Numbers of definitions for each of the terms employed in included studies were: AI (n = 7), affective lability (n = 6), affective dysregulation (n = 1), emotional dysregulation (n = 4), emotion regulation (n = 2), emotional lability (n = 1), mood instability (n = 2), mood lability (n = 1) and mood swings (n = 1); however, these concepts showed considerable overlap in features. A total of 24 distinct measures were identified that could be categorized as primarily measuring one of four facets of AI (oscillation, intensity, ability to regulate and affect change triggered by environment) or as measuring general emotional regulation. CONCLUSIONS: A clearer definition of AI is required. We propose AI be defined as 'rapid oscillations of intense affect, with a difficulty in regulating these oscillations or their behavioural consequences'. No single measure comprehensively assesses AI and a combination of current measures is required for assessment. A new short measure of AI that is reliable and validated against external criteria is needed.
Authors: Elise K Kalokerinos; Sean C Murphy; Peter Koval; Natasha H Bailen; Geert Crombez; Tom Hollenstein; John Gleeson; Renee J Thompson; Dimitri M L Van Ryckeghem; Peter Kuppens; Brock Bastian Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2020-04-15 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Julie Wagner; Stephen Armeli; Howard Tennen; Angela Bermudez-Millan; Howard Wolpert; Rafael Pérez-Escamilla Journal: Psychosom Med Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 4.312
Authors: Lisa A O'Donnell; Alissa J Ellis; Margaret M Van de Loo; Jonathan P Stange; David A Axelson; Robert A Kowatch; Christopher D Schneck; David J Miklowitz Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2018-04-09 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: Marianne Goodman; David Carpenter; Cheuk Y Tang; Kim E Goldstein; Jennifer Avedon; Nicolas Fernandez; Kathryn A Mascitelli; Nicholas J Blair; Antonia S New; Joseph Triebwasser; Larry J Siever; Erin A Hazlett Journal: J Psychiatr Res Date: 2014-07-02 Impact factor: 4.791
Authors: Jennifer A Silvers; Alexa D Hubbard; Emily Biggs; Jocelyn Shu; Eric Fertuck; Sadia Chaudhury; Michael F Grunebaum; Jochen Weber; Hedy Kober; Megan Chesin; Beth S Brodsky; Harold Koenigsberg; Kevin N Ochsner; Barbara Stanley Journal: Psychiatry Res Neuroimaging Date: 2016-06-21 Impact factor: 2.376
Authors: Lisa M Anderson; Kathryn M Smith; Lauren M Schaefer; Ross D Crosby; Li Cao; Scott G Engel; Scott J Crow; Stephen A Wonderlich; Carol B Peterson Journal: J Consult Clin Psychol Date: 2020-04-27
Authors: Jan Scott; Steven Marwaha; Aswin Ratheesh; Iain Macmillan; Alison R Yung; Richard Morriss; Ian B Hickie; Andreas Bechdolf Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2017-07-01 Impact factor: 9.306