OBJECTIVE: Psychological factors contribute to bipolar disorder illness course, representing targets for psychological intervention. Research to date has focused on bipolar I disorder, extrapolating results to bipolar II disorder. The current study addresses this discrepancy by exploring cognitive and coping styles in patients diagnosed with bipolar I or II disorder. METHODS: Participants were recruited from the Sydney-based Black Dog Institute. Diagnoses were derived via the MINI International Neuropsychiatric Interview. Baseline cognitive and coping style measures were completed, and mood symptoms assessed over a 6-month period. Clinician-rated mood status was assessed at follow-up to determine the predictive utility of cognitive and coping styles. RESULTS: The follow-up sample comprised 151 participants. Differential relationships between cognitive style, coping styles and mood symptoms emerged across the bipolar sub-types. Some key differences were that a broader set of negative cognitive styles were associated with bipolar II depression symptoms; while few relationships were observed between coping styles and bipolar II symptoms. CONCLUSION: Differences in cognitive and coping style relationships with symptom expression across bipolar I and II disorder may provide clinicians with fruitful guides for directing treatment interventions when relevant maladaptive styles are observed. Further exploration of differences in cognitive and coping styles in bipolar I and II disorder is warranted.
OBJECTIVE: Psychological factors contribute to bipolar disorder illness course, representing targets for psychological intervention. Research to date has focused on bipolar I disorder, extrapolating results to bipolar II disorder. The current study addresses this discrepancy by exploring cognitive and coping styles in patients diagnosed with bipolar I or II disorder. METHODS:Participants were recruited from the Sydney-based Black Dog Institute. Diagnoses were derived via the MINI International Neuropsychiatric Interview. Baseline cognitive and coping style measures were completed, and mood symptoms assessed over a 6-month period. Clinician-rated mood status was assessed at follow-up to determine the predictive utility of cognitive and coping styles. RESULTS: The follow-up sample comprised 151 participants. Differential relationships between cognitive style, coping styles and mood symptoms emerged across the bipolar sub-types. Some key differences were that a broader set of negative cognitive styles were associated with bipolar II depression symptoms; while few relationships were observed between coping styles and bipolar II symptoms. CONCLUSION: Differences in cognitive and coping style relationships with symptom expression across bipolar I and II disorder may provide clinicians with fruitful guides for directing treatment interventions when relevant maladaptive styles are observed. Further exploration of differences in cognitive and coping styles in bipolar I and II disorder is warranted.