PubMed · 5100192
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
N S Egnal. 1971-01-02. Understanding reactive depression.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/5100192/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: The authors examined recent changes in the number and proportion of patients prescribed antidepressants by psychiatrists in outpatient private practice and characterized antidepressant prescription patterns by patient age, sex, race, payment source, and clinical diagnosis. METHODS: The authors analyzed physician-reported data from the 1985 and 1993-1994 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, focusing on visits to physicians specializing in psychiatry. Logistic regressions were used to examine associations between survey year and antidepressant prescription, adjusting for the presence of other variables. RESULTS: The proportion of outpatient psychiatric visits in which an antidepressant was prescribed increased from 23.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 19.7%-26.5%) in 1985 to 48.6% (95% CI, 47.5%-49.7%) in 1993-1994. After controlling for several patient variables, psychiatric patients were approximately 2.3 (95% CI, 1.8-2.9) times more likely to receive an antidepressant in 1993-1994 than in 1985. In 1993-1994, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors accounted for approximately half of the psychiatric visits with an antidepressant prescription. Increases in the rate of antidepressant prescription were particularly evident for children and young adults; whites; new patients; and patients with adjustment disorders, personality disorders, depression not otherwise specified or dysthymia, and some anxiety disorders. CONCLUSIONS: During the late 1980s and early 1990s, there was a significant increase in the prescription of antidepressants by office-based psychiatrists. This increase was greatest for patients with less severe psychiatric disorders.
The consultation-liaison (C-L) psychiatry services of seven university teaching hospitals in the United States, Canada, and Australia (the MICRO-CARES Consortium) used a common clinical database to examine 1039 consecutive referrals. A diagnosis of adjustment disorder (AD) was made in 125 patients (12.0%); as the sole diagnosis, in 81 (7.8%); and comorbidly with other Axis I and II diagnoses in 44 (4.2%). It had been considered as a rule-out diagnosis in a further 110 (10.6%). AD with depressed mood, anxious mood, or mixed emotions were the commonest subcategories used. AD was diagnosed comorbidly most frequently with personality disorder and organic mental disorder. Sixty-seven patients (6.4%) were assigned a V code diagnosis only. Patients with AD were referred significantly more often for problems of anxiety, coping, and depression; had less past psychiatric illness; and were rated as functioning better--all consistent with the construct of AD as a maladaptation to a psychosocial stressor. Interventions were similar to those for other Axis I and II diagnoses, in particular, the prescription of antidepressants. Patients with AD required a similar amount of clinical time and resident supervision. It is concluded that AD is an important and time-consuming diagnostic category in C-L psychiatry practice.
It is likely that patients with gynecological cancers are at risk for psychiatric disorders such as major depression and anxiety disorders. However, relatively little attention has been focused on studying these women. We review here papers that report rates and treatment of psychiatric illness in women with gynecological cancer. This small literature suggests that depression, anxiety, and adjustment disorders do occur with heightened frequency, and appear to worsen over the course of treatment persisting well after the initial diagnosis and therapy. Antidepressants are reported to be effective but compliance is often a problem. Limitations in this literature include a paucity of research specific to gynecological cancers, small sample sizes in reports that do exist, and minimal differentiation between the specific cancers and their rates of depression and anxiety. There is a clear need for more clinical and research attention to this at-risk population.