Continuum of depressive and manic mixed states in patients with bipolar disorder: quantitative measurement and clinical features.

Bipolar mixed states combine depressive and manic features, presenting diagnostic and treatment challenges and reflecting a severe form of the illness. DSM-IV criteria for a mixed state require combined depressive and manic syndromes, but a range of mixed states has been described clinically. A unified definition of mixed states would be valuable in understanding their diagnosis, mechanism and treatment implications. We investigated the manner in which depressive and manic features combine to produce a continuum of mixed states. In 88 subjects with bipolar disorder (DSM-IV), we evaluated symptoms and clinical characteristics, and compared depression-based, mania-based, and other published definitions of mixed states. We developed an index of the extent to which symptoms were mixed (Mixed State Index, MSI) and characterized its relationship to clinical state. Predominately manic and depressive mixed states using criteria from recent literature, as well as Kraepelinian mixed states, had similar symptoms and MSI scores. Anxiety correlated significantly with depression scores in manic subjects and with mania scores in depressed subjects. Discriminant function analysis associated mixed states with symptoms of hyperactivity and negative cognitions, but not subjective depressive or elevated mood. High MSI scores were associated with severe course of illness. For depressive or manic episodes, characteristics of mixed states emerged with two symptoms of the opposite polarity. This was a cross-sectional study. Mixed states appear to be a continuum. An index of the degree to which depressive and manic symptoms combine appears useful in identifying and characterizing mixed states. We propose a depressive or manic episode with three or more symptoms of the opposite polarity as a parsimonious definition of a mixed state.

The welfare state determinants of health: Implications of regimes and pathways

Background. Population health within and between nations is heavily influenced by political determinants, yet these determinants have received significantly less attention than socioeconomic factors in public health. It has been hypothesized that the welfare state, as a political variable, may play a particularly prominent role in affecting both health indicators and health disparities in developed countries. The research, however, provides conflicting evidence regarding the health impact of particular regimes over others and the mechanisms through which the welfare state can most significantly affect health.^ Objective. To perform a systematic review of the literature as a means of exploring what the current research indicates regarding the benefits or detriments of particular regimes styles and the pathways through which the welfare state can impact heath indicators and health disparities within developed countries.^ Methods. A thorough search of the EBSCO, Pubmed, Medline, Web of Science, and Scopus electronic databases was conducted and resulted in the identification of 15 studies that evaluated the association between welfare state regime and population health outcomes, and/or pathways through with the welfare state influences health. ^ Results. Social democratic countries tended to perform best when infant mortality rate (IMR) was the primary outcome of interest, whereas liberal countries performed strongly in relation to self perceived health. The results were mixed regarding welfare state effectiveness in mitigating health inequities, with Christian democratic countries performing as well as social democratic countries. In relation to welfare state pathways, public health spending and medical coverage were associated with positive health indicators. Redistributive impact of the welfare state was also consistently associated with better health outcomes while social security expenditures were not.^ Discussion/Conclusions. Studies consistently discovered a significant relationship between the welfare state and population health and/or health disparities, lending support to the hypothesis that the welfare state is, indeed, an important non-medical determinant of health. However, it is still fairly unclear which welfare state regime may be most protective for health, as results varied according to the measured health indicator. The research regarding welfare state pathways is particularly undeveloped, and does not provide much insight into the importance of in-kind service provision or cash transfers, or targeted or universal approaches to the welfare state. Suggestions to direct future research are provided.^