New York State Psychiatric Institute

<h3>Background</h3> Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is one of the most common mental disorders; however, there is no brief clinical measure for assessing GAD. The objective of this study was to develop a brief self-report scale to identify probable cases of GAD and evaluate its reliability and validity. <h3>Methods</h3> A criterion-standard study was performed in 15 primary care clinics in the United States from November 2004 through June 2005. Of a total of 2740 adult patients completing a study questionnaire, 965 patients had a telephone interview with a mental health professional within 1 week. For criterion and construct validity, GAD self-report scale diagnoses were compared with independent diagnoses made by mental health professionals; functional status measures; disability days; and health care use. <h3>Results</h3> A 7-item anxiety scale (GAD-7) had good reliability, as well as criterion, construct, factorial, and procedural validity. A cut point was identified that optimized sensitivity (89%) and specificity (82%). Increasing scores on the scale were strongly associated with multiple domains of functional impairment (all 6 Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form General Health Survey scales and disability days). Although GAD and depression symptoms frequently co-occurred, factor analysis confirmed them as distinct dimensions. Moreover, GAD and depression symptoms had differing but independent effects on functional impairment and disability. There was good agreement between self-report and interviewer-administered versions of the scale. <h3>Conclusion</h3> The GAD-7 is a valid and efficient tool for screening for GAD and assessing its severity in clinical practice and research.

Social science research on stigma has grown dramatically over the past two decades, particularly in social psychology, where researchers have elucidated the ways in which people construct cognitive categories and link those categories to stereotyped beliefs. In the midst of this growth, the stigma concept has been criticized as being too vaguely defined and individually focused. In response to these criticisms, we define stigma as the co-occurrence of its components–labeling, stereotyping, separation, status loss, and discrimination–and further indicate that for stigmatization to occur, power must be exercised. The stigma concept we construct has implications for understanding several core issues in stigma research, ranging from the definition of the concept to the reasons stigma sometimes represents a very persistent predicament in the lives of persons affected by it. Finally, because there are so many stigmatized circumstances and because stigmatizing processes can affect multiple domains of people's lives, stigmatization probably has a dramatic bearing on the distribution of life chances in such areas as earnings, housing, criminal involvement, health, and life itself. It follows that social scientists who are interested in understanding the distribution of such life chances should also be interested in stigma.

A crucial problem in psychiatry, affecting clinical work as well as research, is the generally low reliability of current psychiatric diagnostic procedures. This article describes the development and initial reliability studies of a set of specific diagnostic criteria for a selected group of functional psychiatric disorders, the Research Diagnostic Criteria (RDC). The RDC are being widely used to study a variety of research issues, particularly those related to genetics, psychobiology of selected mental disorders, and treatment outcome. The data presented here indicate high reliability for diagnostic judgments made using these criteria.

and treatable mental disorders presenting in general medical as well as specialty settings. There are a number of case-finding instruments for detecting depression in primary care, ranging from 2 to 28 items.1,2 Typically these can be scored as continuous measures of depression severity and also have established cutpoints above which the probability of major depression is substantially increased. Scores on these various measures tend to be highly correlated3, with little evidence that one measure is superior to any other.1,2,4

BACKGROUND: The relative effectiveness of second-generation (atypical) antipsychotic drugs as compared with that of older agents has been incompletely addressed, though newer agents are currently used far more commonly. We compared a first-generation antipsychotic, perphenazine, with several newer drugs in a double-blind study. METHODS: A total of 1493 patients with schizophrenia were recruited at 57 U.S. sites and randomly assigned to receive olanzapine (7.5 to 30 mg per day), perphenazine (8 to 32 mg per day), quetiapine (200 to 800 mg per day), or risperidone (1.5 to 6.0 mg per day) for up to 18 months. Ziprasidone (40 to 160 mg per day) was included after its approval by the Food and Drug Administration. The primary aim was to delineate differences in the overall effectiveness of these five treatments. RESULTS: Overall, 74 percent of patients discontinued the study medication before 18 months (1061 of the 1432 patients who received at least one dose): 64 percent of those assigned to olanzapine, 75 percent of those assigned to perphenazine, 82 percent of those assigned to quetiapine, 74 percent of those assigned to risperidone, and 79 percent of those assigned to ziprasidone. The time to the discontinuation of treatment for any cause was significantly longer in the olanzapine group than in the quetiapine (P<0.001) or risperidone (P=0.002) group, but not in the perphenazine (P=0.021) or ziprasidone (P=0.028) group. The times to discontinuation because of intolerable side effects were similar among the groups, but the rates differed (P=0.04); olanzapine was associated with more discontinuation for weight gain or metabolic effects, and perphenazine was associated with more discontinuation for extrapyramidal effects. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients in each group discontinued their assigned treatment owing to inefficacy or intolerable side effects or for other reasons. Olanzapine was the most effective in terms of the rates of discontinuation, and the efficacy of the conventional antipsychotic agent perphenazine appeared similar to that of quetiapine, risperidone, and ziprasidone. Olanzapine was associated with greater weight gain and increases in measures of glucose and lipid metabolism.

The Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia (SADS) was developed to reduce information variance in both the descriptive and diagnostic evaluation of a subject. The SADS is unique among rating scales in that it provides for (1) a detailed description of the features of the current episodes of illness when they were at their most severe; (2) a description of the level of severity of manifestations of major dimensions of psychopathology during the week preceding the evaluation, which can then be used as a measure of change; (3) a progression of questions and criteria, which provides information for making diagnoses; and (4) a detailed description of past psychopathology and functioning relevant to an evaluation of diagnosis, prognosis, and overall severity of disturbance. This article reports on initial scale development and reliability studies of the items and the scale scores.

One of the most remarkable aspects of an animal's behavior is the ability to modify that behavior by learning, an ability that reaches its highest form in human beings. For me, learning and memory have proven to be endlessly fascinating mental processes because they address one of the fundamental features of human activity: our ability to acquire new ideas from experience and to retain these ideas over time in memory. Moreover, unlike other mental processes such as thought, language, and consciousness, learning seemed from the outset to be readily accessible to cellular and molecular analysis. I, therefore, have been curious to know: What changes in the brain when we learn? And, once something is learned, how is that information retained in the brain? I have tried to address these questions through a reductionist approach that would allow me to investigate elementary forms of learning and memory at a cellular molecular level-as specific molecular activities within identified nerve cells.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the National Institute of Mental Health Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children Version IV (NIMH DISC-IV) and how it differs from earlier versions of the interview. The NIMH DISC-IV is a highly structured diagnostic interview, designed to assess more than 30 psychiatric disorders occurring in children and adolescents, and can be administered by "lay" interviewers after a minimal training period. The interview is available in both English and Spanish versions. METHOD: An editorial board was established in 1992 to guide DISC development and ensure that a standard version of the instrument is maintained. Preliminary reliability and acceptability results of the NIMH DISC-IV in a clinical sample of 84 parents and 82 children (aged 9-17 years) drawn from outpatient child and adolescent psychiatric clinics at 3 sites are presented. Results of the previous version in a community sample are reviewed. RESULTS: Despite its greater length and complexity, the NIMH DISC-IV compares favorably with earlier versions. Alternative versions of the interview are in development (the Present State DISC, the Teacher DISC, the Quick DISC, the Voice DISC). CONCLUSIONS: The NIMH DISC is an acceptable, inexpensive, and convenient instrument for ascertaining a comprehensive range of child and adolescent diagnoses.

Chronic pain is a major source of suffering. It interferes with daily functioning and often is accompanied by distress. Yet, in the International Classification of Diseases, chronic pain diagnoses are not represented systematically. The lack of appropriate codes renders accurate epidemiological investigations difficult and impedes health policy decisions regarding chronic pain such as adequate financing of access to multimodal pain management. In cooperation with the WHO, an IASP Working Group has developed a classification system that is applicable in a wide range of contexts, including pain medicine, primary care, and low-resource environments. Chronic pain is defined as pain that persists or recurs for more than 3 months. In chronic pain syndromes, pain can be the sole or a leading complaint and requires special treatment and care. In conditions such as fibromyalgia or nonspecific low-back pain, chronic pain may be conceived as a disease in its own right; in our proposal, we call this subgroup "chronic primary pain." In 6 other subgroups, pain is secondary to an underlying disease: chronic cancer-related pain, chronic neuropathic pain, chronic secondary visceral pain, chronic posttraumatic and postsurgical pain, chronic secondary headache and orofacial pain, and chronic secondary musculoskeletal pain. These conditions are summarized as "chronic secondary pain" where pain may at least initially be conceived as a symptom. Implementation of these codes in the upcoming 11th edition of International Classification of Diseases will lead to improved classification and diagnostic coding, thereby advancing the recognition of chronic pain as a health condition in its own right.

Extensive epidemiologic studies have suggested that adult disease risk is associated with adverse environmental conditions early in development. Although the mechanisms behind these relationships are unclear, an involvement of epigenetic dysregulation has been hypothesized. Here we show that individuals who were prenatally exposed to famine during the Dutch Hunger Winter in 1944-45 had, 6 decades later, less DNA methylation of the imprinted IGF2 gene compared with their unexposed, same-sex siblings. The association was specific for periconceptional exposure, reinforcing that very early mammalian development is a crucial period for establishing and maintaining epigenetic marks. These data are the first to contribute empirical support for the hypothesis that early-life environmental conditions can cause epigenetic changes in humans that persist throughout life.

CONTEXT: Epidemiologic information is important to inform etiological research and service delivery planning. However, current information on the epidemiology of alcohol use disorders in the United States is lacking. OBJECTIVES: To present nationally representative findings on the prevalence, correlates, psychiatric comorbidity, and treatment of DSM-IV alcohol abuse and dependence. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Face-to-face interviews with a representative US adult sample (N = 43 093). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Lifetime and 12-month DSM-IV alcohol abuse and dependence. RESULTS: Prevalence of lifetime and 12-month alcohol abuse was 17.8% and 4.7%; prevalence of lifetime and 12-month alcohol dependence was 12.5% and 3.8%. Alcohol dependence was significantly more prevalent among men, whites, Native Americans, younger and unmarried adults, and those with lower incomes. Current alcohol abuse was more prevalent among men, whites, and younger and unmarried individuals while lifetime rates were highest among middle-aged Americans. Significant disability was particularly associated with alcohol dependence. Only 24.1% of those with alcohol dependence were ever treated, slightly less than the treatment rate found 10 years earlier. Strong associations between other substance use disorders and alcohol use disorders (odds ratios, 2.0-18.7) were lower but remained strong and significant (odds ratios, 1.8-7.5) when controlling for other comorbidity. Significant associations between mood, anxiety, and personality disorders and alcohol dependence (odds ratios, 2.1-4.8) were reduced in number and magnitude (odds ratios, 1.5-2.0) when controlling for other comorbidity. CONCLUSIONS: Alcohol abuse and dependence remain highly prevalent and disabling. Comorbidity of alcohol dependence with other substance disorders appears due in part to unique factors underlying etiology for each pair of disorders studied while comorbidity of alcohol dependence with mood, anxiety, and personality disorders appears more attributable to factors shared among these other disorders. Persistent low treatment rates given the availability of effective treatments indicate the need for vigorous education efforts for the public and professionals.

CONTEXT: In 2002, an estimated 877,000 lives were lost worldwide through suicide. Some developed nations have implemented national suicide prevention plans. Although these plans generally propose multiple interventions, their effectiveness is rarely evaluated. OBJECTIVES: To examine evidence for the effectiveness of specific suicide-preventive interventions and to make recommendations for future prevention programs and research. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: Relevant publications were identified via electronic searches of MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and PsychINFO databases using multiple search terms related to suicide prevention. Studies, published between 1966 and June 2005, included those that evaluated preventative interventions in major domains; education and awareness for the general public and for professionals; screening tools for at-risk individuals; treatment of psychiatric disorders; restricting access to lethal means; and responsible media reporting of suicide. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted on primary outcomes of interest: suicidal behavior (completion, attempt, ideation), intermediary or secondary outcomes (treatment seeking, identification of at-risk individuals, antidepressant prescription/use rates, referrals), or both. Experts from 15 countries reviewed all studies. Included articles were those that reported on completed and attempted suicide and suicidal ideation; or, where applicable, intermediate outcomes, including help-seeking behavior, identification of at-risk individuals, entry into treatment, and antidepressant prescription rates. We included 3 major types of studies for which the research question was clearly defined: systematic reviews and meta-analyses (n = 10); quantitative studies, either randomized controlled trials (n = 18) or cohort studies (n = 24); and ecological, or population- based studies (n = 41). Heterogeneity of study populations and methodology did not permit formal meta-analysis; thus, a narrative synthesis is presented. DATA SYNTHESIS: Education of physicians and restricting access to lethal means were found to prevent suicide. Other methods including public education, screening programs, and media education need more testing. CONCLUSIONS: Physician education in depression recognition and treatment and restricting access to lethal methods reduce suicide rates. Other interventions need more evidence of efficacy. Ascertaining which components of suicide prevention programs are effective in reducing rates of suicide and suicide attempt is essential in order to optimize use of limited resources.

Objective: Despite growing interest in adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), little is known about its prevalence or correlates. Method: A screen for adult ADHD was included in a probability subsample (N=3,199) of 18–44-year-old respondents in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication, a nationally representative household survey that used a lay-administered diagnostic interview to assess a wide range of DSM-IV disorders. Blinded clinical follow-up interviews of adult ADHD were carried out with 154 respondents, oversampling those with positive screen results. Multiple imputation was used to estimate prevalence and correlates of clinician-assessed adult ADHD. Results: The estimated prevalence of current adult ADHD was 4.4%. Significant correlates included being male, previously married, unemployed, and non-Hispanic white. Adult ADHD was highly comorbid with many other DSM-IV disorders assessed in the survey and was associated with substantial role impairment. The majority of cases were untreated, although many individuals had obtained treatment for other comorbid mental and substance-related disorders. Conclusions: Efforts are needed to increase the detection and treatment of adult ADHD. Research is needed to determine whether effective treatment would reduce the onset, persistence, and severity of disorders that co-occur with adult ADHD.

1. Introduction Chronic pain has been recognized as pain that persists past normal healing time5 and hence lacks the acute warning function of physiological nociception.35 Usually pain is regarded as chronic when it lasts or recurs for more than 3 to 6 months.29 Chronic pain is a frequent condition, affecting an estimated 20% of people worldwide6,13,14,18 and accounting for 15% to 20% of physician visits.25,28 Chronic pain should receive greater attention as a global health priority because adequate pain treatment is a human right, and it is the duty of any health care system to provide it.4,13 The current version of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) of the World Health Organization (WHO) includes some diagnostic codes for chronic pain conditions, but these diagnoses do not reflect the actual epidemiology of chronic pain, nor are they categorized in a systematic manner. The ICD is the preeminent tool for coding diagnoses and documenting investigations or therapeutic measures within the health care systems of many countries. In addition, ICD codes are commonly used to report target diseases and comorbidities of participants in clinical research. Consequently, the current lack of adequate coding in the ICD makes the acquisition of accurate epidemiological data related to chronic pain difficult, prevents adequate billing for health care expenses related to pain treatment, and hinders the development and implementation of new therapies.10,11,16,23,27,31,37 Responding to these shortcomings, the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) contacted the WHO and established a Task Force for the Classification of Chronic Pain. The IASP Task Force, which comprises pain experts from across the globe,19 has developed a new and pragmatic classification of chronic pain for the upcoming 11th revision of the ICD. The goal is to create a classification system that is applicable in primary care and in clinical settings for specialized pain management. A major challenge in this process was finding a rational principle of classification that suits the different types of chronic pain and fits into the general ICD-11 framework. Pain categories are variably defined based on the perceived location (headache), etiology (cancer pain), or the primarily affected anatomical system (neuropathic pain). Some diagnoses of pain defy these classification principles (fibromyalgia). This problem is not unique to the classification of pain, but exists throughout the ICD. The IASP Task Force decided to give first priority to pain etiology, followed by underlying pathophysiological mechanisms, and finally the body site. Developing this multilayered classification was greatly facilitated by a novel principle of assigning diagnostic codes in ICD-11, termed “multiple parenting.” Multiple parenting allows the same diagnosis to be subsumed under more than 1 category (for a glossary of ICD terms refer to Table 1). Each diagnosis retains 1 category as primary parent, but is cross-referenced to other categories that function as secondary parents.Table 1: Glossary of ICD-11 terms.The new ICD category for “Chronic Pain” comprises the most common clinically relevant disorders. These disorders were divided into 7 groups (Fig. 1): (1) chronic primary pain, (2) chronic cancer pain, (3) chronic posttraumatic and postsurgical pain, (4) chronic neuropathic pain, (5) chronic headache and orofacial pain, (6) chronic visceral pain, and (7) chronic musculoskeletal pain. Experts assigned to each group are responsible for the definition of diagnostic criteria and the selection of the diagnoses to be included under these subcategories of chronic pain. Thanks to Bedirhan Üstün and Robert Jakob of the WHO, these pain diagnoses are now integrated in the beta version of ICD-11 (http://id.who.int/icd/entity/1581976053). The Task Force is generating content models for single entities to describe their clinical characteristics. After peer review overseen by the WHO Steering Committee,39 the classification of chronic pain will be voted into action by the World Health Assembly in 2017.Figure 1: Organizational chart of Task Force, IASP, and WHO interactions. The IASP Task Force was created by the IASP council and its scope defined in direct consultation of the chairs (R.D.T. and W.R.) with WHO representatives in 2012. The Task Force reports to the IASP Council on an annual basis.2. Classification of chronic pain Chronic pain was defined as persistent or recurrent pain lasting longer than 3 months. This definition according to pain duration has the advantage that it is clear and operationalized. Optional specifiers for each diagnosis record evidence of psychosocial factors and the severity of the pain. Pain severity can be graded based on pain intensity, pain-related distress, and functional impairment. 2.1. Chronic primary pain Chronic primary pain is pain in 1 or more anatomic regions that persists or recurs for longer than 3 months and is associated with significant emotional distress or significant functional disability (interference with activities of daily life and participation in social roles) and that cannot be better explained by another chronic pain condition. This is a new phenomenological definition, created because the etiology is unknown for many forms of chronic pain. Common conditions such as, eg, back pain that is neither identified as musculoskeletal or neuropathic pain, chronic widespread pain, fibromyalgia, and irritable bowel syndrome will be found in this section and biological findings contributing to the pain problem may or may not be present. The term “primary pain” was chosen in close liaison with the ICD-11 revision committee, who felt this was the most widely acceptable term, in particular, from a nonspecialist perspective. 2.2. Chronic cancer pain Pain is a frequent and debilitating accompaniment of cancer8 that as yet has not been represented in the ICD. The Task Force decided to list it as a separate entity because there are specific treatment guidelines.7,38 Chronic cancer pain includes pain caused by the cancer itself (the primary tumor or metastases) and pain that is caused by the cancer treatment (surgical, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and others). Cancer-related pain will be subdivided based on location into visceral, bony (or musculoskeletal), and somatosensory (neuropathic). It will be described as either continuous (background pain) or intermittent (episodic pain) if associated with physical movement or clinical procedures. The treatment-related pain will be cross-referenced from the chapters on postsurgical pain and neuropathic pain. 2.3. Chronic postsurgical and posttraumatic pain Because pain that persists beyond normal healing is frequent after surgery and some types of injuries, the entity of postsurgical and posttraumatic pain was created. This is defined as pain that develops after a surgical procedure or a tissue injury (involving any trauma, including burns) and persists at least 3 months after surgery or tissue trauma26; this is a definition of exclusion, as all other causes of pain (infection, recurring malignancy) as well as pain from a pre-existing pain problem need to be excluded. In view of the different causality, as well as from a medicolegal point of view, a separation between postsurgical pain and pain after all other trauma is regarded as useful. Depending on the type of surgery, chronic postsurgical pain is often neuropathic pain (on average 30% of cases with a range from 6% to 54% and more).15 Pain including such a neuropathic component is usually more severe than nociceptive pain and often affects the quality of life more adversely.21 2.4. Chronic neuropathic pain Chronic neuropathic pain is caused by a lesion or disease of the somatosensory nervous system.20,22 The somatosensory nervous system provides information about the body including skin, musculoskeletal, and visceral organs. Neuropathic pain may be spontaneous or evoked, as an increased response to a painful stimulus (hyperalgesia) or a painful response to a normally nonpainful stimulus (allodynia). The diagnosis of neuropathic pain requires a history of nervous system injury, for example, by a stroke, nerve trauma, or diabetic neuropathy, and a neuroanatomically plausible distribution of the pain.22 For the identification of definite neuropathic pain, it is necessary to demonstrate the lesion or disease involving the nervous system, for example, by imaging, biopsy, neurophysiological, or laboratory tests. In addition, negative or positive sensory signs compatible with the innervation territory of the lesioned nervous structure must be present.36 Diagnostic entities within this category will be divided into conditions of peripheral or central neuropathic pain. 2.5. Chronic headache and orofacial pain The International Headache Society (IHS) has created a headache classification17 that is implemented in full in the chapter on neurology. This classification differentiates between primary (idiopathic), secondary (symptomatic) headache, and orofacial pain including cranial neuralgias. In the section on chronic pain, only chronic headache and chronic orofacial pain will be included. Chronic headache and chronic orofacial pain is defined as headaches or orofacial pains that occur on at least 50% of the days during at least 3 months. For most purposes, patients receive a diagnosis according to the headache phenotypes or orofacial pains that they currently present. The section will list the most frequent chronic headache conditions. The most common chronic orofacial pains are temporomandibular disorders,32 which have been included in this subchapter of chronic pain. Chronic orofacial pain can be a localized presentation of a primary headache.2 This is common in the trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias, less common in migraines, and rare in tension-type headache. Several chronic orofacial pains such as post-traumatic trigeminal neuropathic pain,3 persistent idiopathic orofacial pain, and burning mouth syndrome are cross-referenced to, eg, primary chronic pain and neuropathic pain. The temporal definition of “chronic” has been extrapolated from that of chronic headaches.1 2.6. Chronic visceral pain Chronic visceral pain is persistent or recurrent pain that originates from the internal organs of the head and neck region and the thoracic, abdominal, and pelvic cavities.24,33,34 The pain is usually perceived in the somatic tissues of the body wall (skin, subcutis, muscle) in areas that receive the same sensory innervation as the internal organ at the origin of the symptom (referred visceral pain).12 In these areas, secondary hyperalgesia (increased sensitivity to painful stimuli in areas other than the primary site of the nociceptive input) often occurs30; the intensity of the symptom may bear no relationship with the extent of the internal damage or noxious visceral stimulation.9 The section on visceral pain will be subdivided according to the major underlying mechanisms, ie, persistent inflammation, vascular mechanisms (ischemia, thrombosis), obstruction and distension, traction and compression, combined mechanisms (eg, obstruction and inflammation concurrently), and referral from other locations. Pain due to cancer will be cross-referenced to the chapter chronic cancer pain and pain due to functional or unexplained mechanisms to chronic primary pain. 2.7. Chronic musculoskeletal pain Chronic musculoskeletal pain is defined as persistent or recurrent pain that arises as part of a disease process directly affecting bone(s), joint(s), muscle(s), or related soft tissue(s). According to the constraints of the approach as described in the Introduction, this category is therefore limited to nociceptive pain and does not include pain that may be perceived in musculoskeletal tissues but does not arise therefrom, such as the pain of compression neuropathy or somatic referred pain. The entities subsumed in this approach include those characterized by persistent inflammation of infectious, autoimmune or metabolic etiology, such as rheumatoid arthritis, and by structural changes affecting bones, joints, tendons, or muscles, such as symptomatic osteoarthrosis. Musculoskeletal pain of neuropathic origin will be cross-referenced to neuropathic pain. Well-described apparent musculoskeletal conditions for which the causes are incompletely understood, such as nonspecific back pain or chronic widespread pain, will be included in the section on chronic primary pain. 3. Outlook Irrespective of its etiology, chronic pain is a major source of suffering and requires special treatment and care. Our proposal may not represent a perfect solution for the classification of all manifestations of chronic pain. However, it does represent the first systematic approach to implementing a classification of chronic pain in the ICD. It is based on international expertise and agreement, and consistent with the requirements of the ICD regarding the structure and format of content models. The 7 major categories of chronic pain were identified after considerable research and discussion. They represent a compromise between comprehensiveness and practical applicability of the classification system. Several clinically important conditions that were neglected in former ICD revisions will now be mentioned, eg, chronic cancer pain or chronic neuropathic pain. Etiological factors, pain intensity, and disability related to pain will be reflected. With the introduction of chronic primary pain as a new diagnostic entity, the classification recognizes conditions that affect a broad group of patients with pain and would be neglected in etiologically defined categories. We hope that this classification strengthens the representation of chronic pain conditions in clinical practice and research and welcome comments to improve it further. Conflict of interest statement Q. Aziz has attended advisory board meetings for Almirall pharmaceuticals and Grunenthal. He has also received funding for clinical trials from Ono Pharmaceutical and Protexin. M.I. Bennett has received consultancy or speaker fees from Pfizer, Bayer, Astellas, and Grunenthal in the last 5 years. M. Cohen has received honoraria for contributions to educational programs from Mundipharma Pty Limited and Pfizer. S. Evers received honoraria (as speaker and/or member of advisory boards) and research grants within the past 5 years by AGA Medical (now St Jude), Allergan, Almirall, Astra Zeneca, Berlin-Chemie, CoLucid, Desitin, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Ipsen Pharma, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Reckitt-Benckiser, UCB. N.B. Finnerup has received speaker's honoraria from Pfizer, Grunenthal, and Norpharma, research grant from Grünenthal, and consultancy fee from Astellas and is member of the IMI “Europain” collaboration where industry members of this are: Astra Zeneca, Pfizer, Esteve, UCB-Pharma, Sanofi Aventis, Grünenthal, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Astellas, Abbott, and Lundbeck. M.B. First on the faculty of the Lundbeck International Neuroscience Foundation. In the past 2 years, M.A. Giamberardino received research funding or honoraria (participation in Advisory Board) from Bayer Healthcare, Helsinn, and Epitech Group. S. Kaasa declares no conflict of interest related to this work. In the past year he received honoraria from Helsinn related to participation in Advisory Board. E. Kosek has received consultancy and speaker fees in the past 24 months from Eli Lilly and Company and Orion and has ongoing research collaborations with Eli Lilly and Company and Abbott and Pierre Fabre. M. Nicholas received honoraria for contributing to educational sessions for Mundipharma and Pfizer in the last 5 years. S. Perrot received honoraria as a speaker and/or member of the advisory board in the past 5 years from Pfizer, BMS, Grunenthal, Elli Lilly, Sanofi, Daichi-Sankyo, Astellas, and Mundipharma. He has received grant support from BMS. W. Rief received honoraria (as speaker and/or member of advisory boards on topics such as adherence, placebo mechanisms) within the past 5 years from Berlin Chemie, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Heel (research grant). J. Scholz has received speaker fees from Convergence, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, St Jude Medical, and Zalicus. He has served on advisory boards or consulted for Convergence, Pfizer, Sanofi Aventis, and Zalicus Pharmaceuticals. He has received grant support from GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer. In the last 5 years, the Anaesthesiology Unit of the University of Western Australia, but not S. Schug personally, has received research and travel funding and speaking and consulting honoraria from bioCSL, Bionomics, Eli Lilly, Grunenthal, Janssen, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Phosphagenics and iX Biopharma within the last 2 years. B.H. Smith has received lecture and consultancy fees, on behalf of his institution, from Pfizer, Grunenthal, Eli Lilly, and Napp. He has received unconditional educational grants from Pfizer Ltd; and he has received travel and accommodation support from Napp. P. Svensson served as a paid consultant for Sunstar Suisse SA. R.-D. Treede has received speaker's honoraria, research grants or consultancy fees from AbbVie, Acron, Astellas, Bauerfeind, Boehringer Ingelheim, Grünenthal, Hydra, Mundipharma, and Pfizer and is a member of the IMI “Europain” collaboration where industry members of this are: Astra Zeneca, Pfizer, Esteve, UCB-Pharma, Sanofi Aventis, Grünenthal, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Astellas, Abbott, and Lundbeck. J.W.S. Vlaeyen is a member of the PHILIPS advisory board on pain management and declares no conflicts of interest with regard to this work. S.-J. Wang has served on the advisory boards of Allergan and Eli Lilly, Taiwan. He has received speaking honoraria from local companies (Taiwan branches) of Pfizer, Elli Lilly, and GSK. He has received research grants from the Novartis Taiwan, Taiwan Ministry of Science and Technology, Taipei-Veterans General Hospital and Taiwan Headache Society. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. Acknowledgements The authors are members of the Classification of Pain Diseases Task Force of the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP), which gave logistical and financial support to perform this work. We acknowledge the contributions of the following IASP Special Interest Groups (SIGs): Abdominal & Pelvic Pain SIG, Acute Pain SIG, Cancer Pain SIG, Neuropathic Pain SIG and the Orofacial Pain SIG, and the Classification Committee of the International Headache Society (IHS). Author contributions: R.-D. Treede, W. Rief, and A. Barke contributed equally to this topical review.

The circumplex model of affect proposes that all affective states arise from cognitive interpretations of core neural sensations that are the product of two independent neurophysiological systems. This model stands in contrast to theories of basic emotions, which posit that a discrete and independent neural system subserves every emotion. We propose that basic emotion theories no longer explain adequately the vast number of empirical observations from studies in affective neuroscience, and we suggest that a conceptual shift is needed in the empirical approaches taken to the study of emotion and affective psychopathologies. The circumplex model of affect is more consistent with many recent findings from behavioral, cognitive neuroscience, neuroimaging, and developmental studies of affect. Moreover, the model offers new theoretical and empirical approaches to studying the development of affective disorders as well as the genetic and cognitive underpinnings of affective processing within the central nervous system. This work was supported in part by NIMH Grants MH01232, MH59139, MH36197, MHK02-74677, and MH068318; a grant from the National Alliance for Research in Schizophrenia and Affective Disorders (NARSAD); NSF Grant BSC-0421702; and funding from the Thomas D. Klingenstein and Nancy D. Perlman Family Fund and the Suzanne Crosby Murphy Endowment at Columbia University.

IMPORTANCE: National epidemiologic information from recently collected data on the new DSM-5 classification of alcohol use disorder (AUD) using a reliable, valid, and uniform data source is needed. OBJECTIVE: To present nationally representative findings on the prevalence, correlates, psychiatric comorbidity, associated disability, and treatment of DSM-5 AUD diagnoses overall and according to severity level (mild, moderate, or severe). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted face-to-face interviews with a representative US noninstitutionalized civilian adult (≥18 years) sample (N = 36 309) as the 2012-2013 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions III (NESARC-III). Data were collected from April 2012 through June 2013 and analyzed in October 2014. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Twelve-month and lifetime prevalences of AUD. RESULTS: Twelve-month and lifetime prevalences of AUD were 13.9% and 29.1%, respectively. Prevalence was generally highest for men (17.6% and 36.0%, respectively), white (14.0% and 32.6%, respectively) and Native American (19.2% and 43.4%, respectively), respondents, and younger (26.7% and 37.0%, respectively) and previously married (11.4% and 27.1%, respectively) or never married (25.0% and 35.5%, respectively) adults. Prevalence of 12-month and lifetime severe AUD was greatest among respondents with the lowest income level (1.8% and 1.5%, respectively). Significant disability was associated with 12-month and lifetime AUD and increased with the severity of AUD. Only 19.8% of respondents with lifetime AUD were ever treated. Significant associations were found between 12-month and lifetime AUD and other substance use disorders, major depressive and bipolar I disorders, and antisocial and borderline personality disorders across all levels of AUD severity, with odds ratios ranging from 1.2 (95% CI, 1.08-1.36) to 6.4 (95% CI, 5.76-7.22). Associations between AUD and panic disorder, specific phobia, and generalized anxiety disorder were modest (odds ratios ranged from 1.2 (95% CI, 1.01-1.43) to 1.4 (95% CI, 1.13-1.67) across most levels of AUD severity. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Alcohol use disorder defined by DSM-5 criteria is a highly prevalent, highly comorbid, disabling disorder that often goes untreated in the United States. The NESARC-III data indicate an urgent need to educate the public and policy makers about AUD and its treatment alternatives, to destigmatize the disorder, and to encourage those who cannot reduce their alcohol consumption on their own, despite substantial harm to themselves and others, to seek treatment.

Link and Phelan (1995) developed the theory of fundamental causes to explain why the association between socioeconomic status (SES) and mortality has persisted despite radical changes in the diseases and risk factors that are presumed to explain it. They proposed that the enduring association results because SES embodies an array of resources, such as money, knowledge, prestige, power, and beneficial social connections that protect health no matter what mechanisms are relevant at any given time. In this article, we explicate the theory, review key findings, discuss refinements and limits to the theory, and discuss implications for health policies that might reduce health inequalities. We advocate policies that encourage medical and other health-promoting advances while at the same time breaking or weakening the link between these advances and socioeconomic resources. This can be accomplished either by reducing disparities in socioeconomic resources themselves or by developing interventions that, by their nature, are more equally distributed across SES groups.

The SOC-8 guidelines are intended to be flexible to meet the diverse health care needs of TGD people globally. While adaptable, they offer standards for promoting optimal health care and guidance for the treatment of people experiencing gender incongruence. As in all previous versions of the SOC, the criteria set forth in this document for gender-affirming medical interventions are clinical guidelines; individual health care professionals and programs may modify these in consultation with the TGD person.

The odds ratio (OR) is probably the most widely used index of effect size in epidemiological studies. The difficulty of interpreting the OR has troubled many clinical researchers and epidemiologists for a long time. We propose a new method for interpreting the size of the OR by relating it to differences in a normal standard deviate. Our calculations indicate that OR = 1.68, 3.47, and 6.71 are equivalent to Cohen's d = 0.2 (small), 0.5 (medium), and 0.8 (large), respectively, when disease rate is 1% in the nonexposed group; Cohen's d < 0.2 when OR <1.5, and Cohen's d > 0.8 when OR > 5.

OBJECTIVE: Risk factors for suicide attempts have rarely been studied comprehensively in more than one psychiatric disorder, preventing estimation of the relative importance and the generalizability of different putative risk factors across psychiatric diagnoses. The authors conducted a study of suicide attempts in patients with mood disorders, psychoses, and other diagnoses. Their goal was to determine the generalizability and relative importance of risk factors for suicidal acts across diagnostic boundaries and to develop a hypothetical, explanatory, and predictive model of suicidal behavior that can subsequently be tested in a prospective study. METHOD: Following admission to a university psychiatric hospital, 347 consecutive patients who were 14-72 years old (51% were male and 68% were Caucasian) were recruited for study. Structured clinical interviews generated axis I and axis II diagnoses. Lifetime suicidal acts, traits of aggression and impulsivity, objective and subjective severity of acute psychopathology, developmental and family history, and past substance abuse or alcoholism were assessed. RESULTS: Objective severity of current depression or psychosis did not distinguish the 184 patients who had attempted suicide from those who had never attempted suicide. However, higher scores on subjective depression, higher scores on suicidal ideation, and fewer reasons for living were reported by suicide attempters. Rates of lifetime aggression and impulsivity were also greater in attempters. Comorbid borderline personality disorder, smoking, past substance use disorder or alcoholism, family history of suicidal acts, head injury, and childhood abuse history were more frequent in suicide attempters. CONCLUSIONS: The authors propose a stress-diathesis model in which the risk for suicidal acts is determined not merely by a psychiatric illness (the stressor) but also by a diathesis. This diathesis may be reflected in tendencies to experience more suicidal ideation and to be more impulsive and, therefore, more likely to act on suicidal feelings. Prospective studies are proposed to test this model.