Brief reportValidation of the Mood Disorder Questionnaire for screening for bipolar disorder in a UK sample
Introduction
Bipolar disorder often goes unrecognised with delays of 8 years or more common before accurate diagnosis (Lish et al., 1994) which can result in a greater burden of illness, risk of suicide (Dunner, 2003) and inappropriate treatment (Altshuler et al., 1995). Bipolar spectrum disorders have been estimated to cost the UK around £2 billion per annum (Das Gupta and Guest, 2002) and unrecognised cases may have a greater cost for health services than recognised and treated cases (Li et al., 2002, McCombs et al., 2007).
A particular challenge is presented by ‘milder’ forms of bipolar disorder, such as bipolar II disorder and bipolar NOS. These are typically characterised by hypomania which may not be recognised as pathological by the individual or others (Akiskal et al., 2000). Treatment is likely to be sought for depressive episodes alone (Hirschfeld, 2001) often leading to a unipolar rather than bipolar diagnosis (Ghaemi et al., 2000).
The Mood Disorder Questionnaire (MDQ; Hirschfeld et al., 2000) was developed to aid diagnosis of bipolar spectrum disorders. It covers symptom endorsement (Section 1), symptom clustering (Section 2) and severity of problem caused (Section 3) (see Methods). The original validation study reported that the MDQ performed well against DSM-IV diagnosis (sensitivity 0.73, specificity 0.90) in a psychiatric outpatient population. Although questionnaires alone are not an alternative to clinical interview (Miller et al., 2004, Phelps and Ghaemi, 2006) the performance of the MDQ suggested promise for initial screening for bipolar disorder in primary care and busy psychiatric clinics.
MDQ validation studies in different US settings (Hirshfeld et al., 2003, Graves et al., 2007, Hirschfeld et al., 2005, Kemp et al., 2008, Miller et al., 2004) and in other countries (Hardoy et al., 2005, Isometsa et al., 2003, Konuk et al., 2007, Vieta et al., 2007, Weber Rouget et al., 2005) indicate that its psychometric properties vary somewhat according to the population studied. Its sensitivity, especially for bipolar II disorder, has been reported to be improved by exclusion or modification of Section 3 without markedly impairing its specificity (Benazzi, 2003, Isometsa et al., 2003, Kemp et al., 2008, Miller et al., 2004, Weber Rouget et al., 2005).
No validation studies of the MDQ have been reported for a UK sample. Given the importance of early detection of bipolar spectrum disorder, the aims of the present study were to validate the MDQ in a UK sample, to assess sensitivity and specificity scores of the MDQ for bipolar I and bipolar II groups using the original cut-off guidelines and to assess its performance without Sections 2 and 3.
Section snippets
Methods
Participants were sequential outpatient attendees of a tertiary NHS Specialist Service for Affective Disorders who completed the MDQ and then received a semi-structured clinical interview covering current and past mood disorder (DSM-IV-TR diagnosis; American Psychiatric Association, 2000) conducted by experienced psychiatrists who had access to the MDQ results.
The sample consisted of 127 patients; 54 had a bipolar spectrum disorder and 73 a unipolar diagnosis. Participants were English
Results
The bipolar group included 30 bipolar I, 21 bipolar II and 3 bipolar NOS participants; the later two were combined for analysis (called bipolar II). The unipolar group included 68 patients with major depression (18 single episode, 50 recurrent), 3 with depressive disorder NOS and 2 with dysthymic disorder.
Bipolar and unipolar groups did not differ with respect to age (means (sd): bipolar group 44.0 (11.8) years; unipolar group 42.1 (11.8) years) or gender (male 40.7% and 43.8% for bipolar and
Discussion
The MDQ showed good reliability and validity in identifying bipolar disorder in UK patients attending a tertiary clinic. Internal consistency was good (0.91) and comparable with that reported in the original validation study (0.90). Our finding of a higher sensitivity for bipolar I disorder (0.83) than bipolar II disorder (0.67) using the original scoring guidelines is similar to that reported in previous studies (Isometsa et al., 2003, Kemp et al., 2008, Miller et al., 2004, Weber Rouget et
Role of funding source
Nothing declared.
Conflict of interest
No conflict declared.
Acknowledgements
We thank Kirsten Bond for assisting with the collection of the data and Manchester Mental Health and Social Care trust for their facilitation in the study.
References (27)
- et al.
Re-evaluating the prevalence of and diagnostic composition within the broad clinical spectrum of bipolar disorders
J. Affect. Disord.
(2000) - et al.
The dual factor structure of self-rated MDQ hypomania: energized-activity versus irritable-thought racing
J. Affect. Disord.
(2003) - et al.
Screening for bipolar disorder in a county jail at the time of criminal arrest
J. Psychiatr. Res.
(2008) - et al.
The National Depressive and Manic depressive Association (DMDA) survey of bipolar members
J. Affect. Disord.
(1994) - et al.
Cost of treating bipolar disorder in the California Medicaid (Medi-Cal) program
J. Affect. Disord.
(2002) - et al.
The impact of unrecognized bipolar disorders among patients treated for depression with antidepressants in the fee-for-services California Medicaid (Medi-Cal) program: a 6-year retrospective analysis
J. Affect. Disord.
(2007) - et al.
Sensitivity and specificity of the Mood Disorder Questionnaire for detecting bipolar disorder
J. Affect. Disord.
(2004) - et al.
Improving the diagnosis of bipolar disorder: predictive value of screening tests
J. Affect. Disord.
(2006) - et al.
Profiles of ‘‘manic’’ symptoms in bipolar I, bipolar II and major depressive disorders
J. Affect. Disord.
(2005) - et al.
Cross validation with the mood disorder questionnaire (MDQ) of an instrument for the detection of hypomania in Spanish: the 32 item hypomania symptom check list (HCL-32)
J. Affect. Disord.
(2007)