Janet B. W. Williams

Bio: Janet B. W. Williams is an academic researcher from Columbia University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Personality disorders & Anxiety. The author has an hindex of 73, co-authored 178 publications receiving 217291 citations. Previous affiliations of Janet B. W. Williams include University of York.

A comparison of face-to-face and remote assessment of inter-rater reliability on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale via videoconferencing.

Abstract: Poor inter-rater reliability (IRR) is an important methodological factor that may contribute to failed trials. The sheer number of raters at diverse sites in multicenter trials presents a formidable challenge in calibration. Videoconferencing allows for the evaluation of IRR of raters at diverse sites by enabling raters at different sites to each independently interview a common patient. This is a more rigorous test of IRR than passive rating of videotapes. To evaluate the potential impact of videoconferencing on IRR, we compared IRR obtained via videoconference to IRR obtained using face-to-face interviews. Four raters at three different locations were paired using all pair-wise combinations of raters. Using videoconferencing, each paired rater independently conducted an interview with the same patient, who was at a third, central location. Raters were blind to each others' scores. ICC from this cohort (n = 22) was not significantly different from the ICC obtained by a cohort using two face-to-face interviews (n = 21) (0.90 vs. 0.93, respectively) nor from a cohort using one face-to-face interview and one remote interview (n = 21) (0.88). The mean Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) scores obtained were not significantly different. There appears to be no loss of signal using remote methods of calibration compared with traditional face-to-face methods.

Difficulties in interpersonal relationships associated with personality disorders and axis I disorders: a community-based longitudinal investigation.

Abstract: A longitudinal study was conducted to investigate the association between Axis I and Axis II psychiatric disorders, interpersonal relationships, and global functioning among men in the community. Structured clinical interviews assessing Axis I and Axis II psychiatric disorders, global assessments of functioning, and questionnaires assessing social support, social conflict, and loneliness were administered to a community sample of 95 HIV+ and 45 HIV- men. The questionnaires were readministered 1 year later. Results indicated that (a) Personality disorders (PDs) and unipolar depressive disorders were associated with loneliness, social conflict, and low levels of social support after HIV status was controlled statistically; (b) PDs were associated with interpersonal and global impairment after HIV status and co-occurring Axis I disorders were controlled statistically; (c) Axis I disorders were associated with global impairment, but were not associated with interpersonal difficulties after HIV status and PDs were controlled statistically; (d) PDs, but not Axis I disorders, predicted increases in social conflict and global impairment after HIV status was controlled statistically; (e) PDs continued to predict increases in global impairment after both Axis I disorders and HIV status were controlled statistically; and (f) HIV+ men reported more loneliness, less social support, and had a higher prevalence of substance use disorders than HIV- men. The present findings are of particular interest because they suggest that PDs are associated with loneliness, social conflict, and a lack of social support among men in the community, whether or not Axis I disorders are present.

The association between anxiety and alcohol versus cannabis abuse disorders among adolescents in primary care settings

Abstract: Low NC, Lee SS, Johnson JG, Williams JB and Harris ES. The association between anxiety and alcohol versus cannabis abuse disorders among adolescents in primary care settings. Family Practice 2008; 25: 321–327. Background. Both clinical and population-based studies show that anxiety disorders and substance misuse frequently co-occur in adults, whereas among adolescents, less examination of this association has been done. Adolescence is frequently the time of substance use initiation and its subsequent interaction with anxiety disorders has not been fully explored. It is unknown in adolescents whether anxiety is more related to alcohol abuse versus cannabis abuse. In addition, as depression has been implicated in adolescents with both anxiety and substance misuse, its role in the association should also be considered. Objective. To test the association between current anxiety with alcohol versus cannabis abuse disorders. Method. Cross-sectional, clinician-administered, structured assessment—using the Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders—to evaluate anxiety, mood and substance abuse disorders among 632 adolescents recruited from primary care settings. Results. Results show a strong association between current anxiety and alcohol [odds ratio = 3.8; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2–11.8], but not cannabis (odds ratio = 1.4; 95% CI 0.4–4.7) abuse. Conclusion. This association in adolescents reflects the importance for increased awareness of anxiety symptoms and alcohol use patterns in primary care. The lack of association of anxiety with cannabis abuse in this group may reflect differences in cannabis’ anxiolytic properties or that this young group has had less exposure thus far. Given adolescence is a time of especially rapid psychosocial, hormonal and brain development, primary care may provide an opportunity for further investigation and, potentially, early screening and intervention.

Identifying common errors in the use of DSM-III through diagnostic supervision.

Abstract: The authors describe the use of diagnostic supervision to identify common errors made by trainees in the application of DSM-lII to multiaxial evaluations in an outpatient clinic. Errors on all five axes were due primarily to misapplications ofdiagnostic criteria and conventions. Errors on axes I, IV, and V were most frequent. Axis I errors were cornrnonly due to confusion about the relationship of dysthyrnic disorder to major depression, neglect of substance use disorder diagnoses, and misuse of the adjustment disorder and V-code categories. On axis JV, the severity of psychosocial stressors was frequently overrated, based on severa! misconceptions. Axis V ratings were often erroneously over estimated because they were individualized rather than made on a uniform scale. No differences were found in the error rates of psychiatric residents compared with psychology interns except on axis 1, where interns made more errors. The authors discuss the implications of these errors for training residents and psycho...

The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: While considerable attention has focused on improving the detection of depression, assessment of severity is also important in guiding treatment decisions. Therefore, we examined the validity of a brief, new measure of depression severity.

The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: A Brief Screening Tool For Mild Cognitive Impairment

Abstract: Objectives: To develop a 10-minute cognitive screening tool (Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA) to assist first-line physicians in detection of mild cognitive impairment (MCI), a clinical state that often progresses to dementia. Design: Validation study. Setting: A community clinic and an academic center. Participants: Ninety-four patients meeting MCI clinical criteria supported by psychometric measures, 93 patients with mild Alzheimer's disease (AD) (Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score≥17), and 90 healthy elderly controls (NC). Measurements: The MoCA and MMSE were administered to all participants, and sensitivity and specificity of both measures were assessed for detection of MCI and mild AD. Results: Using a cutoff score 26, the MMSE had a sensitivity of 18% to detect MCI, whereas the MoCA detected 90% of MCI subjects. In the mild AD group, the MMSE had a sensitivity of 78%, whereas the MoCA detected 100%. Specificity was excellent for both MMSE and MoCA (100% and 87%, respectively). Conclusion: MCI as an entity is evolving and somewhat controversial. The MoCA is a brief cognitive screening tool with high sensitivity and specificity for detecting MCI as currently conceptualized in patients performing in the normal range on the MMSE.

A Brief Measure for Assessing Generalized Anxiety Disorder: The GAD-7

Abstract: Background 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. Methods 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. Results 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. Conclusion The GAD-7 is a valid and efficient tool for screening for GAD and assessing its severity in clinical practice and research.

Lifetime and 12-Month Prevalence of DSM-III-R Psychiatric Disorders in the United States: Results From the National Comorbidity Survey

Abstract: Background: This study presents estimates of lifetime and 12-month prevalence of 14 DSM-III-R psychiatric disorders from the National Comorbidity Survey, the first survey to administer a structured psychiatric interview to a national probability sample in the United States. Methods: The DSM-III-R psychiatric disorders among persons aged 15 to 54 years in the noninstitutionalized civilian population of the United States were assessed with data collected by lay interviewers using a revised version of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview. Results: Nearly 50% of respondents reported at least one lifetime disorder, and close to 30% reported at least one 12-month disorder. The most common disorders were major depressive episode, alcohol dependence, social phobia, and simple phobia. More than half of all lifetime disorders occurred in the 14% of the population who had a history of three or more comorbid disorders. These highly comorbid people also included the vast majority of people with severe disorders. Less than 40% of those with a lifetime disorder had ever received professional treatment, and less than 20% of those with a recent disorder had been in treatment during the past 12 months. Consistent with previous risk factor research, it was found that women had elevated rates of affective disorders and anxiety disorders, that men had elevated rates of substance use disorders and antisocial personality disorder, and that most disorders declined with age and with higher socioeconomic status. Conclusions: The prevalence of psychiatric disorders is greater than previously thought to be the case. Furthermore, this morbidity is more highly concentrated than previously recognized in roughly one sixth of the population who have a history of three or more comorbid disorders. This suggests that the causes and consequences of high comorbidity should be the focus of research attention. The majority of people with psychiatric disorders fail to obtain professional treatment. Even among people with a lifetime history of three or more comorbid disorders, the proportion who ever obtain specialty sector mental health treatment is less than 50%. These results argue for the importance of more outreach and more research on barriers to professional help-seeking.

Pharmacological interventions for somatoform disorders in adults.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Somatoform disorders are characterised by chronic, medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS). Although different medications are part of treatment routines for people with somatoform disorders in clinics and private practices, there exists no systematic review or meta-analysis on the efficacy and tolerability of these medications. We aimed to synthesise to improve optimal treatment decisions.OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of pharmacological interventions for somatoform disorders (specifically somatisation disorder, undifferentiated somatoform disorder, somatoform autonomic dysfunction, and pain disorder) in adults.SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group's Specialised Register (CCDANCTR) (to 17 January 2014). This register includes relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from The Cochrane Library (all years), MEDLINE (1950 to date), EMBASE (1974 to date), and PsycINFO (1967 to date). To identify ongoing trials, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials metaRegister, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and the Chinese Clinical Trials Registry. For grey literature, we searched ProQuest Dissertation {\&} Theses Database, OpenGrey, and BIOSIS Previews. We handsearched conference proceedings and reference lists of potentially relevant papers and systematic reviews and contacted experts in the field.SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected RCTs or cluster RCTs of pharmacological interventions versus placebo, treatment as usual, another medication, or a combination of different medications for somatoform disorders in adults. We included people fulfilling standardised diagnostic criteria for somatisation disorder, undifferentiated somatoform disorder, somatoform autonomic dysfunction, or somatoform pain disorder.DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One review author and one research assistant independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes included the severity of MUPS on a continuous measure, and acceptability of treatment.MAIN RESULTS: We included 26 RCTs (33 reports), with 2159 participants, in the review. They examined the efficacy of different types of antidepressants, the combination of an antidepressant and an antipsychotic, antipsychotics alone, or natural products (NPs). The duration of the studies ranged between two and 12 weeks.One meta-analysis of placebo-controlled studies showed no clear evidence of a significant difference between tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) and placebo for the outcome severity of MUPS (SMD -0.13; 95{\%} CI -0.39 to 0.13; 2 studies, 239 participants; I(2) = 2{\%}; low-quality evidence). For new-generation antidepressants (NGAs), there was very low-quality evidence showing they were effective in reducing the severity of MUPS (SMD -0.91; 95{\%} CI -1.36 to -0.46; 3 studies, 243 participants; I(2) = 63{\%}). For NPs there was low-quality evidence that they were effective in reducing the severity of MUPS (SMD -0.74; 95{\%} CI -0.97 to -0.51; 2 studies, 322 participants; I(2) = 0{\%}).One meta-analysis showed no clear evidence of a difference between TCAs and NGAs for severity of MUPS (SMD -0.16; 95{\%} CI -0.55 to 0.23; 3 studies, 177 participants; I(2) = 42{\%}; low-quality evidence). There was also no difference between NGAs and other NGAs for severity of MUPS (SMD -0.16; 95{\%} CI -0.45 to 0.14; 4 studies, 182 participants; I(2) = 0{\%}).Finally, one meta-analysis comparing selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) with a combination of SSRIs and antipsychotics showed low-quality evidence in favour of combined treatment for severity of MUPS (SMD 0.77; 95{\%} CI 0.32 to 1.22; 2 studies, 107 participants; I(2) = 23{\%}).Differences regarding the acceptability of the treatment (rate of all-cause drop-outs) were neither found between NGAs and placebo (RR 1.01, 95{\%} CI 0.64 to 1.61; 2 studies, 163 participants; I(2) = 0{\%}; low-quality evidence) or NPs and placebo (RR 0.85, 95{\%} CI 0.40 to 1.78; 3 studies, 506 participants; I(2) = 0{\%}; low-quality evidence); nor between TCAs and other medication (RR 1.48, 95{\%} CI 0.59 to 3.72; 8 studies, 556 participants; I(2) =14{\%}; low-quality evidence); nor between antidepressants and the combination of an antidepressant and an antipsychotic (RR 0.80, 95{\%} CI 0.25 to 2.52; 2 studies, 118 participants; I(2) = 0{\%}; low-quality evidence). Percental attrition rates due to adverse effects were high in all antidepressant treatments (0{\%} to 32{\%}), but low for NPs (0{\%} to 1.7{\%}).The risk of bias was high in many domains across studies. Seventeen trials (65.4{\%}) gave no information about random sequence generation and only two (7.7{\%}) provided information about allocation concealment. Eighteen studies (69.2{\%}) revealed a high or unclear risk in blinding participants and study personnel; 23 studies had high risk of bias relating to blinding assessors. For the comparison NGA versus placebo, there was relatively high imprecision and heterogeneity due to one outlier study. Although we identified 26 studies, each comparison only contained a few studies and small numbers of participants so the results were imprecise.AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current review found very low-quality evidence for NGAs and low-quality evidence for NPs being effective in treating somatoform symptoms in adults when compared with placebo. There was some evidence that different classes of antidepressants did not differ in efficacy; however, this was limited and of low to very low quality. These results had serious shortcomings such as the high risk of bias, strong heterogeneity in the data, and small sample sizes. Furthermore, the significant effects of antidepressant treatment have to be balanced against the relatively high rates of adverse effects. Adverse effects produced by medication can have amplifying effects on symptom perceptions, particularly in people focusing on somatic symptoms without medical causes. We can only draw conclusions about short-term efficacy of the pharmacological interventions because no trial included follow-up assessments. For each of the comparisons where there were available data on acceptability rates (NGAs versus placebo, NPs versus placebo, TCAs versus other medication, and antidepressants versus a combination of an antidepressant and an antipsychotic), no clear differences between the intervention and comparator were found.Future high-quality research should be carried out to determine the effectiveness of medications other than antidepressants, to compare antidepressants more thoroughly, and to follow-up participants over longer periods (the longest follow up was just 12 weeks). Another idea for future research would be to include other outcomes such as functional impairment or dysfunctional behaviours and cognitions as well as the classical outcomes such as symptom severity, depression, or anxiety.