Displaying 1 - 3 of 3
BackgroundThe present open study investigates the feasibility of Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) in groups solely composed of bipolar patients of various subtypes. MBCT has been mostly evaluated with remitted unipolar depressed patients and little is known about this treatment in bipolar disorder.
Methods
Bipolar outpatients (type I, II and NOS) were included and evaluated for depressive and hypomanic symptoms, as well as mindfulness skills before and after MBCT. Patients’ expectations before the program, perceived benefit after completion and frequency of mindfulness practice were also recorded.
Results
Of 23 included patients, 15 attended at least four MBCT sessions. Most participants reported having durably, moderately to very much benefited from the program, although mindfulness practice decreased over time. Whereas no significant increase of mindfulness skills was detected during the trial, change of mindfulness skills was significantly associated with change of depressive symptoms between pre- and post-MBCT assessments.
Conclusions
MBCT is feasible and well perceived among bipolar patients. Larger and randomized controlled studies are required to further evaluate its efficacy, in particular regarding depressive and (hypo)manic relapse prevention. The mediating role of mindfulness on clinical outcome needs further examination and efforts should be provided to enhance the persistence of meditation practice with time.
In psychiatric disorders, neurocognitive impairments are prevalent and have been associated with poor outcome. Deficits in Theory of Mind (ToM, “mentalising”) have also been observed in bipolar disorder (BD); however, the literature shows inconsistent data. The aim of this study was to explore ToM performance in a well-characterized sample of euthymic individuals with BD and its relationship with neurocognitive function. One hundred sixteen euthymic patients with BD between 18 and 74 years (mean age = 42.4, SD = 13.8) and 79 healthy controls (mean age = 39.8, SD = 16.5) were investigated with an extensive neurocognitive test battery (Trail Making Test A/B, d2 Test of Attention, Stroop Color-Word Test, California Verbal Learning Test, Multiple Choice Vocabulary Test). Additionally, all participants were given the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (RMET) to measure affective ToM, the ability to make assumptions about other people´s feelings. Overall, “Eyes Reading” performance was not impaired in individuals with BD compared with controls. However, a significant relationship between RMET and verbal memory in BD was shown, particularly in males. Data showed worse RMET performance in patients with memory deficits compared to patients without memory deficits and controls. Due to cross-sectional data, no conclusions can be made with respect to cause and effect.
In psychiatric disorders, neurocognitive impairments are prevalent and have been associated with poor outcome. Deficits in Theory of Mind (ToM, “mentalising”) have also been observed in bipolar disorder (BD); however, the literature shows inconsistent data. The aim of this study was to explore ToM performance in a well-characterized sample of euthymic individuals with BD and its relationship with neurocognitive function. One hundred sixteen euthymic patients with BD between 18 and 74 years (mean age = 42.4, SD = 13.8) and 79 healthy controls (mean age = 39.8, SD = 16.5) were investigated with an extensive neurocognitive test battery (Trail Making Test A/B, d2 Test of Attention, Stroop Color-Word Test, California Verbal Learning Test, Multiple Choice Vocabulary Test). Additionally, all participants were given the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (RMET) to measure affective ToM, the ability to make assumptions about other people´s feelings. Overall, “Eyes Reading” performance was not impaired in individuals with BD compared with controls. However, a significant relationship between RMET and verbal memory in BD was shown, particularly in males. Data showed worse RMET performance in patients with memory deficits compared to patients without memory deficits and controls. Due to cross-sectional data, no conclusions can be made with respect to cause and effect.