Consensus on Subdomains and Measures of Relevance to Affective and Social Cognition Research on Bipolar Disorder ( CAS ‐ BD ); Outcomes and Recommendations From an International Society for Bipolar Disorders Targeting Cognition Taskforce Study

Résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: The Consensus on subdomains and measures of Affective and Social cognition for research on Bipolar Disorder (CAS-BD) project aimed to formulate preliminary consensus-based recommendations for assessing affective and social cognition in BD. METHODS: Three sequential surveys administered to experts on affective and social cognition in BD were conducted using the Delphi process. Experts responded to questions regarding affective and social cognition subdomains and rated their importance to research on BD. Experts also nominated measures, rated them for suitability, and ranked them by preference for use. Consensus was defined as ≥ 80% agreement. RESULTS: 31 experts completed the initial survey, with 20-23 completing subsequent surveys. Consensus was obtained for the subdomain structure of both affective cognition and social cognition, and the definition of each subdomain within. Explicit emotion regulation was ranked as being of highest priority for further research on affective cognition, and theory of mind as highest priority for further research on social cognition. The top-preferenced measures of all affective cognition subdomains were considered by consensus to be suitable for use in BD research. Agreement that the top-preferenced measures of social cognition were suitable ranged from 71.5% to 95.3%. DISCUSSION: Expert consensus on subdomains and measures of affective and social cognition for research on BD was obtained via a staged approach. Prior familiarity may have influenced some experts' rankings, but generally there was a notable lack of consistency in the use of available measures by BD experts. This reaffirms the need for more specific guidance and validated batteries of social and affective cognition to direct the field and allow for more consistency and replication of research in the future.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.