BackgroundNeuroimaging investigations of white matter abnormalities in subjects at genetic risk for bipolar disorders (BD) potentially predating the onset of BD offer several advantages. They are not confounded by the presence of illness duration or previous treatment with medication and may ultimately inform evaluation of risk for subsequent development of BD and subsequent therapeutic intervention.DiscussionAlthough a number of imaging studies in subjects at genetic risk for BD are available the results are conflicting and no reliable structural markers of genetic liability to bipolar disorders have been proposed. We debate that white matter pathology may be central to the genetic risk to develop BD. Thus, white matter abnormalities detectable in HR subjects but not in controls may reflect genetically driven trait markers. Similar abnormalities may be also evident both in the HR and in BD, suggesting the possibility of genetic risk factors shared by both groups. Conversely, white matter alterations observed in BD patients but not in HR and controls can be interpreted as state markers.SummaryWe suggest that white matter alterations may represent endophenotypes and neurobiological markers intermediate between the underlying susceptibility genes and the clinical expression of BD.

BackgroundThe creation of each edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of psychiatry has proven enormously controversial. The current effort to revise the ‘bible’ of disorder definitions for the field of mental health is no exception. The controversy around DSM-5 reached a crescendo with the announcement from National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) that the institute would focus efforts on the development of their own psychiatric nosology, the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) (NIMH, 2013).DiscussionThe RDoC seem to be structured around the concern that the only way to find objectivity in the classification of diseases or disorders in psychiatry is to begin with biology and work back to symptoms. Values infuse medical categories in various ways and drive practical considerations about where and how to divide up constellations of already agreed upon symptoms.SummaryWe briefly argue that all nosologies are infused with values and, while we should continue to sharpen the psychiatric nosology, normativity will permeate even the strictest biologically based taxonomy; this need not be a bad thing.

BackgroundAn increasing body of research points to a significant association of obesity to Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and deficits in executive functions. There is also preliminary evidence suggesting that children with ADHD may be at risk of obesity in adulthood.DiscussionIn this article, we discuss the evidence showing that ADHD and/or deficits in executive functions are a barrier to a successful weight control in individuals enrolled in weight loss programs. Impairing symptoms of ADHD or deficits in executive functions may foster dysregulated eating behaviors, such as binge eating, emotionally-induced eating or eating in the absence of hunger, which, in turn, may contribute to unsuccessful weight loss. ADHD-related behaviors or neurocognitive impairment may also hamper a regular and structured physical activity. There is initial research showing that treatment of comorbid ADHD and executive functions training significantly improve the outcome of obesity in individuals with comorbid ADHD or impairment in executive functions.SummaryPreliminary evidence suggests that comorbid ADHD and deficits in executive functions are a barrier to a successful weight loss in individuals involved in obesity treatment programs. If further methodologically sound evidence confirms this relationship, screening and effectively managing comorbid ADHD and/or executive functions deficits in individuals with obesity might have the potential to reduce not only the burden of ADHD but also the obesity epidemics.

The aim of this consensus statement was to discuss transition of patients with ADHD from child to adult healthcare services, and formulate recommendations to facilitate successful transition. An expert workshop was convened in June 2012 by the UK Adult ADHD Network (UKAAN), attended by a multidisciplinary team of mental health professionals, allied professionals and patients. It was concluded that transitions must be planned through joint meetings involving referring/receiving services, patients and their families. Negotiation may be required to balance parental desire for continued involvement in their child’s care, and the child’s growing autonomy. Clear transition protocols can maintain standards of care, detailing relevant timeframes, responsibilities of agencies and preparing contingencies. Transition should be viewed as a process not an event, and should normally occur by the age of 18, however flexibility is required to accommodate individual needs. Transition is often poorly experienced, and adherence to clear recommendations is necessary to ensure effective transition and prevent drop-out from services.

BackgroundTwo discourses exist in mental health research and practice. The first focuses on the limitations associated with disability arising from mental disorder. The second focuses on the possibilities for living well with mental health problems.DiscussionThis article was prompted by a review to inform disability policy. We identify seven findings from this review: recovery is best judged by experts or using standardised assessment; few people with mental health problems recover; if a person no longer meets criteria for a mental illness, they are in remission; diagnosis is a robust basis for characterising groups and predicting need; treatment and other supports are important factors for improving outcome; the barriers to receiving effective treatment are availability, financing and client awareness; and the impact of mental illness, in particular schizophrenia, is entirely negative. We selectively review a wider range of evidence which challenge these findings, including the changing understanding of recovery, national mental health policies, systematic review methodology and undertainty, epidemiological evidence about recovery rates, reasoning biased due to assumptions about mental illness being an illness like any other, the contested nature of schizophrenia, the social construction of diagnoses, alternative explanations for psychosis experiences including the role of trauma, diagnostic over-shadowing, stigma, the technological paradigm, the treatment gap, social determinants of mental ill-health, the prevalence of voice-hearing in the general population, and the sometimes positive impact of psychosis experience in relation to perspective and purpose.ConclusionWe propose an alternative seven messages which are both empirically defensible and more helpful to mental health stakeholders: Recovery is best judged by the person living with the experience; Many people with mental health problems recover; If a person no longer meets criteria for a mental illness, they are not ill; Diagnosis is not a robust foundation; Treatment is one route among many to recovery; Some people choose not to use mental health services; and the impact of mental health problems is mixed.

BackgroundSixty percent of eating disorders do not meet criteria for anorexia- or bulimia nervosa, as defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual version 4 (DSM-IV). Instead they are diagnosed as ‘eating disorders not otherwise specified’ (EDNOS). Discrepancies between criteria and clinical reality currently hampering eating disorder diagnoses in the DSM-IV will be addressed by the forthcoming DSM-V. However, future diagnoses for eating disorders will rely on current advances in the fields of neuroimaging and genetics for classification of symptoms that will ultimately improve treatment.DiscussionHere we debate the classification issues, and discuss how brain imaging and genetic discoveries might be interwoven into a model of eating disorders to provide better classification and treatment. The debate concerns: a) current issues in the classification of eating disorders in the DSM-IV, b) changes proposed for DSM-V, c) neuroimaging eating disorder research and d) genetic eating disorder research.SummaryWe outline a novel evidence-based ‘impulse control’ spectrum model of eating disorders. A model of eating disorders is proposed that will aid future diagnosis of symptoms, coinciding with contemporary suggestions by clinicians and the proposed changes due to be published in the DSM-V.