Skip to main content
Download PDF

Gender differences in transdiagnostic domains and function of adults measured by DSM-5 assessment scales at the first clinical visit: a cohort study

BMC Psychiatry volume 23, Article number: 709 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Measurement-based care has been called for as best practice in psychiatric care and learning health systems and use of transdiagnostic measures was suggested as part of the DSM-5. Our objective is to examine gender differences in first visit socioeconomic, transdiagnostic, and functional characteristics of a dynamic, real-world measurement-based care cohort.

Methods

Transdiagnostic, functional, and clinical measures were collected from 3,556 patients at first visit in an ambulatory psychiatric clinic. All patients were evaluated at the first visit by board-certified psychiatrists or licensed clinical psychologists. Demographic variables and clinical diagnoses were collected from the Electronic Medical Record. Self-report measures were collected that assessed transdiagnostic symptoms (DSM-5 Level 1 Cross-cutting Measure and Level 2 symptom scales), disability, alcohol use, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms, depression, anxiety, mania, suicidal thoughts and behaviors, and trauma exposure.

Results

Men and women did not differ in age, BMI, household income, high school graduation rate, race, or ethnicity, but women were more likely to be formerly married and less likely to have commercial insurance. Compared to men, women reported significantly higher overall psychopathology on the transdiagnostic Level 1 Cross-cutting measure and had higher depression, anxiety, sleep, anger, ADHD combined presentation, and suicidality severity. Women also had higher disability scores than men. However, men reported higher alcohol, tobacco and substance use, and more risky behavior than women. Trauma exposure differed significantly by gender; men reported more exposure to accidents, war-related trauma, serious accidents, and major disasters and women reported more unwanted sexual contact.

Conclusions

This cross-sectional study of a transdiagnostic, ecologically-valid real-word measurement-based care cohort demonstrates gender differences in socioeconomic factors, trauma exposure, transdiagnostic symptoms, and functioning.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Psychiatric disorders are the second leading cause of disability in the world [1], and despite expansion of evidence-based psychotherapeutic and pharmacological options, public health measures of mental health indicate that the suicide rate has risen by 33% in the past two decades and the rates of deaths of despair have risen dramatically [2, 3]. These trends have worsened in the past year, given the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting public health and socioeconomic consequences: In June 2020, 40% of the US adult population reported at least one symptom of adverse mental or behavioral health condition [4]. Improved interventions are desperately needed for our patients and our society.

One way to improve psychiatric interventions is through standardized assessments and measurement-based care [5,6,7], as clinics that implement these systems consistently show that their patients experience better outcomes compared to usual care [8,9,10]. Measurement-based care (MBC) has been defined as the use of systematic data on clinical outcomes collected at every patient visit to guide care [11,12,13]. MBC is critical to the National Academies of Medicine’s proposal to create a learning healthcare system, in which care can be iteratively improved through measurement and quality improvement cycles (14). A barrier to implementing MBC in mental health clinics is that patients present with multiple problems reflecting complex diagnostic challenges, and traditionally, symptom assessments are administered based on a patient’s presenting problem/diagnosis alone.

A contrast to the traditional approach of measuring symptoms in one domain based on a single index problem are several conceptual transdiagnostic frameworks proposed in recent years that recognize the need to account for high comorbidity amongst psychiatric and psychological syndromes when discussing etiological, phenomenological and clinical factors [15, 16]. The Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) framework [17, 18] identifies transdiagnostic domains by which to study etiological and risk factors of clinical and behavioral manifestations of psychopathology. This framework proposes that psychiatric disorders may be best understood through a dimensional framework, where underlying units of analysis (genes, molecules, cells, circuits, physiology, paradigm, behavior, self-report) can be used across six domains (negative valance systems, positive valance systems, cognitive systems, systems for social processes, arousal and regulatory systems, sensimotor systems) to understand underlying factors that lead to common clinical psychopathology.

An alternate transdiagnostic framework has been developed in the Hierarchical taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP), a proposed system of hierarchical dimensional classification of mental and behavioral illness [19]. The HiTOP model conceptualizes psychopathology dimensionally, through a data-driven approach to construct syndromes based on covariation of symptoms divided into levels based on sign/symptom components and maladaptive traits, syndromes, subfactors (clusters of strongly related syndromes), spectra (broad groups of subfactors), and a general psychopathology factor reflecting overall maladaptation [15, 19, 20]. Ruggero and colleagues have proposed that HiTOP may be a useful clinical tool to communicate case conceptualization and treatment planning, while recognizing there are currently some practical limitations to implementation [15]. While RDoC and HiTOP have been posited as alternatives to the widely used clinical classification system of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and International Classification of Disorders (ICD), the fifth version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) introduced a dimensional framework and compilation of transdiagnostic assessments to screen and follow problems over time, the Level 1 Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure and Level 2 self-report measures [21, 22].

Gender differences have not been reported for the DSM-5 Level 1 Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure [21, 22]. However, consideration of gender in discussion of transdiagnostic domains has great value for the field and aligns with National Institutes of Health (NIH) priorities. For example, in 2016 the NIH highlighted the need to examine sex as a key variable in biological research studies [23, 24]. Moreover, biological sex and self-identified gender play a large role in many brain-based disorders and the psychological and social processes that influence risk and outcome for people seeking help in mental health clinics [25, 26].

To this end, we report on gender differences within a transdiagnostic framework in the first adult cohort from a real-world, naturalistic clinical sample, which we call the Penn State Psychiatry Clinical Assessment and Rating System (PCARES) Registry. This registry houses patient-reported assessments (using DSM-5 Assessment Measures and clinical data) gathered during routine clinical care of patients seeking mental health care at a mid-Atlantic clinic. Our goal in this report is to examine the use of existing evidence-based assessment tools to help clinicians elicit symptoms, behaviors, socioeconomic factors, trauma exposure and life functioning regardless of diagnostic categorization. In this report, we analyze gender differences in socioeconomic factors, trauma exposure, transdiagnostic domains, diagnosis-specific measures, and functional characteristics reported at patients’ first clinic visits.

Methods

Participants

We retrospectively analyzed data from 3,556 patients from the PCARES Registry, enrolled from 2/17/2015 to 5/30/2020. This sample is comprised of initial patient encounters (first visit) from a single mental health clinic in the mid-Atlantic region, which includes child services, general adult, and specialty services in Mood Disorders, Geriatrics, and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Results from the child services program were reported by Waschbusch and colleagues [27]. The PCARES registry itself was considered a clinical quality improvement project by the relevant Institutional Review Board (IRB). It did not meet the criteria for human subject research, therefore IRB approval was not required and the need for consent to participate was waived. However, any research project using the de-identified PCARES data, including this project, requires approval by the relevant IRB. The current study was conducted according to the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Pennsylvania State University IRB (IRB #183 and #7926). All patients were evaluated by board-certified psychiatrists or licensed clinical psychologists. All patients were included in the registry regardless of psychiatric diagnosis or purpose of visit. The PCARES Registry includes self-report measures and select diagnostic and demographic information extracted from patients’ electronic medical records (EMR). Although previous studies using these data have been published (28,29,30,31), the current study’s aims are unique and have never been reported.

Demographics

Demographic data were extracted from the EMR. Demographic data included self-identified gender (male, female, patient declined, unavailable), race (American Indian/Alaskan Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, White, two or more races, other race, patient declined, unavailable), ethnicity (Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin; not Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin; multiple; patient declined; unavailable), and marital status (single, married, and formerly married including divorced, separated, and widowed, patient declined, unavailable). Two steps were used to create participants’ socioeconomic profiles. First, participants’ home address/zip code were extracted from the EMR. Second, education and income at the zip code-level were obtained from the 2016 American Community Survey (ACS) five-year estimates database (32) so that we could identify the education and median income for each patient’s zip code. We also obtained the county level rural/urban profile from the Center for Rural PA, and classified patients into binary categories by county (rural/urban) and municipality (rural/urban). Insurance status was classified as follows: commercial insurance included preferred provider organizations (PPO), Blue Cross/Blue Shield related organizations, health maintenance organizations (HMO), and other commercial insurance payers (state-funded Medicaid payers, Medicare, or self-pay).

Clinical diagnoses

Clinical diagnoses were extracted from the first visit EMR documentation. Body mass index (BMI) was calculated from measured height and weight recorded in the EMR during the first visit.

Self-report measures

Participants completed a battery of self-report measures at the first visit. However, the battery was changed based on clinician feedback midway through data collection. Herein, we report first-visit data from the first and second versions of the battery, termed “battery 1” and “battery 2” (see Supplemental Table 1 for details of battery schedule). Self-report measures were available in the English language.

Trauma exposure

The Brief Trauma Questionnaire (BTQ) was used to report lifetime trauma exposure [33].

Transdiagnostic symptom measures

The DSM-5 Level 1 Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure [21, 22] is a self-report screening tool assessing depression, mania, anxiety, somatic symptoms, suicidal ideation, psychosis, sleep, memory, obsessions and compulsions, dissociation, personality styles, and substance use. If participants reported that anger, anxiety, depression, mania, obsessions and compulsions, sleep, or somatic symptoms bothered them more than slightly or rarely, the screener was determined to be positive. In battery 1, if the Level 1 screener was positive, the patient completed the Level 2 in-depth questionnaire for that symptom area. The DSM-5 Level 2 adult assessments included the PROMIS Emotional Distress, Depression Short Form; PROMIS Emotional Distress, Anger Short Form; PROMIS Emotional Distress, Anxiety Short Form; and PROMIS, Sleep Disturbance Short Form. Each of these Level 2 assessments was scored using T scores. The Personality Inventory for DSM-5-Brief Form (PID-5-BF) was used to assess personality traits and domains. The Columbia Suicidality Severity Rating Scale (CSSRS) was used to assess suicide risk [34].

In battery 2, regardless of whether patients screened positive for any Level 1 items, all patients completed the following measures. The Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) assessed depressive symptoms [35]. The Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale (GAD-7) assessed anxiety [36]. The Altman Self-Rating Mania Scale (ASRM) assessed manic symptoms [37]. The Mood Disorder Questionnaire (MDQ) screened for symptoms of bipolar disorder [38]. The Adult ADHD self-report scale (ASRS) [39] assessed for any ADHD, inattentive presentation, hyperactive presentation, or combined presentation.

Risky behavior

The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) [40] screened for risky alcohol or substance use.

Functioning

The WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 categorized disabilities in cognition, mobility, self-care, getting along with others, ability to participate in life activities such as household and school or work activities, and social participation. Overall summary score and domain scores were calculated by using the item-response-theory based scoring method [41].

Statistical analysis

To compare the demographic and clinical characteristics between men and women, t-tests and chi-square (or Cochran-Mantel–Haenszel) tests were used for continuous and categorical variables, as appropriate. To enhance the interpretability of the comparisons, we further calculated the effect sizes for the gender differences for (1) continuous variables as Cohen’s d [i.e., (Meanwomen – Meanmen/SDoverall)]; and (2) categorical variables as difference in proportions (i.e., %women - %men). SAS 9.4 was used to perform all statistical analyses. Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05.

Results

Demographic characteristics

This PCARES Registry cohort included 3,556 individuals (37% men, 63% women) with a mean age of 42.2 ± 17.0 years (see Table 1). Most participants (84.5%) identified as White; 5.9% identified as Black or African American, 9.7% identified as another race, and 4.4% identified as Hispanic. Participants’ marital status included 47% who reported being single, 37% married, and 16% formerly married. Almost half the sample included participants who reported having public insurance or self-paying for healthcare. Demographic factors of age, education (mean high school graduation rate 90.1%, SD 4.6%), and race and ethnicity did not differ significantly between men and women. Household median income (mean $59,815, SD $10,973) did not differ between men and women, and was below the median household income for Pennsylvania 2015–2019 [42]. Significant differences by gender were reported in marital status (more women [19%] than men [11%] were formerly married) and insurance type (more men [59%] than women [55%] with commercial insurance). Rurality distribution included 5.2% in rural county/rural municipality (N = 180); 2.4% in rural county/urban municipality (N = 85); 8.8% in urban county/rural municipality; and 83.6% urban county/urban municipality (N = 2923). BMI did not differ by gender.

Table 1 Patient demographics and trauma exposure stratified by gender
Full size table

Trauma

Men reported higher frequency of exposure to war-related trauma, serious accidents, major disasters, and seeing others injured seriously categories than women. Women reported significantly higher frequency of unwanted sex than men (Table 1).

Clinical Diagnosis

The most common diagnoses were major depressive disorder (41.2%), bipolar disorder (10.4%), and generalized anxiety disorder (21.5%; see Table 2). In order of the magnitude of gender difference by effect size (ES), more women were diagnosed with major depressive disorder (MDD) (44.1%, ES = 8.3% ), generalized anxiety disorder (22.9%, ES = 4.0%), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (7.7%, ES = 3.8%), panic disorder (6%, ES = 2.1%), bipolar II disorder (3.7%, ES = 1.7%), and eating disorders (1.4%, ES = 1.2%), while more men were diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (10.9%, ES=-8.4%), ADHD (9.8%, ES=-4.5%), and psychotic disorder (4.5%, ES=-2.0%). Women had more diagnoses than men, with a mean of 1.6 compared to 1.4 for men, with a small effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.18, p < 0.01).

Table 2 Clinical Diagnoses stratified by gender
Full size table

Transdiagnostic measures

The percentage of positive DSM-5 Level 1 Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure screener areas (Table 3) differed between men and women for most items. In order of the magnitude of difference by ES, women had higher rates of anxiety (ES = 8.4%), somatic symptoms (ES = 7.2%), anger (ES = 7.1%), dissociation (ES = 7.0%), memory (ES = 5.6%), depression (ES = 4.5%), personality symptom domains (ES = 4.3%), and sleep disturbance (ES = 4.2%), whereas men had higher rates of tobacco use (ES=-4.7%), psychosis (ES=-3.3%), and substance use (alcohol and other substances (ES=-2.4%). Women reported significantly higher DSM Level 1 Cross-Cutting Measure overall symptom score and number of symptom domains than men, with small effect sizes. In the DSM-5 Level II symptom scores, women had significantly higher mean T-scores in sleep, depression, anxiety, and anger than men. Similarly, on the battery 2 measures (Table 4), women had higher scores on depression (PHQ-9, ES = 0.30) and anxiety (GAD-7, ES = 0.31), and higher rates of ADHD combined presentation, as compared to men (ASRS, ES = 8.1%). On the MDQ, men scored higher than women on the risky behavior item (ES=-7%). On the PID-5-BF, women reported significantly higher negative affect and detachment, while men reported higher antagonism and disinhibition (Table 3). Women scored higher than men on suicidality (ES = 0.14, Table 3).

Table 3 Transdiagnostic measure, personality, suicide and alcohol/substance use screeners stratified by gender
Full size table
Table 4 Mania, Depression, Anxiety, ADHD, Bipolar Disorder measures stratified by gender
Full size table

Substance use

Men scored significantly higher than women on the AUDIT alcohol (ES=-0.07) and substance use subscales (ES=-0.19, Table 3).

Functioning

Disability scores (Table 5) indicated that the sample overall had worse functioning than 88% of the general population [43]. Women reported significantly greater disabilities in all domains compared to men, with disparities most apparent in life activities (ES = 0.24), mobility (ES = 0.19) and social participation (ES = 0.19). Both women and men rated social participation as the most impaired domain and self-care as the least impaired domain.

Table 5 Functioning as assessed by the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Scale (WHODAS) scores stratified by gender
Full size table

Discussion

We examined socioeconomic factors, trauma exposure, transdiagnostic measures, and functioning by gender at first visit in an ambulatory mental health clinic, including the first report to our knowledge of gender differences in the transdiagnostic instrument DSM-5 Level 1 Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure. Our sample was representative of the local population, and the gender balance of the sample is representative of broader treatment patterns seen for mental illness, with women seeking mental health care more often than men [44].

Women reported significantly higher severity of transdiagnostic psychopathology and number of comorbid mental illnesses, as well as a higher impact of mental health problems on functioning compared to men. This is contrary to other findings which indicate that men present with more severe mental illness at first visit, possibly as a result of increased reluctance to seek health care [45,46,47]. However, symptom prevalence on the DSM-5 Level I Cross-cutting Symptom Measure and the rates of diagnosis are consistent with previous findings that women have a higher rate of depressive disorders [48], bipolar II disorder [49], anxiety disorders [50], eating disorders [51], and PTSD [52]. We also found gender differences in trauma exposure, where women reported higher rates of unwanted sexual intercourse while men reported more experiences of war zone or casualty trauma. This generally maps onto known gender differences in lifetime trauma exposure [50].

While the diagnosis of ADHD was almost twice as high in men than in women, the combined presentation of ADHD self-report score was higher in women than men [53]. This is consistent with some research reporting that undiagnosed adults who screen positive for ADHD are more likely to be women versus men [54]. In a large meta-analysis, women with ADHD were more frequently diagnosed with the inattentive subtype, and men were diagnosed more frequently with combined subtype [55]. However, a study of the ASRS used in a sample of patients in mental health clinics found that gender differences were not noted in subtype scales [56]. One explanation for the difference is that self-report scales may pick up more subtle presentations that are not uncovered by clinicians. An alternate explanation is that clinicians are accounting for ADHD symptoms as a part of another disorder. Further work needs to be done to determine the benefit of screening instruments for ADHD in a clinical diagnostic approach.

Women had higher sleep disturbance than men as measured by DSM5 Level I and II screeners. While population-based studies demonstrate that women have higher percentage of sleep time and slow wave sleep, with less sleep disturbance in response to an external stressor than men [57], the predominance of mood and anxiety disorders in women could contribute to more women than men reporting sleep difficulties.

A greater proportion of women than men reported anger as a prominent symptom on the DSM5 Level 1 and Level II severity screeners. While subjective anger is not part of the diagnostic criteria for depression in adults and is not routinely measured in studies of mental illness that are not directly studying aggression or suicide, anger has been posited to be an “alternative” expression of low mood in depression. In fact, an interesting analysis of the National Comorbidity Study Replication (NCS-R) showed when anger and aggression were measured (along with risk taking and substance use) and scored as primary symptoms of depression, gender differences in diagnosis of depression disappeared [58, 59]. Because the NCS-R was a population-based sample and our sample is a naturalistic, clinic-based sample, the findings are not directly comparable. The finding of prominent anger in women highlights the importance of measuring symptoms in transdiagnostic domains in the clinic setting.

Somatic symptoms were more prevalent among women than men, consistent with available studies [60] [61]. Women also reported higher rates of suicidality than men, consistent with findings that women have higher rates of non-fatal suicide attempts and men have higher rates of suicide deaths [62]. Women reported higher negative affect and detachment, but lower antagonism and disinhibition than men in our sample, though effect sizes were small. While some studies show gender discrepancies in personality traits and disorders, others do not; the differences found here may be due to measuring personality traits through self-report compared to structured diagnosis [63]. While there may not be gender differences in population rates of personality traits or disorders, an interesting next question is how strongly expressed personality traits impact women and men in day-to-day functioning.

In our sample, women reported experiencing more impairment participating socially, accomplishing household tasks, and completing daily work or school activities compared to men. The greatest discrepancy between men and women was impairment in completing life activities. One potential explanation is that women are more commonly responsible for household tasks than men resulting in more opportunities for an impact in functioning (a floor effect in male functioning). Only a few studies have assessed gender differences in functional impairment associated with psychopathology [64]. Results similar to our study were reported from a large prospective multi-center study which found that mental health problems were more likely to affect women’s marital functioning but men’s work functioning [65]. Overall, the finding that psychiatric symptoms differentially impact functioning highlight the need to monitor in our patients both psychiatric symptoms themselves and how symptoms affect functioning.

Strengths and Limitations

Strengths in our approach include using validated, transdiagnostic self-report measures in a framework recommended by the DSM-5 in a naturalistic, real-world cohort. These results have generalizability to patients seeking care in psychiatric clinics, however our sample includes a majority White, non-Hispanic, English speaking population and may not generalize to racial, ethnic and gender identity populations underrepresented in medical research. A limitation of using this approach is that data are gathered for clinical purposes and extracted from the EMR and the diagnostic description are not as comprehensive as structured interview [28]. The self-report measures do not adequately capture cognitive functioning and neurodevelopmental domains, and those with neurodevelopmental disorders experience more comorbid psychopathology. The sample is biased by the fact that they are presenting for clinical care and we cannot compare our sample directly to a group that did not obtain clinical care. We acknowledge the importance of gender expansive measurements, such as transgender or nonbinary identities, which have significant implications in mental health, however, the variable to represent gender is self-reported by patients during enrollment in the EMR and did not at the time allow for non-binary description of gender identity. Future studies should consider reporting gender expansive categories on these measures [66].

Clinical implications

Questions remain in how to integrate such layered levels of data to personalize care. DSM-5 added the transdiagnostic assessment paradigm to promote the assessment of several dimensional areas across categorical diagnoses. Symptom scales that take a transdiagnostic domain approach and include social factors, trauma exposure and domains of functioning allow clinicians to more efficiently and accurately identify areas of concern and distress for patients. The impact of mental illness and psychopathology are affected by biological, psychological, social and cultural factors that influence both the presence of symptoms and resultant level of functioning.

We have found that the higher level of psychopathology and functional impairment, exposure to sexual trauma, and anger in women when compared to men at first treatment suggests that women are waiting longer in the course of illness to seek treatment than men. This may affect rates of recovery and highlights a need to promote earlier treatment intervention in women’s health. Because mental illnesses can have a severe impact on daily functioning, understanding the mediating and moderating factors between mental illness and impairment in men and in women may generate targets for further study, including data-driven approaches to treatment matching.

Data Availability

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Collaborators GDaIIaP. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 354 diseases and injuries for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the global burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet. 2018;392(10159):1789–858.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Stone DM, Jones CM, Mack KA. Changes in suicide Rates - United States, 2018–2019. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021;70(8):261–8.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Brignone E, George DR, Sinoway L, Katz C, Sauder C, Murray A, et al. Trends in the diagnosis of diseases of despair in the United States, 2009–2018: a retrospective cohort study. BMJ Open. 2020;10(10):e037679.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Czeisler M, Lane RI, Petrosky E, Wiley JF, Christensen A, Njai R, et al. Mental Health, Substance Use, and suicidal ideation during the COVID-19 pandemic - United States, June 24–30, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020;69(32):1049–57.

    PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Silverman JJ, Galanter M, Jackson-Triche M, Jacobs DG, Lomax JW 2nd, Riba MB, et al. The american Psychiatric Association Practice Guidelines for the Psychiatric evaluation of adults. Am J Psychiatry. 2015;172(8):798–802.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lam RW, McIntosh D, Wang J, Enns MW, Kolivakis T, Michalak EE, et al. Canadian Network for Mood and anxiety treatments (CANMAT) 2016 clinical guidelines for the management of adults with major depressive disorder: Sect. 1. Disease Burden and Principles of Care. Can J Psychiatry. 2016;61(9):510–23.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Yatham LN, Kennedy SH, Parikh SV, Schaffer A, Beaulieu S, Alda M, et al. Canadian Network for Mood and anxiety treatments (CANMAT) and International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD) collaborative update of CANMAT guidelines for the management of patients with bipolar disorder: update 2013. Bipolar Disord. 2013;15(1):1–44.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Guo T, Xiang YT, Xiao L, Hu CQ, Chiu HF, Ungvari GS, et al. Measurement-based Care Versus Standard Care for Major Depression: a Randomized Controlled Trial with Blind Raters. Am J Psychiatry. 2015;172(10):1004–13.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Rush AJ, Thase ME. Improving Depression Outcome by patient-centered Medical Management. Am J Psychiatry. 2018;175(12):1187–98.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lewis CC, Boyd M, Puspitasari A, Navarro E, Howard J, Kassab H, et al. Implementing measurement-based care in behavioral health: a review. JAMA Psychiatry. 2019;76(3):324–35.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Trivedi MH, Rush AJ, Wisniewski SR, Nierenberg AA, Warden D, Ritz L, et al. Evaluation of outcomes with citalopram for depression using measurement-based care in STAR*D: implications for clinical practice. Am J Psychiatry. 2006;163(1):28–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Scott K, Lewis CC. Using measurement-based care to enhance any treatment. Cogn Behav Pract. 2015;22(1):49–59.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Morris DW, Trivedi MH. Measurement-based care for unipolar depression. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2011;13(6):446–58.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Olsen L, Aisner D, McGinnis JM. Institute of Medicine. Roundtable on Evidence-Based M, Roundtable on Evidence-Based M, Institute of M. The learning healthcare system: workshop summary. McGinnis JM, Dara A, LeighAnne O, editors Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Michelini G, Palumbo IM, DeYoung CG, Latzman RD, Kotov R. Linking RDoC and HiTOP: a new interface for advancing psychiatric nosology and neuroscience. Clin Psychol Rev. 2021;86:102025.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Dalgleish T, Black M, Johnston D, Bevan A. Transdiagnostic approaches to mental health problems: current status and future directions. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2020;88(3):179–95.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Cuthbert BN, Insel TR. Toward the future of psychiatric diagnosis: the seven pillars of RDoC. BMC Med. 2013;11:126.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Insel T, Cuthbert B, Garvey M, Heinssen R, Pine DS, Quinn K, et al. Research domain criteria (RDoC): toward a new classification framework for research on mental disorders. Am J Psychiatry. 2010;167(7):748–51.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kotov R, Krueger RF, Watson D, Achenbach TM, Althoff RR, Bagby RM, et al. The hierarchical taxonomy of psychopathology (HiTOP): a dimensional alternative to traditional nosologies. J Abnorm Psychol. 2017;126(4):454–77.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ruggero CJ, Kotov R, Hopwood CJ, First M, Clark LA, Skodol AE, et al. Integrating the hierarchical taxonomy of psychopathology (HiTOP) into clinical practice. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2019;87(12):1069–84.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Diagnostic. and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5. 5th ed. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association; 2013. xliv, 947 p. p.

  22. Narrow WE, Clarke DE, Kuramoto SJ, Kraemer HC, Kupfer DJ, Greiner L, et al. DSM-5 field trials in the United States and Canada, Part III: development and reliability testing of a cross-cutting symptom assessment for DSM-5. Am J Psychiatry. 2013;170(1):71–82.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Arnegard ME, Whitten LA, Hunter C, Clayton JA. Sex as a Biological Variable: a 5-Year Progress Report and call to action. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2020;29(6):858–64.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hartung CM, Lefler EK. Sex and gender in psychopathology: DSM-5 and beyond. Psychol Bull. 2019;145(4):390–409.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Otten D, Tibubos AN, Schomerus G, Brähler E, Binder H, Kruse J, et al. Similarities and differences of Mental Health in Women and Men: a systematic review of findings in three large german cohorts. Front Public Health. 2021;9:553071.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Tannenbaum C, Boksa P. Sex: a key consideration in understanding the etiology of psychiatric disorders and improving treatment. J Psychiatry Neurosci. 442019. p. 364–6.

  27. Waschbusch DA, Pearl A, Babinski DE, Essayli JH, Koduvayur SP, Liao D, et al. Developing measurement-based care for Youth in an Outpatient Psychiatry Clinic: the Penn State Psychiatry Clinical Assessment and rating evaluation system for Youth (PCARES-Youth). Evidence-Based Pract Child Adolesc Mental Health. 2020;5(1):67–82.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Saunders EFH, Mukherjee D, Waschbusch DA, Liao D, Pearl AM, Aksu E et al. Predictors of diagnostic delay: Assessment of psychiatric disorders in the clinic. Depress Anxiety. 2020.

  29. Gomaa H, Baweja R, Mukherjee D, He F, Pearl AM, Waschbusch DA, et al. Transdiagnostic and functional predictors of depression severity and trajectory in the Penn state psychiatry clinical assessment and rating evaluation system (PCARES) registry. J Affect Disord. 2022;298(Pt A):86–94.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Zandi PP, Wang YH, Patel PD, Katzelnick D, Turvey CL, Wright JH, et al. Development of the National Network of Depression Centers Mood Outcomes Program: a Multisite platform for measurement-based care. Psychiatr Serv. 2020;71(5):456–64.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Babinski DE, Saunders EFH, He F, Liao D, Pearl AM, Waschbusch DA. Screening for ADHD in a general outpatient psychiatric sample of adults. Psychiatry Res. 2022;311:114524.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. American Community Survey. : https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/news/data-releases.html. [Available from: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/news/data-releases.html.

  33. Schnurr P, Vielhauer M, Weathers F, Findler M. The Brief Trauma Questionnaire (BTQ) [Measurement instrument] 1999. Available from: http://www.ptsd.va.gov.

  34. Posner K, Brown GK, Stanley B, Brent DA, Yershova KV, Oquendo MA, et al. The Columbia-Suicide severity rating scale: initial validity and internal consistency findings from three multisite studies with adolescents and adults. Am J Psychiatry. 2011;168(12):1266–77.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB. The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16(9):606–13.

    PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JB, Lowe B. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(10):1092–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Altman EG, Hedeker D, Peterson JL, Davis JM. The Altman Self-Rating Mania Scale. Biol Psychiatry. 1997;42(10):948–55.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Zimmerman M, Ruggero CJ, Galione JN, McGlinchey JB, Dalrymple K, Chelminski I, et al. Detecting differences in diagnostic assessment of bipolar disorder. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2010;198(5):339–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Kessler RC, Adler L, Ames M, Demler O, Faraone S, Hiripi E, et al. The World Health Organization adult ADHD self-report scale (ASRS): a short screening scale for use in the general population. Psychol Med. 2005;35(2):245–56.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Saunders JB, Aasland OG, Babor TF, de la Fuente JR, Grant M. Development of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): WHO Collaborative Project on early detection of persons with harmful alcohol Consumption–II. Addiction. 1993;88(6):791–804.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Measuring health. And disability: manual for WHO Disability Assessment schedule: WHODAS 2.0. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  42. US Census Bureau QuickFacts. 2021 [https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/PA/INC110219]. Available from: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/PA/INC110219.

  43. Measuring Health and Disability. Manual for WHO Disability Assessment schedule WHODAS 2.0. Malta: World Health Organization; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Key substance use and mental health indicators in the United State: Results from the 2019 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (HHS Publication NO. PEP20-07-01-001). Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration [Internet]. 2020. Available from: https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/reports/rpt29393/2019NSDUHFFRPDFWHTML/2019NSDUHFFR1PDFW090120.pdf.

  45. Galdas PM, Cheater F, Marshall P. Men and health help-seeking behaviour: literature review. J Adv Nurs. 2005;49(6):616–23.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Clement S, Schauman O, Graham T, Maggioni F, Evans-Lacko S, Bezborodovs N, et al. What is the impact of mental health-related stigma on help-seeking? A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies. Psychol Med. 2015;45(1):11–27.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Scholz B, Crabb S, Wittert GA. Males don’t Wanna bring anything up to their doctor: men’s discourses of Depression. Qual Health Res. 2017;27(5):727–37.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Marcus SM, Young EA, Kerber KB, Kornstein S, Farabaugh AH, Mitchell J, et al. Gender differences in depression: findings from the STAR*D study. J Affect Disord. 2005;87(2–3):141–50.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Baldassano CF, Marangell LB, Gyulai L, Ghaemi SN, Joffe H, Kim DR, et al. Gender differences in bipolar disorder: retrospective data from the first 500 STEP-BD participants. Bipolar Disord. 2005;7(5):465–70.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Kessler RC, Berglund P, Demler O, Jin R, Merikangas KR, Walters EE. Lifetime prevalence and age-of-onset distributions of DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2005;62(6):593–602.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Striegel-Moore RH, Rosselli F, Perrin N, DeBar L, Wilson GT, May A, et al. Gender difference in the prevalence of eating disorder symptoms. Int J Eat Disord. 2009;42(5):471–4.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Olff M. Sex and gender differences in post-traumatic stress disorder: an update. Eur J Psychotraumatology. 2017;8(sup4):1351204.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Williamson D, Johnston C. Gender differences in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a narrative review. Clin Psychol Rev. 2015;40:15–27.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Able SL, Johnston JA, Adler LA, Swindle RW. Functional and psychosocial impairment in adults with undiagnosed ADHD. Psychol Med. 2007;37(1):97–107.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Willcutt EG. The prevalence of DSM-IV attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a meta-analytic review. Neurotherapeutics: The Journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics. 2012;9(3):490–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Corbisiero S, Hartmann-Schorro RM, Riecher-Rössler A, Stieglitz R-D. Screening for adult Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity disorder in a Psychiatric Outpatient Population with specific focus on sex differences. Front Psychiatry. 2017;8:115.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Bixler EO, Papaliaga MN, Vgontzas AN, Lin HM, Pejovic S, Karataraki M, et al. Women sleep objectively better than men and the sleep of young women is more resilient to external stressors: effects of age and menopause. J Sleep Res. 2009;18(2):221–8.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Nejtek VA. Sex disparities in depression prevalence are lost when male-type depression symptoms are considered alongside traditional symptoms. Evid Based Ment Health. 2014;17(2):e1.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Martin LA, Neighbors HW, Griffith DM. The experience of symptoms of depression in men vs women: analysis of the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. JAMA Psychiatry. 2013;70(10):1100–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Silverstein B. Gender differences in the prevalence of somatic versus pure depression: a replication. Am J Psychiatry. 2002;159(6):1051–2.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Gonzalez DS, Rodríguez M, García C, Prieto R, Saiz-Ruiz J. Gender differences in major depressive disorder: somatic symptoms and quality of life. Rev Psiquiatr Salud Ment. 2009;2(3):119–27.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Schrijvers DL, Bollen J, Sabbe BG. The gender paradox in suicidal behavior and its impact on the suicidal process. J Affect Disord. 2012;138(1–2):19–26.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Schulte Holthausen B, Habel U. Sex differences in Personality Disorders. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2018;20(12):107.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Lai CH. Major depressive disorder: gender differences in symptoms, life quality, and sexual function. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2011;31(1):39–44.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Kornstein SG, Schatzberg AF, Thase ME, Yonkers KA, McCullough JP, Keitner GI, et al. Gender differences in chronic major and double depression. J Affect Disord. 2000;60(1):1–11.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Abramovich A, Cleverley K. A call to action: the Urgent need for Trans Inclusive Measures in Mental Health Research. Can J Psychiatry. 2018;63(8):532–7.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the current and past clinical and technical team. The authors thank the participants without whom this research would not be possible.

Funding

The use of REDCap in project described was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, through Grant UL1 TR002014 and Grant UL1 TR00045. In addition, LNF was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, Grant KL2 TR002015 and Grant UL1 TR002014. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Health, Penn State College of Medicine and Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, 500 University Drive, Hershey, PA, 17033, USA

    Erika F.H. Saunders, Dahlia Mukherjee, Ritika Baweja, Lauren N. Forrest, Hassaan Gomaa, Dara Babinski, Amanda M. Pearl & Daniel A. Waschbusch

  2. Department of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Megan Brady

  3. Department of Public Health Sciences, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, PA, USA

    Fan He & Duanping Liao

Authors
  1. Erika F.H. Saunders
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Megan Brady
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dahlia Mukherjee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ritika Baweja
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lauren N. Forrest
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Hassaan Gomaa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Dara Babinski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Fan He
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Amanda M. Pearl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Duanping Liao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Daniel A. Waschbusch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

ES: conception, design, acquisition of data, interpretation of data and authored draft; MB: authored draft; DM: authored draft; RB: authored draft; LF: authored draft; HG: authored draft; DB: authored draft; FH: design, analysis of data; AP: interpretation of data; DL: conception, design, acquisition of data, interpretation of data and revised draft; DW: conception, design, acquisition of data, interpretation of data and revised draft.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Erika F.H. Saunders.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

ES: none; MB: none; DM: none; RB: none; LF: none; HG: none; DB: research funding from Purdue Pharma within 3 years; FH: none; AP: none; DL: none; DW: research funding from Purdue Pharma and Supernus Pharmaceuticals.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The creation of the PCARES registry was considered a clinical quality improvement project by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the Penn State College of Medicine. It did not meet the criteria for human subject research, so the need for consent to participate was waived by the Penn State College of Medicine IRB, and IRB review and approval was not required for data collection. However, any project using the de-identified PCARES data for research purposes, including this project, requires approval by the Penn State College of Medicine IRB. The Penn State College of Medicine approved to use the PCARES data for the present research purposes (IRB #183 and #7926). This study was conducted according to the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Consent for publication

N/A.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1 Supplemental Table 1: PCARES Battery

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Saunders, E.F., Brady, M., Mukherjee, D. et al. Gender differences in transdiagnostic domains and function of adults measured by DSM-5 assessment scales at the first clinical visit: a cohort study. BMC Psychiatry 23, 709 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-023-05207-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-023-05207-8

Keywords

BMC Psychiatry

ISSN: 1471-244X

Contact us