Background: Mismatch between need and mental healthcare (MHC) use (under-and overuse) has mainly been studied with cross-sectional designs, not accurately capturing patterns of persistence or... Show moreBackground: Mismatch between need and mental healthcare (MHC) use (under-and overuse) has mainly been studied with cross-sectional designs, not accurately capturing patterns of persistence or change in clinical burden and MHC-use among persons with depressive and/or anxiety disorders. Aims: Determining and describing [mis]match of longitudinal trajectories of clinical burden and MHC-use. Methods: Six-year longitudinal burden and MHC-use data came from the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (n=2981). The sample was split into four subgroups: I) no clinical burden but constant MHC use, II) constant clinical burden but no MHC-use, III) changing clinical burden and MHC-use, and IV) healthy non-users. Within subgroups I)-III), specific clinical burden and MHC trajectories were identified (growth mixture modeling). The resulting classes' associations with predisposing, enabling, and need factors were investigated (regression analysis). Results: Subgroups I-III revealed different trajectories. I) increasing MHC without burden (4.1%). II) slightly increasing (1.9%), strongly increasing (2.4%), and decreasing (9.5%) burden without MHC. III) increasing (41.4%) or decreasing (19.4%) burden and concurrently increasing MHC use (first underuse, then matched care), thus revealing delayed MHC-use. Only having suicidal ideation (p<.001, Cohen's d=.6-1.5) was a significant determinant of being in latter classes compared to underusers (strongly increasing burden without MHC-use). Limitations: More explanatory factors are needed to explain [mis]match. Conclusion: Mismatch occurred as constant underuse or as delayed MHC-use in a high-income country (Netherlands). Additionally, no meaningful class revealed constantly matched care on average. Presence of suicidal ideation could influence the probability of symptomatic individuals receiving matched MHC or not. Show less
Background There is increasing interest in day-to-day affect fluctuations of patients with depressive and anxiety disorders. Few studies have compared repeated assessments of positive affect (PA)... Show moreBackground There is increasing interest in day-to-day affect fluctuations of patients with depressive and anxiety disorders. Few studies have compared repeated assessments of positive affect (PA) and negative affect (NA) across diagnostic groups, and fluctuation patterns were not uniformly defined. The aim of this study is to compare affect fluctuations in patients with a current episode of depressive or anxiety disorder, in remitted patients and in controls, using affect instability as a core concept but also describing other measures of variability and adjusting for possible confounders. Methods Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) data were obtained from 365 participants of the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety with current (n = 95), remitted (n = 178) or no (n = 92) DSM-IV defined depression/anxiety disorder. For 2 weeks, five times per day, participants filled-out items on PA and NA. Affect instability was calculated as the root mean square of successive differences (RMSSD). Tests on group differences in RMSSD, within-person variance, and autocorrelation were performed, controlling for mean affect levels. Results Current depression/anxiety patients had the highest affect instability in both PA and NA, followed by remitters and then controls. Instability differences between groups remained significant when controlling for mean affect levels, but differences between current and remitted were no longer significant. Conclusions Patients with a current disorder have higher instability of NA and PA than remitted patients and controls. Especially with regard to NA, this could be interpreted as patients with a current disorder being more sensitive to internal and external stressors and having suboptimal affect regulation. Show less
