Umeå University's logo

Purpose: To compare (1) motor proficiency of persons diagnosed in adulthood with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or autism spectrum disorder (ASD) with normative values of motor proficiency, and (2) motor proficiency between persons with ADHD and those with ASD diagnosed in adulthood.

Methods: A total of 153 adults (median age 32 years, 36% women) participated in this cross-sectional study. Fifty-three persons with predominately inattentive presentation (ADHD-I), 67 persons with combined presentation (ADHD-C), and 33 persons with ASD performed the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency (BOT-2). One-sample binominal tests were used to compare motor proficiency against standardized norms of BOT-2 for young adults. One-way ANOVAs and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to compare test outcomes between the groups.

Results: The total sample showed significantly impaired motor proficiency in comparison to norms in all test domains (p < 0.001-0.006), except for fine motor skills. The ASD group showed significantly poorer body coordination compared with the ADHD-I and ADHD-C groups, with a moderate effect size (p = 0.003-0.02, η² = 0.061).

Conclusions: Motor proficiency is impaired in most persons with ADHD or ASD diagnosed in adulthood, suggesting that motor assessment should be included in clinical examinations of adults with suspected neurodevelopment disorders.

Background: Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is associated with suicidal behavior, but prospective clinical studies are lacking. Aim: To compare clinical characteristics and 6-month outcomes in persons with and without AUD who self-harm.

Methods: 804 adults (mean age 33, age range 18-95, 541 women and 263 men, 666 with suicide attempts and 138 with non-suicidal self-injuries at index) at three Swedish university hospitals took part in a research interview that included the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI). Subsequent non-fatal suicidal behavior within six months was identified by record review; suicides were identified by national register.

Results: At index, 39% of the men and 29% of the women had AUD. Over two thirds of these cases (69%) were identified by the MINI, but not by clinical AUD diagnosis. While trait impulsivity was more common among persons with AUD than those without (56% vs 36%, P adj = <.001), impulsivity in connection with the index attempt was noted in half of the participants in each group (48% vs 52%, P adj = 1). Subsequent suicidal behavior (fatal/non-fatal) occurred in 67 persons with AUD (26%) and in 98 without AUD (18%), a 60% higher risk among persons with AUD (OR = 1.60, 95% [CI 1.13-2.28], P =.009). Four persons with AUD (2%) and six without (1%) died by suicide within 6 months.

Conclusion: Almost a third of patients presenting at psychiatric emergency settings after self-harm fulfilled criteria for AUD, but clinicians often missed this diagnosis. Risk for subsequent suicidal behavior was elevated in patients with AUD. Educational interventions to improve recognition of alcohol use disorder may aid clinicians in the assessment and management of patients who present with self-harm.

A central part in the educational quality work at universities and their departments is the process of course evaluations. The Centre for Educational Development (UPL) at Umea university is working on developing and implementinga course evaluation instrument called the Learning Experience Questionnaire (LEQ). The instrument was originally developed by Dan Borglund and colleagues (Borglund et al., 2017) at The Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm. Since a couple of years, the Department of Psychology in Umeå has started to use this evaluation instrument.

LEQ consists of 23 items measuring the students experience of their learning environment and factors believed to contribute to their learning (Bain, 2004). The 22 items have also tentatively been categorized into the three dimensions meaningfulness (6 items), comprehensibility (10 items) and manageability (6 items) inspired by Aron Antonovsky (1979). To further develop LEQ we will present a psychometric analysis of the instrument to look at what factors are present and if it is statistically reasonable to categorize the items into the three dimensions suggested. This study expands a previous analysis of university teachers in pedagogical education and adds psychology students. Preliminary reliability analysis of all items in LEQ suggests a high internal item reliability for the instrument with Cronbach´s alpha exceeding .90.

Course evaluation a is vital information source to educational quality work and an important opportunity for students to convey their experiences back to teachers and course leaders. In this process as well as in research setting it is important to ask relevant questions and to use valid and reliable methods to achieve acceptable data quality. The use ofa standard measure across courses and over time also allows for comparisons. The Learning Experience Questionnaire (LEQ) is a theoretically sound course evaluation questionnaire, that combines core learning factors for higher edu-cation (Bain, 2004), with a theoretical framework for how people cope in different contexts (i.e., Sense of coherence, Antonovsky, 1989). The LEQ method also comes with a suggested process methodology for use, which includes ways of questionnaire distribution, student involvement, data summarization and analysis, as well as collegial knowledge exchange in course development. The presentation will include an introduction to LEQ, and insights gathered during the process of implementation at a university psychology department.

Background: ADHD is common in psychiatric populations. This study aimed to compare clinical characteristics in adults with and without ADHD who presented with self-harm, and to compare later risk of suicidal behaviour within 6 months.

Methods: Eight hundred four adults presented with self-harm (with and without suicidal intent) at psychiatric emergency services at three Swedish hospitals. Persons with a discharge ICD-10 diagnosis F90.0-F90.9 or a prescription for ADHD medication were considered to have ADHD (n = 93). Medical records were reviewed for evidence of subsequent suicide attempts (SA) within 6 months; suicides were identified by national register.

Results: Recent relationship problems were more prevalent in the ADHD group. While the index episodes of those with ADHD were more often non-suicidal, and actual SAs more often rated as impulsive, medical lethality at presentation did not differ in attempters with and without ADHD. Subsequent SAs (fatal or non-fatal) were observed in 29% of the ADHD group and 20% in all others (P = .005). A logistic regression model showed elevated risk of suicidal behaviour during follow-up in the ADHD group (OR = 1.70, CI 1.05–2.76), although a final regression model suggested that this association was partly explained by age and comorbid emotionally unstable personality disorder.

Conclusions: Findings highlight the need for clinicians to take self-harm seriously in adults with ADHD.

Objectives: To study age group differences in clinical characteristics in older, middle-aged and younger adults with actual suicide attempts (SA).

Design: Cross-sectional cohort study.

Setting: 3 Swedish university hospitals.

Participants: 821 persons who presented with self-harm at psychiatric emergency departments participated. Those with non-suicidal self-injury according to the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) were excluded, leaving a total of 683 with an actual SA (18–44 years, n = 423; 45-64 years, n = 164; 65+, n = 96).

Measurements: Suicidal behavior was characterized with the C-SSRS and the Suicide Intent Scale (SIS); symptoms associated with suicide were rated with the Suicide Assessment Scale (SUAS). Diagnoses were set using the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview. Patients self-rated their symptoms with the Karolinska Affective and Borderline Symptoms Scale (KABOSS).

Results: Older adults scored higher than the younger group on SIS total score and on the subjective subscale, but no age group differences were detected for the objective subscale. Half of the 65+ group fulfilled criteria for major depression, compared to 3-quarters in both the middle-aged and young groups. Anxiety disorders, as well as alcohol and substance use disorders were also less prevalent in the 65+ group, while serious physical illness was more common. Older adults scored lower on all symptom scales; effect sizes were large.

Conclusions: While older adults with an SA showed higher suicide intent than young adults, they had lower scores on all ratings of psychiatric symptomatology. Low ratings might interfere with clinicians’ assessments of the needs of older adults with intentional self-harm.

Objective: An overlap of non-suicidal self-injuries (NSSIs) and suicide attempts (SAs) is observed in young cohorts, but there are few robust prospective studies for adults. We compared 1-year outcomes in adults with different self-harm patterns: NSSI only, NSSI + SA, and SA only.

Methods: 793 patients (67% women) consecutively presenting with NSSI (17%) or SA (83%) at 3 Swedish hospitals took part in face-to-face interviews. Past and current self-harm was characterized by the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale. Clinical records and national register data were employed to determine 1-year outcomes.

Results: At inclusion, over half of the participants had engaged in both NSSI and SA; 41% had SA only and 5%, NSSI only. During follow-up, non-fatal SAs were observed in approximately one-third of the total group (n = 269). Suicides occurred in 2% of those with NSSI + SA; the same proportion was seen in the SA only group. No suicides were observed in those with NSSI only. In a multiple logistic regression analysis, the NSSI + SA pattern was associated with a more than 3-fold risk of subsequent fatal/non-fatal suicidal behavior compared to "pure" NSSI; risk was not elevated in those with "pure" SA. Neither sex nor age group predicted subsequent suicidal behavior.

Conclusions: Switching between behaviors with and without suicidal intent was common in this adult clinical cohort. Risk of subsequent suicidal behavior was tripled in the combined group. Clinicians who assess adults with NSSI must evaluate not only current but also previous episodes when assessing future risk of suicidal behavior.

Background: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is under investigation as a treatment for therapy-refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). As a crucial part of the anxiety circuit, the bed nucleus of stria terminalis (BNST) has been proposed as a target for DBS in OCD. Here, we investigate clinical outcomes and safety of DBS in the BNST in a series of 11 participants with severe therapy-refractory OCD.

Methods: Eleven consecutive participants diagnosed with refractory OCD were treated with BNST DBS and completed follow-up. The primary outcome was a change in scores of the Yale Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (YBOCS) at 1 year after surgery. Secondary outcomes included changes in scores of the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and the Global Assessment of Functioning.

Results: At baseline, the mean ± SD YBOCS score was 33 ± 3.0, MADRS score was 29 ± 4.5, and GAF score was 49 ± 5.4. One year after DBS, mean ± SD YBOCS score was 20 ± 4.8 (38% improvement (range 10%−60%) P < 0.01), MADRS score was 21 ± 5.8 (27% improvement, range 4%−74%, P < 0.01), and Global Assessment of Functioning score was 55 ± 6.5 (12% improvement, range 4%−29%, P < 0.05). Of the 11 participants, 6 were considered responders (decrease in YBOCS ≥35%) and 4 partial responders (decrease in YBOCS 25%−34%). Surgical adverse events included 1 case of skin infection leading to reimplantation. The most common transient stimulation-related side effects were anxiety and insomnia.

Conclusions: BNST DBS is a promising therapy in severe therapy-refractory OCD. Our results are in line with previous publications regarding effect and safety profile. Nevertheless, DBS for OCD remains an investigational therapy and should therefore be performed in multidisciplinary clinical studies.

A central part in the educational quality work at universities and their departments is the process of course evaluations. The Centre for Educational Development (UPL) at Umea university is working on developing and implementing a course evaluation instrument called the Learning Experience Questionnaire (LEQ). The instrument was originally developed by Dan Borglund and colleagues (Borg et al., 2017) at The Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm. Since a couple of years, the Department of Psychology in Umeå has started to use this evaluation instrument. LEQ consists of 23 items measuring the students experience of their learning environment and factors believed to contribute to their learning (Bain, 2004). The 22 items have also tentatively been categorized into the three dimensions meaningfulness (6 items), comprehensibility (10 items) and manageability (6 items) inspired by Aron Antonovsky (1979). In order to further develop LEQ we will present a psychometric analysis of the instrument to look at what factors are present and if it is statistically reasonable to categorize the items into the three dimensions suggested. Preliminary reliability analysis of all items in LEQ suggests a high internal item reliability for the instrument with Cronback'a alpha exceeding .90.  

OBJECTIVE: To compare the predictive accuracy of the Suicide Intent Scale (SIS), the Suicide Assessment Scale (SUAS), the Karolinska Interpersonal Violence Scale (KIVS), and the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) for suicide attempts and suicides within 3 and 12 months of an episode of self-harm.

METHODS: This prospective multicenter cohort study included patients (N = 804) aged 18-95 years with a recent episode of self-harm assessed in psychiatric emergency settings from April 2012 to April 2016. Suicide attempts and suicides were identified in medical records and in the National Cause of Death Register. Receiver operating characteristic curves were constructed, and accuracy statistics were calculated. A sensitivity of at least 80% combined with a specificity of at least 50% were considered minimally acceptable.

RESULTS: At least 1 suicide attempt was recorded for 216 participants during follow-up, and 19 participants died by suicide. The SUAS and C-SSRS were better than chance in classifying the 114 suicide attempts occurring within the first 3 months; a C-SSRS score ≥ 27 yielded a sensitivity/specificity of 79.8%/51.5% (P < .001). During 1-year follow-up, the SUAS and C-SSRS also performed better than chance, but no cutoff on either instrument gave a sensitivity/specificity of ≥ 80%/≥ 50%. The SIS was the only instrument that could classify suicides correctly. At 3 months, the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.89-0.99), and a score ≥ 21 predicted suicide with a sensitivity/specificity of 100%/81.9%, based on only 4 suicides. At 1-year follow-up, the AUC was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.61-0.87), and a score ≥ 17 predicted suicide with a sensitivity/specificity of 72.2%/57.9%.

CONCLUSIONS: Instruments that predicted nonfatal repeat suicide attempts did not predict suicide and vice versa. With the possible exception of the prediction of suicide by the SIS in a short time frame, the specificity of these instruments was low, giving them a limited relevance in the prediction of suicidal behaviors.