Search

This study quantified and compared demographic and clinical features of bipolar disorder (BD) in persons of African ancestry (AA) and European ancestry (EUR).Participants enrolled in the Mayo Clinic Bipolar Biobank from 2009 to 2015. The structured clinical interview for DSM-IV was used to confirm the diagnosis of BD, and a questionnaire was developed to collect data on the clinical course of illness. Descriptive statistics and bivariate analyses were completed to compare AA versus EUR participants. Subsequently, clinical outcomes were compared between AA and EUR participants using linear regression for continuous outcomes or logistic regression for binary outcomes while controlling for differences in age, sex, and recruitment site.Of 1865 participants enrolled in the bipolar biobank, 65 (3.5%) self-identified as AA. The clinical phenotype for AA participants, in comparison to EUR participants, was more likely to include a history of PTSD (39.7% vs. 26.2%), cocaine use disorder (24.2% vs. 11.9%), and tardive dyskinesia (7.1% vs. 3%).The low rate of AA enrollment is consistent with other genetic studies. While clinical features of bipolar disorder are largely similar, this study identified differences in rates of trauma, substance use, and tardive dyskinesia that may represent health disparities in bipolar patients of African ancestry. Future bipolar biomarker studies with larger sample sizes focused on underrepresented populations will provide greater ancestry diversity in genomic medicine with greater applicability to diverse patient populations, serving to inform health care policies to address disparities in bipolar disorder.

BACKGROUND Although group-based intensive outpatient programs (IOPs) are a level of care commonly utilized by adults with serious mental illness, few studies have examined the acceptability of group-based IOPs that required rapid transition to a telemental health (TMH) format during the COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to evaluate patient satisfaction and future recommendations for a group-based IOP that was transitioned to a TMH format during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS A 17-item patient satisfaction questionnaire was completed by patients at discharge and covered 3 areas: IOP TMH satisfaction, future recommendations, and video technology challenges. Descriptive and content analyses were conducted for the quantitative and open-ended questions, respectively. RESULTS A total of 76 patients completed the program in 2020. A subset of patients (n=40, 53%) responded to the survey at program discharge. The results indicated that the patients were satisfied overall with the TMH program format; 50% (n=20) of the patients preferred the program continue offering the TMH format, and the rest preferred returning to in-person formats after the pandemic. The patients indicated the elements of the program that they found most valuable and provided recommendations for future program improvement. CONCLUSIONS Overall, adults with serious mental illness reported high satisfaction with the group-based IOP delivered via TMH. Health care systems may want to consider offering both TMH and in-person formats regardless of the state of the pandemic. Patients’ feedback on future improvements should be considered to help ensure long-term success.