Biological basis for mood disorders

starflake

Hi all

This year is my first year training as a psychiatric nurse and I've been reading a bit around the biological theories of mood and depression. I haven't really had the chance to ask a qualified health professional what their take on this is.

I've been reading about the Monoamine hypothesis and the dopamine hypothesis etc. just wondering whether the development of a mood disorder, say Bipolar affective disorder is developed due to social influences, biological influences such as genes, traits, chemicals etc.. or is it a mixture of the two..?

I'd love to hear from a health professionals point of view!

JuliusCaesar

I'd say most of us subscribe to the biopsychosocial model - it's a mixture of biological, psychological and social factors/variables and influences which cause disorders. In some cases the causes will lean more heavily on one domain than another, but in any case it's impossible to say for sure exactly what triggers depression in an individual. We can make educated guesses*, but people are really complicated!





*I meant "hypotheses" of course.

dissed doc

starflake wrote: »

Hi all

This year is my first year training as a psychiatric nurse and I've been reading a bit around the biological theories of mood and depression. I haven't really had the chance to ask a qualified health professional what their take on this is.

I've been reading about the Monoamine hypothesis and the dopamine hypothesis etc. just wondering whether the development of a mood disorder, say Bipolar affective disorder is developed due to social influences, biological influences such as genes, traits, chemicals etc.. or is it a mixture of the two..?

I'd love to hear from a health professionals point of view!

It's neither one the both or the other IMO. Everything for everyone will have a different level of influence on whatever condition you think of.

And remember, people were treating diabetes long before anyone understood anything about the biology of the pancreas and for thousands of years before insulin was discovered.

Valmont

dissed doc wrote: »

And remember, people were treating diabetes long before anyone understood anything about the biology of the pancreas and for thousands of years before insulin was discovered.

This is often a line of reasoning used to support the biological theories of mental disorders; that there are definite disorders but we are unsure as to their exact biological basis thus far. I suppose the argument is that the causes of unexplained disorders today will be uncovered tomorrow, just like neuro-syphilis, for example.

However, we know that this isn't the case: if it was true that gradually the biological basis of various disorders would reduce the number of 'psychological' disorders (as a perfect understanding of the biology would make it an issue for another field perhaps) but the number of as-yet-unexplained disorders increases every time a new DSM is brought out -- which begs the question: are they really 'diseases' in the actual sense of the word?

Just an interesting way of looking at it really.

starflake

Thanks everyone for your help

dissed doc

Valmont wrote: »

This is often a line of reasoning used to support the biological theories of mental disorders; that there are definite disorders but we are unsure as to their exact biological basis thus far. I suppose the argument is that the causes of unexplained disorders today will be uncovered tomorrow, just like neuro-syphilis, for example.

However, we know that this isn't the case: if it was true that gradually the biological basis of various disorders would reduce the number of 'psychological' disorders (as a perfect understanding of the biology would make it an issue for another field perhaps) but the number of as-yet-unexplained disorders increases every time a new DSM is brought out -- which begs the question: are they really 'diseases' in the actual sense of the word?

Just an interesting way of looking at it really.

DSM and ICD contain a considerable amount of baloney IMO. Mostly DSM and ICD are useful as a consensus-driven reference point for collections of symptoms, and shouldn't be interpreted or read by non-professionals. It makes as much sense as a dentist reading a book on Chinese economic theory and attempting to discuss it. IMO.

Dr. Obvious

It makes as much sense as a dentist reading a book on Chinese economic theory and attempting to discuss it. IMO.

Or makes as much sense as a doctor without diagnosed emotional problems reading a book on mood disorders and trying to tell their patients how to deal with it. IMO.

Odysseus

dissed doc wrote: »

DSM and ICD contain a considerable amount of baloney IMO. Mostly DSM and ICD are useful as a consensus-driven reference point for collections of symptoms, and shouldn't be interpreted or read by non-professionals. It makes as much sense as a dentist reading a book on Chinese economic theory and attempting to discuss it. IMO.

In your opinion, what professionals would possess the ability to use the information contained with both?

JuliusCaesar

I believe that the DSM started as a research tool - that when doing research, it was easier to compare conditions across studies if there was a shared definition of what the condition studied was.

Also, the DSM is American but because the amount of research coming from there is huge, we also use it in research. But for diagnosis and clinically I believe that the ICD is preferred, being published by the WHO.

Personally I don't have much use for either book in terms of treating patients - it has been called 'an atlas of an imaginary world' - as I treat them according to their formulation. But they do have their uses in terms of commonalities of what occurs to people. While many people suffer from a mixed depression-and-anxiety, it's useful to know for example that a fear of negative evaluation is prominent in social anxiety.

But back on topic: oops, I commented already.

Dr. Obvious

Odysseus wrote: »

In your opinion, what professionals would possess the ability to use the information contained with both?

In my opinion, none. The very act of considering yourself a professional or expert on the subject of emotional disorders already disqualifies you from understanding that person. Mental health issues are not things that can be tested and fixed with medication. However, they can b be overcome with proper support, understanding, personal insight, and lifestyle changes. But, with our society built the way it is, it makes it very difficult for people to have the freedom of figuring out emotional issues in their own way/time. The fact is, our society is not patient enough with that process, though over time it would be much more beneficial for everyone.

JuliusCaesar

Dr. Obvious wrote: »

The very act of considering yourself a professional or expert on the subject of emotional disorders already disqualifies you from understanding that person.

:eek:

Well, goodbye psychology so! I guess we might as well shut this forum down, stop all courses, and do away with the mental health services. I might as well go in for my second favorite career as astrophysicist, although it'll be hard starting at the beginning again.

krd

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

:eek:

Well, goodbye psychology so! I guess we might as well shut this forum down, stop all courses, and do away with the mental health services. I might as well go in for my second favorite career as astrophysicist, although it'll be hard starting at the beginning again.

Surely you mean....Astrologer?..........."I know why you're so down in the dumps...it's because your sign is entering Mars, and Jupiter is in recession"

Valmont

krd wrote: »

"I know why you're so down in the dumps...it's because your sign is entering Mars, and Jupiter is in recession"

Which probably makes as much sense as....

"You see, you are suffering from a disease, a chemical imbalance in your brain"

So what is the consensus? I haven't seen any compelling evidence to suggest that there is any biological basis for 'mood disorders'. Personally, I'd like to look at a psychosocial model of depression, not sure if there is one actually -- I must have a look.

Odysseus

I actually don't care about the role biology may play in certain disorders as I down intervene at that level, so I just focus on the psychical aspects.

Valmont

Odysseus wrote: »

I actually don't care about the role biology may play in certain disorders as I down intervene at that level, so I just focus on the psychical aspects.

That's the point -- no practitioner does; they diagnose on the basis of the patient's self-reports and communications, not their serotonin levels. I think this point is crucially important in assessing where psychiatry or clinical psychology diverge from the traditional practice of medicine and pathology.

colc1

Dr. Obvious wrote: »

In my opinion, none. The very act of considering yourself a professional or expert on the subject of emotional disorders already disqualifies you from understanding that person. Mental health issues are not things that can be tested and fixed with medication. However, they can b be overcome with proper support, understanding, personal insight, and lifestyle changes. But, with our society built the way it is, it makes it very difficult for people to have the freedom of figuring out emotional issues in their own way/time. The fact is, our society is not patient enough with that process, though over time it would be much more beneficial for everyone.

Totally agree with this... I believe the stress-filled society we live in these days is the biggest factor...

JuliusCaesar

Valmont wrote: »

Personally, I'd like to look at a psychosocial model of depression, not sure if there is one actually -- I must have a look.

From 1988 and countless others since; any psychological model will at least pay lip service to social factors; are you sure you're studying psychology?

Valmont

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

From 1988 and countless others since; any psychological model will at least pay lip service to social factors; are you sure you're studying psychology?

I've been studying and researching memory since I finished my undergrad and I've forgotten an embarrassing amount of the other stuff. Getting back into it now though and dusting off the old textbooks as I'll be teaching in October!

Odysseus

Valmont wrote: »

I've been studying and researching memory since I finished my undergrad and I've forgotten an embarrassing amount of the other stuff. Getting back into it now though and dusting off the old textbooks as I'll be teaching in October!

Congrats, it is terrible how much you can lost when your not actively engaged in something academic, I find that I can get caught up in the clinical side to the neglect of keeping on top of research.

However, teaching does help you, as you need to know your stuff when you are in front of a class.

JuliusCaesar

Valmont wrote: »

I've been studying and researching memory .....and I've forgotten an embarrassing amount of the other stuff.

At least you know why!

joezie

This has been quite an entertaining thread!

and an interesting collection of moderators too.

Hope the nurse got something out of it all though.