14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Assessment of Anhedonia in Adults With and Without Mental Illness: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

      research-article
      , MS, , PhD, , BS, , BS , MS, , PhD , PhD, , PhD
      JAMA network open

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Anhedonia, a reduced capacity for pleasure, is described for many psychiatric and neurologic conditions. However, a decade after the Research Domain Criteria launch, whether anhedonia severity differs between diagnoses is still unclear. Reference values for hedonic capacity in healthy humans are also needed.

          Objective

          To generate and compare reference values for anhedonia levels in adults with and without mental illness.

          Data Sources

          Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, and Google Scholar were used to list all articles from January 1, 1995 to July 2, 2019, citing the scale development report of a widely used anhedonia questionnaire, the Snaith-Hamilton Pleasure Scale (SHAPS). Searches were conducted from April 5 to 11, 2018, and on July 2, 2019.

          Study Selection

          Studies including healthy patients and those with a verified diagnosis, assessed at baseline or in a no-treatment condition with the complete 14-item SHAPS, were included in this preregistered meta-analysis.

          Data Extraction and Synthesis

          Random-effects models were used to calculate mean SHAPS scores and 95% CIs separately for healthy participants and patients with current major depressive disorder (MDD), past/remitted MDD, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, substance use disorders, Parkinson disease, and chronic pain. SHAPS scores were compared between groups using meta-regression, and traditional effect size meta-analyses were conducted to estimate differences in SHAPS scores between healthy and patient samples. This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          Self-reported anhedonia as measured by 2 different formats of the SHAPS (possible ranges, 0-14 and 14-56 points), with higher values on both scales indicating greater anhedonia symptoms.

          Results

          In the available literature (168 articles; 16 494 participants; 8058 [49%] female participants; aged 13-72 years), patients with current MDD, schizophrenia, substance use disorder, Parkinson disease, and chronic pain scored higher on the SHAPS than healthy participants. Within the patient groups, those with current MDD scored considerably higher than all other groups. Patients with remitted MDD scored within the healthy range ( g = 0.1). This pattern replicated across SHAPS scoring methods and was consistent across point estimate and effect size analyses.

          Conclusions and Relevance

          The findings of this meta-analysis indicate that the severity of anhedonia may differ across disorders associated with anhedonia. Whereas anhedonia in MDD affects multiple pleasure domains, patients with other conditions may experience decreased enjoyment of only a minority of life’s many rewards. These findings have implications for psychiatric taxonomy development, where dimensional approaches are gaining attention. Moreover, the SHAPS reference values presented herein may be useful for researchers and clinicians assessing the efficacy of anhedonia treatments.

          Related collections

          Most cited references51

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Reconsidering anhedonia in depression: lessons from translational neuroscience.

          Anhedonia is a core symptom of major depressive disorder (MDD), the neurobiological mechanisms of which remain poorly understood. Despite decades of speculation regarding the role of dopamine (DA) in anhedonic symptoms, empirical evidence has remained elusive, with frequent reports of contradictory findings. In the present review, we argue that this has resulted from an underspecified definition of anhedonia, which has failed to dissociate between consummatory and motivational aspects of reward behavior. Given substantial preclinical evidence that DA is involved primarily in motivational aspects of reward, we suggest that a refined definition of anhedonia that distinguishes between deficits in pleasure and motivation is essential for the purposes of identifying its neurobiological substrates. Moreover, bridging the gap between preclinical and clinical models of anhedonia may require moving away from the conceptualization of anhedonia as a steady-state, mood-like phenomena. Consequently, we introduce the term "decisional anhedonia" to address the influence of anhedonia on reward decision-making. These proposed modifications to the theoretical definition of anhedonia have implications for research, assessment and treatment of MDD. Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            The NIMH-MATRICS consensus statement on negative symptoms.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Assessing anhedonia in depression: Potentials and pitfalls.

              The resurgence of interest in anhedonia within major depression has been fuelled by clinical trials demonstrating its utility in predicting antidepressant response as well as recent conceptualizations focused on the role and manifestation of anhedonia in depression. Historically, anhedonia has been understood as a "loss of pleasure", yet neuropsychological and neurobiological studies reveal a multifaceted reconceptualization that emphasizes different facets of hedonic function, including desire, effort/motivation, anticipation and consummatory pleasure. To ensure generalizability across studies, evaluation of the available subjective and objective methods to assess anhedonia is necessary. The majority of research regarding anhedonia and its neurobiological underpinnings comes from preclinical research, which uses primary reward (e.g. food) to probe hedonic responding. In contrast, behavioural studies in humans primarily use secondary reward (e.g. money) to measure many aspects of reward responding, including delay discounting, response bias, prediction error, probabilistic reversal learning, effort, anticipation and consummatory pleasure. The development of subjective scales to measure anhedonia has also increased in the last decade. This review will assess the current methodology to measure anhedonia, with a focus on scales and behavioural tasks in humans. Limitations of current work and recommendations for future studies are discussed.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                101729235
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA network open
                2574-3805
                16 September 2020
                03 August 2020
                03 August 2020
                09 October 2020
                : 3
                : 8
                : e2013233
                Affiliations
                Department of Psychology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway; Department of Diagnostic Physics, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
                Department of Psychology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
                Department of Neuroscience, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island
                Department of Diagnostic Physics, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
                Center for Social and Affective Neuroscience, Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden
                Center on Mindfulness and Integrative Health Intervention Development, The University of Utah, Salt Lake City; The University of Utah College of Social Work, Salt Lake City
                Department of Psychology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway; Department of Diagnostic Physics, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
                Author notes
                Corresponding Author: Martin Trøstheim, MS, Department of Psychology, University of Oslo, Forskningsveien 3A, 0373 Oslo, Norway, martintrostheim@ 123456hotmail.com
                Article
                EMS95124
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.13233
                7116156
                32789515
                5f381b37-a800-4704-a5f7-cb4cc8bc8e8d

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                Categories
                Article

                Comments

                Comment on this article