In this document, a subsample of N = 1011 MindDoc users, who were directly recruited over the app and underwent a separate online assessment is investigated. Besides sociodemographic information, several validated questionnaires on psychopathology were assessed.

Measures

PHQ-9

The PHQ-9 (B. Löwe et al. (2002); Bernd Löwe et al. (2004)) corresponds to the depression module of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-D). It was developed as a screening instrument for the diagnosis of depression for routine use in somatic medical settings and is recommended by the American Psychiatric Association as an instrument for measuring the severity of major depression according to the new DSM-5 criteria. The PHQ-9 measures the frequency of each of the 9 DSM-5 diagnostic criteria from 0 (not at all) to 3 (almost every day). The PHQ-9 also has good sensitivity to change when using the sum score, so it can be used to determine intervention effects.

GAD-7

The GAD-7 (Kroenke et al. (2007); R. L. Spitzer et al. (2006)) corresponds to the anxiety disorder module of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-D). It was developed to identify potential patients with a generalized anxiety disorder and to record the symptom severity of general anxiety. The one-dimensional instrument measures symptoms of generalized anxiety disorder as defined in the DSM-5. The item scores range from 0 (not at all) to 3 (almost every day). The GAD-7 is a valid and efficient instrument for screening for anxiety disorders and assessing severity in clinical practice and research (Kroenke et al. (2007)).

SSS-8

The Somatic Symptom Scale-8 (SSS-8) is a short version of the PHQ-15. This eight-item questionnaire was developed for use in situations with limited time, e.g. in a busy primary care setting or for conducting epidemiological surveys. The selection criteria for the items criteria were symptom prevalence in primary care, correlation with other measures of somatization, and with other measures of somatization disorders and correlations between the original items (Gierk et al. (2014)).

LPFS-BF

The LPFS-BF (Weekers, Hutsebaut, and Kamphuis (2019); German version: C. Spitzer et al. (2021)) is a brief self-report instrument that measures the degree of impairment in personality functioning as defined in the DSM-5, Section III (APA, 2013), which largely corresponds to the definition of severity of personality disorder in the ICD-11 (Bach and Simonsen (2021)). The 12 items correspond to the 12 subdomains of the LPFS. Respondents are asked to rate these items on a 4-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). The LPFS-BF items measure both self-functioning (i.e., sense of identity, impulse and affect regulation, and self-reflection) and interpersonal functioning (i.e., ability to understand the experiences and motivations of others, anticipate the effects of one’s behavior on others, and maintain relationships) to the same degree. Its psychometric properties are good. For example, the internal consistency of the total score (sum) was high in both clinical and general population samples (C. Spitzer et al. (2021)).

PID5BF+

The PID5BF+ is a 34-item self-assessment instrument based on the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) and expanded to include the ICD-11 domain Anankastia. The PID-5 is the official 220-item self-report instrument for assessing maladaptive personality traits according to the DSM-5 AMPD (Krueger et al. (2012)). The PID5BF+ has been extensively tested in clinical and non-clinical samples, has shown adequate psychometric properties (Bach et al. (2020);Kerber et al. (2020)). The PID5BF+ is suitable for dimensional screening of psychopathology profiles according to the HiTOP system (Kotov et al. (2021)). For example, high values in the Negative Affectivity domain indicate problems in the area of internalization, high values in Psychoticism indicate problems in the area of thought disorders and the domains Closedness/Detachment, Antagonism and Disinhibition correspond to the HiTOP spectra with the same names. A population-representative survey of this instrument is available to classify the psychopathology profiles (Rek et al. (2021)).

Table with sociodemographics and clinical assessments

Overall
(N=1011)
age
Mean (SD) 35.6 (12.2)
Median [Min, Max] 34.0 [13.0, 79.0]
gender
diverse 32 (3.2%)
female 800 (79.1%)
male 179 (17.7%)
relationship_status
partnership 133 (13.2%)
partnership & livingtogether 313 (31.0%)
single 316 (31.3%)
Missing 249 (24.6%)
contactwfriends
monthly 274 (27.1%)
multiplepermonth 252 (24.9%)
weekly 123 (12.2%)
multipleperweek 91 (9.0%)
daily 13 (1.3%)
Missing 258 (25.5%)
education
College degree 421 (41.6%)
High school 317 (31.4%)
Higher secondary school 234 (23.1%)
Lower secondary school 30 (3.0%)
no school grad 9 (0.9%)
jobstatus
full-time_working 373 (36.9%)
homemaker 17 (1.7%)
in_training 124 (12.3%)
jobless 54 (5.3%)
part-time_working 138 (13.6%)
pensioned 50 (4.9%)
Missing 255 (25.2%)
dep_PHQ9
no 89 (8.8%)
mild (PHQ9 5-9) 255 (25.2%)
moderate (PHQ9 10-14) 281 (27.8%)
severe (PHQ9 15-19) 221 (21.9%)
very severe (PHQ9 > 19) 165 (16.3%)
anx_GAD7
no 169 (16.7%)
mild (GAD7 5-9) 369 (36.5%)
moderate (GAD7 10-14) 278 (27.5%)
severe (GAD7 > 14) 195 (19.3%)
som_SSS8
no 99 (9.8%)
low (SSS8 4-7) 154 (15.2%)
medium (SSS8 8-11) 264 (26.1%)
high (SSS8 12-15) 227 (22.5%)
very high (SSS8 > 16) 267 (26.4%)
LPFSBF
none to mild (LPFSBF <24) 221 (21.9%)
moderate (LPFSBF 24 - 33) 480 (47.5%)
severe (LPFSBF > 32) 310 (30.7%)
Outpatient_treatment_last_6m
no 350 (34.6%)
psychiatrist visits 53 (5.2%)
psychiatrist visits + medication 77 (7.6%)
psychotherapy (at least 50 min per visit) 240 (23.7%)
psychotherapy + psychiatrist visits + medication 248 (24.5%)
Missing 43 (4.3%)
Inpatient_treatment_last_6m
no 514 (50.8%)
emergency room 71 (7.0%)
daycare psychiatry/psychosomatics 125 (12.4%)
stationary psychiatry/psychosomatics 210 (20.8%)
Missing 91 (9.0%)


It is a clinical sample. 93.9% showed anxiety or depression symptoms. More than half (N= 661, 65.4 %) are undergoing outpatient psychiatric/psychotherapeutic treatment, more than a third have been in hospital at least once in the last year due to mental health problems (N= 497, 49.2 %). N = 667 (66%) showed moderate to severe depressive symptoms, N = 473 (46.8%) showed moderate to severe anxiety symptoms, N = 758 (75%) showed moderate to severe somatization symptoms (cut-off from validation studies on PHQ-9 (Kroenke, Spitzer, and Williams (2001)), GAD-7 (Bernd Löwe et al. (2008)) and SSS-8. N= 790 (78.1%) showed moderate to severe impairment of personality function (LPFS-BF sum scores more than one or two standard deviations away from the population mean (C. Spitzer et al. (2021)))

Comparison to German representative sample from Rek et al. (2021)


The figure shows combined density- and boxplots together with the mean value and one standard deviation (dashed lines) for 5 domains of the PID5BF+ in comparison to a German representative sample Rek et al. (2021). The yellow area corresponds to the range between one and two standard deviations (SD), the red area corresponds to more than two SD.

The sample showed increased values compared to a representative norm sample (N=4727) in the areas of internalization (67% showed values greater than one SD, 20% values greater than two SD above population mean on the Negative Affectivity scale of the PID5BF+), Detachment (51% showed values greater than one SD, 24% showed values greater than two SD on the Detachment scale of the PID5BF+) and Disinhibition (48% showed values greater than one SD, 19% showed values greater than two SD on the Disinhibition scale of the PID5BF+).

References

Bach, Bo, André Kerber, Anton Aluja, Tim Bastiaens, Jared W Keeley, Laurance Claes, Andrea Fossati, Fernando Gutierrez, Sérgio ES Oliveira, and Rute Pires. 2020. “International Assessment of DSM-5 and ICD-11 Personality Disorder Traits: Toward a Common Nosology in DSM-5.1.”
Bach, Bo, and Sebastian Simonsen. 2021. “How Does Level of Personality Functioning Inform Clinical Management and Treatment? Implications for ICD-11 Classification of Personality Disorder Severity.” Current Opinion in Psychiatry 34 (1). https://journals.lww.com/co-psychiatry/Fulltext/2021/01000/How_does_level_of_personality_functioning_inform.10.aspx.
Gierk, Benjamin, Sebastian Kohlmann, Kurt Kroenke, Lena Spangenberg, Markus Zenger, Elmar Brähler, and Bernd Löwe. 2014. “The Somatic Symptom Scale–8 (SSS-8): A Brief Measure of Somatic Symptom Burden.” JAMA Internal Medicine 174 (3): 399. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.12179.
Kerber, André, Martin Schultze, Steffen Müller, Rosa Maria Rühling, Aidan G C Wright, Carsten Spitzer, Robert F Krueger, Christine Knaevelsrud, and Johannes Zimmermann. 2020. “Development of a Short and ICD-11 Compatible Measure for DSM-5 Maladaptive Personality Traits Using Ant Colony Optimization Algorithms.” Assessment, 21. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191120971848.
Kotov, Roman, Robert F. Krueger, David Watson, David C. Cicero, Christopher C. Conway, Colin G. DeYoung, Nicholas R. Eaton, et al. 2021. “The Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP): A Quantitative Nosology Based on Consensus of Evidence.” Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 17 (1): 83–108. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-081219-093304.
Kroenke, Kurt, Robert L. Spitzer, and Janet B. W. Williams. 2001. “The PHQ-9: Validity of a Brief Depression Severity Measure.” Journal of General Internal Medicine 16 (9): 606–13. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x.
Kroenke, Kurt, Robert L. Spitzer, Janet B.W. Williams, Patrick O. Monahan, and Bernd Löwe. 2007. “Anxiety Disorders in Primary Care: Prevalence, Impairment, Comorbidity, and Detection.” Annals of Internal Medicine 146 (5): 317. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-146-5-200703060-00004.
Krueger, Robert F., Jaime Derringer, Kristian E. Markon, David Watson, and Andrew E. Skodol. 2012. “Initial Construction of a Maladaptive Personality Trait Model and Inventory for DSM-5.” Psychological Medicine 42 (09): 1879–90. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291711002674.
Löwe, Bernd, Oliver Decker, Stefanie Müller, Elmar Brähler, Dieter Schellberg, Wolfgang Herzog, and Philipp Yorck Herzberg. 2008. “Validation and Standardization of the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Screener (GAD-7) in the General Population.” Medical Care 46 (3): 266–74. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e318160d093.
Löwe, Bernd, Jürgen Unützer, Christopher M. Callahan, Anthony J. Perkins, and Kurt Kroenke. 2004. “Monitoring Depression Treatment Outcomes With the Patient Health Questionnaire-9:” Medical Care 42 (12): 1194–1201. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-200412000-00006.
Löwe, B., R. L. Spitzer, S. Zipfel, and W. Herzog. 2002. Gesundheitsfragebogen Für Patienten (PHQ D). Komplettversion Und Kurzform. Testmappe Mit Manual, Fragebögen, Schablonen. Karlsruhe: Pfizer.
Rek, Katharina, André Kerber, Christoph J Kemper, and Johannes Zimmermann. 2021. “Getting the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Ready for Clinical Practice: Norm Values and Correlates in a Representative Sample from the German Population.” https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/5hm43.
Spitzer, Carsten, Steffen Müller, André Kerber, Joost Hutsebaut, Elmar Brähler, and Johannes Zimmermann. 2021. “Die deutsche Version der Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form 2.0 (LPFS-BF): Faktorenstruktur, konvergente Validität und Normwerte in der Allgemeinbevölkerung.” PPmP - Psychotherapie · Psychosomatik · Medizinische Psychologie, March, a-1343-2396. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1343-2396.
Spitzer, Robert L., Kurt Kroenke, Janet B. W. Williams, and Bernd Löwe. 2006. “A Brief Measure for Assessing Generalized Anxiety Disorder: The GAD-7.” Archives of Internal Medicine 166 (10): 1092. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092.
Weekers, Laura C., Joost Hutsebaut, and Jan H. Kamphuis. 2019. “The Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form 2.0: Update of a Brief Instrument for Assessing Level of Personality Functioning: The Level of Personality Functioning Scale - Brief Form 2.0.” Personality and Mental Health 13 (1): 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmh.1434.