Validity Of Generalized Anxiety Disorder Research Articles

The history of generalized anxiety disorder as a diagnostic category

From the 19th century into the 20th century, the terms used to diagnose generalized anxiety included "pantophobia" and "anxiety neurosis." Such terms designated paroxysmal manifestations (panic attacks) as well as interparoxysmal phenomenology (the apprehensive mental state). Also, generalized anxiety was considered one of numerous symptoms of neurasthenia, a vaguely defined illness. Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) appeared as a diagnostic category in the third edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III) in 1980, when anxiety neurosis was split into GAD and panic disorder. The distinct responses these two disorders had to imipramine therapy was one reason to distinguish between the two. Since the revised DSM-III (DSM-III-R), worry about a number of life circumstances has been gradually emphasized as the distinctive symptom of GAD. Thus, a cognitive aspect of anxiety has become the core criterion of GAD. The validity of GAD as an independent category has been questioned from DSM-III up to preparation of DSM-5. Areas of concern have included the difficulty to establish clear boundaries between GAD and (i) personality dimensions, (ii) other anxiety-spectrum disorders, and (iii) nonbipolar depression. The National Institute of Mental Health has recently proposed the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC), a framework destined to facilitate biological research into the etiology of mental symptoms. Within the RDoC framework, generalized anxiety might be studied as a dimension denominated "anxious apprehension" that would typically fit into the research domain called "negative valence systems" and the more specific construct termed "potential threat."

The nature of generalized anxiety disorder and pathological worry: current evidence and conceptual models.

To examine the nature and conceptualization of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) and chronic worry as well as data bearing on the validity of GAD as a distinct diagnosis. Narrative literature review. Although a wealth of data have been obtained on the epidemiology, genetics, and nature of GAD, many important questions remain regarding the validity of current conceptual models of pathological worry and the discriminability of GAD from certain emotional disorders (for instance, mood disorders) and higher-order trait vulnerability dimensions (for example, negative affect). Because the constituent features of GAD are salient to current conceptual models of emotional disorders (for example, models that implicate negative affect or worry/anxious apprehension as vulnerability factors), research on the nature of GAD and its associated features should provide important information on the pathogenesis, course, and co-occurrence of the entire range of anxiety and mood disorders.