Skip to main content
PMC home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Aug 12.
Published in final edited form as: Drug Alcohol Depend. 2008 Apr 21;96(0):187–191. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2008.03.002

Diagnostic Orphans for Alcohol Use Disorders in a Treatment-Seeking Psychiatric Sample

Lara A Ray 1, Robert Miranda Jr 1, Iwona Chelminski 2, Diane Young 2, Mark Zimmerman 2
PMCID: PMC3741088  NIHMSID: NIHMS484641  PMID: 18430524

Abstract

Individuals who endorse one or two of the DSM-IV criterion items for alcohol dependence but do not meet criteria for either alcohol abuse or dependence have been referred to in the literature as “diagnostic orphans.” The goal of the present study is to compare diagnostic orphans for alcohol use disorders (AUD) to patients with lifetime DSM-IV alcohol abuse, alcohol dependence, and those with no-AUD symptoms on a series of demographic, diagnostic, and clinical measures. Participants were treatment-seeking psychiatric outpatients (n = 1793; 61.5% women) who completed an in-depth, face-to-face diagnostic evaluation for DSM-IV axis I and axis II disorders. Results revealed that diagnostic orphans were younger, had a higher frequency of family history positive for alcoholism, and higher rates of cannabis dependence, as compared to the no-AUD symptoms group. Diagnostic orphans differed significantly from patients with alcohol abuse and dependence on a number of demographic, diagnostic, and clinical measures. Most notably, on a lifetime basis, diagnostic orphans were less likely to meet diagnostic criteria for various substance use disorders, as compared to individuals with alcohol abuse and dependence. Taken together, these results generally do not support combining diagnostic orphans to individuals with alcohol abuse.

Keywords: diagnostic orphans, alcohol, DSM-IV, alcohol use disorders

1. Introduction

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association, 1994) conceptualizes alcohol abuse and dependence as orthogonal to one another and proposes different criteria sets for each disorder. Individuals who meet one or two dependence symptoms but no abuse symptoms do not receive an alcohol use disorder (AUD) diagnosis and have been described in the literature as “diagnostic orphans” (Kaczynski and Martin, 1995). Few studies to date have compared diagnostic orphans to individuals with alcohol dependence (AD), alcohol abuse (AB), and no-AUD symptoms (no-AUD). In an adolescent sample, diagnostic orphans were more similar to patients with AB than to those with AD and no-AUD on alcohol use patterns, substance use, and substance-related diagnoses (Pollock and Martin, 1999). Similar findings were reported in a sample of individuals deemed at risk for the development of AUD (Sarr et al., 2000) and in a longitudinal study of sons of alcohol dependent parents and controls (Eng et al., 2003), such that diagnostic orphans more closely resembled individuals with AB than those with AD or no-AUD on measures of drinking and substance use. Conversely, diagnostic orphans differed significantly from individuals with AD in community (Hasin and Paykin, 1998) and nationally-representative (Hasin and Paykin, 1999) samples by reporting lower alcohol use, drug use, and family history of alcoholism. Together, studies suggest that diagnostic orphans may be phenotypically similar to alcohol abusers yet do not receive an AUD diagnosis according to the current DSM-IV nosology.

No studies to date have examined diagnostic orphans in treatment-seeking general psychiatric samples. This is especially relevant as seeking treatment is related to a number of clinical, social, and demographic factors (Alegria et al., 2000; Goodwin et al., 2002), suggesting that studies of psychiatric disorders in the general population should be replicated in clinical populations to provide the practicing clinician with information that might have more direct clinical utility. Moreover, as highlighted by the DSM-V Substance Use Disorders Workgroup (Schuckit & Saunders, 2006), further research is needed to determine how diagnostic orphans are best handled in the context of orthogonal abuse and dependence categories. To that end, the present study from the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Service (MIDAS) seeks to extend the literature by examining a treatment-seeking psychiatric sample and comparing diagnostic orphans to patients with lifetime AB, AD, and no-AUD on demographic, diagnostic, and clinical characteristics.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

The current report is based on 1793 (61.5% women) patients, out of 1800, for whom complete AUD symptom-level data were available. Of the1793 patients, 942 (52.5%) reported no DSM-IV AUD symptoms in their lifetime (i.e., no-AUD group), 127 (7.1%) were diagnostic orphans as they never received a diagnosis of AB or AD but reported one or two AD symptoms in their lifetime, 328 (18.3%) met lifetime criteria for AB (without ever receiving the diagnosis of AD) and 396 (22.1%) met lifetime criteria for AD. Of those with an AUD diagnosis 43% met current criteria for AB and 23% met for current AD. The AD symptoms most frequently endorsed by diagnostic orphans were: (1) drinking more than intended (39.7%), (2) tolerance (33.3%), and (3) spending a great deal of time drinking or recovering (28.4%). Principal diagnoses in the sample were: 48% depressive disorder, 17% anxiety disorders, 6% bipolar disorder, 2% AUD, 2% impulse control disorders, and 25% other diagnoses. Demographics are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Demographic characteristics by AUD diagnostic group in treatment-seeking psychiatric outpatients

Group 1 No AUD Dx (n = 942) Group 2 Dx Orphan (n = 127) Group 3 Alc Abuse (n =328) Group 4 Alc Dep (n = 396) F(3/1789 df) or χ2(3 df) Group Comparisons
1 vs 2 2 vs 3 2 vs 4
Age, M (SD) 38.6 (13.8) 35.8 (13.3) 36.0 (10.9) 37.5 (10.6) 4.43* *
Gender: Female, % 71.8 68.5 47.9 46.0 110.6** ** **
Ethnicity: Caucasian, % 85.4 90.6 93.0 86.1 14.5*
Marital status, % 22.8*
 Single 28.9 36.2 32.6 33.1
 Married/living together 49.6 41.7 47.6 40.7
 Divorced/separated 18.9 20.5 19.8 24.7
 Widowed 2.6 1.6 0.0 1.5
Education, % 21.2* *
 Less than high school diploma 11.2 9.5 6.4 13.6
 High school graduate 22.8 24.4 22.6 24.5
 Some college 39.2 32.2 43.6 40.9
 College degree or higher 26.8 33.9 27.4 21.0
Open in a new tab
*

p <.05;

**

p<.001

2.2. Procedures and Measures

Participants were recruited from the Rhode Island Hospital Department of Psychiatry’s outpatient practice (Zimmerman, 2003). The MIDAS project represents an integration of research assessment methodology into a community-based outpatient practice affiliated with an academic medical center which predominantly treats individuals with medical insurance on a fee-for-service basis. During a telephone screen, patients were invited to complete a face-to-face diagnostic battery prior to meeting with their treating clinician. The institutional review board approved the research protocol and written informed consent was obtained from each participant. Diagnostic raters for the MIDAS project included 4 research assistants with bachelor’s degrees, 12 Ph.D. level psychologists, and 2 psychiatrists. All raters received three months of training during which they observed interviews, and they were observed and supervised in their administration of evaluations. Ongoing supervision of the raters consisted of weekly diagnostic case conferences and every case was reviewed by the senior author.

The Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Disorders (SCID-I/P, version 2.0; First et al., 1995) was used to diagnose axis I disorders and the Structured Interview for DSM-IV Personality (SIDP-IV; Pfohl et al., 1997) assessed axis II disorders. Clinical Global Impression–Severity of depression (CGI-S; Guy, 1976) and Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) ratings were recorded and the Family History Research Diagnostic Criteria (FH-RDC; Andreasen et al., 1977) assessed family history of psychiatric disorders among first-degree relatives. During the course of the study, joint-interview diagnostic reliability information has been collected on 47 patients and the interrater reliability of the psychiatric diagnoses obtained in the MIDAS study is adequate (for details see Zimmerman and Mattia, 1999; Zimmerman et al., 2005).

2.3. Statistical Analyses

The data analytic approach consisted of the following three steps. First, we compared the four groups by performing one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for continuous variables and chi-squares for categorical variables of interest. Second, significant main effects of group were followed-up with planned comparisons between diagnostic orphans and AB, AD, and no-AUD. Third, multivariate logistic regression analyses evaluated the combination of characteristics that distinguished diagnostic orphans from each the other diagnostic groups. Analyses were performed using SAS Statistical Software (SAS Inc, 2003), statistical significance was set at p < .05, and all tests were 2-tailed.

3. Results

3.1. Demographics

There was a main effect of diagnostic group on age, gender, ethnicity, marital status, and education (p <.05), see Table 1. Planned comparison indicated that diagnostic orphans were, on average, younger than the no-AUD group, significantly more likely to be females as compared to AB and AD patients, and had higher levels of education than AD patients.

3.2. Diagnostic and Clinical Characteristics

As shown in Table 2, diagnostic orphans were more likely to meet lifetime DSM-IV criteria for cannabis dependence than patients with no-AUD. Diagnostic orphans were less likely than abusers to meet lifetime criteria for any substance use disorder, stimulant/cocaine abuse or dependence, cannabis abuse, and any other drug abuse or dependence. Similar findings were noted when comparing diagnostic orphans to AD participants, including higher rates of anxiety, impulse control disorders, and ASPD among AD patients. Diagnostic orphans were more likely to have a family history positive for alcoholism, as compared to the no-AUD group, and were less likely to have a family history positive for alcoholism than patients with AD. Diagnostic orphans had higher GAF ratings than AD patients and were less likely to have a history of psychiatric hospitalizations or suicide attempts, both dichotomous yes/no variables.

Table 2.

Diagnostic and clinical characteristics by AUD diagnostic group in treatment-seeking psychiatric outpatients.

Group 1 No AUD Dx (n = 942) Group 2 Dx Orphan (n = 127) Group 3 Alc Abuse (n =328) Group 4 Alc Dep (n = 396) χ2(3 df) Group Comparisons
1 vs 2 2 vs 3 2 vs 4
Axis I Disorders, Lifetime, %
 Major Depressive Disorder 72.9 72.4 72.3 72.2 < 1.0
 Bipolar Disorder (I or II) 5.9 9.5 5.8 10.6 11.0*
 Any Anxiety Disorder 61.0 66.9 57.9 76.0 34.2** *
  Panic Disorder 22.0 25.2 20.1 30.6 14.3*
  Social Anxiety Disorder 29.1 35.4 29.6 39.4 15.2*
  Generalized Anxiety Disorder 17.0 17.3 16.8 21.7 4.7
  PTSD 17.4 18.9 14.9 35.4 64.0** **
 Any Psychotic Disorder 2.8 2.4 4.0 4.3 2.9
 Any Impulse Control Disorder 15.8 15.8 23.2 26.3 23.7** *
 Any Substance Use Disorder 9.7 14.2 41.8 56.6 372.6** ** **
 Stimulant/Cocaine Abuse 2.7 3.2 14.3 26.3 185.7** ** **
 Stimulant/Cocaine Dependence 2.2 3.2 9.8 21.0 141.4** * **
 Cannabis Abuse 6.1 10.2 27.1 32.6 183.1** ** **
 Cannabis Dependence 2.2 8.7 9.8 18.4 106.7** ** *
 Any Other Drug Abuse 2.2 1.6 16.8 25.8 198.5** ** **
 Any Other Drug Dependence 1.5 1.6 6.4 15.7 111.7** * **
Axis II Disorders, %
   Cluster A 4.2 4.4 3.0 9.0 11.4*
   Cluster B 7.0 10.9 13.3 22.3 59.4** *
   Cluster C 18.7 24.6 20.3 30.7 15.2*
   ASPD 3.3 2.5 8.1 12.9 45.8 * *
Clinical Characteristics
 Number of DSM-IV alcohol dependence symptoms, M (SD) 0 1.31 (0.46) 0.83 (0.79) 4.74 (1.38) 1407.0**
 GAF rating, M (SD) 54.5 (10.6) 54.9 (10.8) 53.9 (10.3) 50.3 (10.7) 16.03** **
 CGI-S rating, M (SD) 2.24 (1.21) 2.24 (1.22) 2.13 (1.18) 2.40 (1.23) 3.22*
 History of hospitalization, % 19.3 20.5 23.2 37.1 49.5** **
 Family history of alcoholism, % 31.0 40.5 39.3 55.0 67.3** * *
 History of suicide attempt, % 17.0 22.1 19.2 32.8 42.8** *
Open in a new tab
*

p <.05;

**

p< .001

3.3. Multivariate Analyses

Logistic regression analyses evaluated the combination of variables that distinguished diagnostic orphans from each of the other groups. Given the univariate results of comparisons between diagnostic orphans and the no-AUD group, we conducted a multivariate logistic regression in which age, lifetime cannabis dependence, and family history of alcoholism were included in the model simultaneously to predict group membership. Results revealed that cannabis dependence [Odds ratio = 3.43, Wald χ2 (1) = 9.76, p < .01] and family history of alcoholism [Odds ratio = 1.49, Wald χ2 (1) = 4.07, p < .05] remained significant predictors of group membership, whereas age dropped to a statistical trend level (p = .069). Conversely, only two variables distinguished between diagnostic orphans and patients with AB in the multivariate model, gender [Odds ratio = 2.04, Wald χ2 (1) = 9.02, p < .01] and any drug abuse other than cannabis/stimulant/cocaine [Odds ratio = 10.44, Wald χ2 (1) = 3.95, p < .05]. Analyses comparing diagnostic orphans to AD patients suggested the following predictors of group membership: gender [Odds ratio = 2.49, Wald χ2 (1) = 11.97, p < .001], any substance use disorder [Odds ratio = 4.81, Wald χ2 (1) = 5.19, p < .05], drug abuse other than cannabis/stimulant/cocaine [Odds ratio = 5.97, Wald χ2 (1) = 3.82, p = .05], and family history of alcoholism [Odds ratio = 1.67, Wald χ2 (1) = 4.27, p < .05].

4. Discussion

This study sought to extend findings from epidemiological, community, and adolescent samples by examining diagnostic orphans for AUD in a general psychiatric outpatient sample. Results suggested that diagnostic orphans were younger, had a higher frequency of family history positive for alcoholism, and higher rates of cannabis dependence, as compared to those with no AUD diagnosis. Multivariate analyses revealed that family history and cannabis dependence remained significant predictors of diagnostic status. Specifically, the odds of being a diagnostic orphan versus having no AUD diagnosis or symptoms was 1.49 times higher for patients with a family history of alcoholism, which is consistent with previous finding using a nationally-representative sample (Hassin and Paykin, 1999). The findings regarding cannabis dependence are intriguing, as a previous study of adolescents found no significant differences in the prevalence of lifetime DSM-IV cannabis use disorders among diagnostic orphans and drinkers with no-AUD (Pollock and Martin, 1999). By contrast, a longitudinal study of adults suggested that the drug use histories of diagnostic orphans fell between the histories of the no-AUD and AB groups (Eng et al., 2003). This study provided more fine-grained analyses of various substance use disorders and suggested that diagnostic orphans are 3.43 times more likely to meet DSM-IV lifetime criteria for cannabis dependence as compared to those with no-AUD. The mechanisms underlying this relationship are unclear, and may be different for adolescents and adults, which warrants further research.

Diagnostic orphans differed significantly from patients with AB and AD on a number of clinical characteristics. Most notably, diagnostic orphans were less likely to meet lifetime criteria for various substance use disorders, as compared to patients with AB and AD. These results suggest that in general psychiatric practice, diagnostic orphans may be more dissimilar to alcohol abusers than what was reported in non-treatment seeking adult (Eng et al., 2003) and adolescent (Pollock and Martin, 1999) samples, and generally do not support combining adult diagnostic orphans to patients with AB.

The AD symptoms most frequently endorsed by diagnostic orphans were: drinking more than intended (39.7%), tolerance (33.3%), and spending a great deal of time drinking (28.4%), with the first two symptoms also commonly endorsed in previous studies (Eng et al., 2003; Hasin and Paykin, 1998; Sarr et al., 2000). Item Response Theory (IRT) analyses of MIDAS patients endorsing ≥ 1 AUD symptom revealed that the three most frequently endorsed symptoms by diagnostic orphans in this study had the lowest severity estimates (Ray et al., under review). Diagnostic orphans’ lower overall severity relative to AB and AD patients in the present study may be partially due to the specific symptoms they endorsed, in addition to the sub threshold nature of this group.

This study has a number of strengths and limitations. Limitations include the cross-sectional and retrospective design and a sample composed of patients seeking psychiatric treatment. The MIDAS dataset does not contain information on age of substance use offset; therefore, it was not possible to elucidate the course of alcohol use disorders in the sample. This study is based on lifetime analyses, which although similar to previous studies (e.g., Hassin and Paykin, 1999), is limited by the lack of information regarding the temporal relationship among diagnostic and clinical variables of interest. Strengths of this study include data culled from a large sample that is representative of psychiatric outpatients and its thorough diagnostic battery.

In conclusion, these findings generally do not support combining adult diagnostic orphans to those with AB as the two groups differed on several clinical variables. Further research is required before the clinical and treatment implications of identifying diagnostic orphans can be fully understood. Importantly, further studies of diagnostic orphans for other substances are needed as the current DSM-IV system does not provide modifications for the various classes of substances of abuse.

Acknowledgments

The MIDAS Project was supported, in part, by grants MH48732 and MH56404 from the National Institute of Mental Health. LAR was supported by a grant (T32 AA007459) from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

References

  1. Alegria M, Bijl R, Lin E, Walters E, Kessler R. Income differences in persons seeking outpatient treatment for mental disorders: A comparison of the United States with Ontario and the Netherlands. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2000;57:383–391. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.57.4.383. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Alterman AI, Cacciola JS, Mulvaney FD, Rutherford MJ, Langenbucher J. Alcohol dependence and abuse in three groups at varying familial alcoholism risk. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2002;70:336–343. doi: 10.1037//0022-006x.70.2.336. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. American Psychological Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 4. Washington, DC: Author; 1994. [Google Scholar]
  4. Andreasen N, Endicott J, Spitzer R, Winokur G. The family history method using diagnostic criteria. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1977;34:1229–1235. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.1977.01770220111013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Dawson DA, Grant BF, Stinson FS, Chou PS, Huang B, Ruan WJ. Recovery from DSM-IV alcohol dependence: United States, 2001–2002. Addiction. 2005;100:281–292. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2004.00964.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. de Bruijn C, den Brink W, Graaf R, Vollebergh WM. The craving withdrawal model for alcoholism: Towards the DSM-V. Improving the discriminant validity of alcohol use disorders diagnosis. Alcohol Alcohol. 2005;40:314–322. doi: 10.1093/alcalc/agh166. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Eng MY, Schuckit MA, Smith TL. A five-year prospective study of diagnostic orphans for alcohol use disorders. J Stud Alcohol. 2003;64:227–234. doi: 10.15288/jsa.2003.64.227. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. First MB, Spitzer RL, Gibbon M, Williams JBW. Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders - Patient edition (SCID-I/P, version 2.0) New York: Biometrics Research Department, New York State Psychiatric Institute; 1995. [Google Scholar]
  9. Goodwin R, Hoven C, Lyons J, Stein M. Mental health service utilization in the United States. The role of personality factors. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2002;37:561–566. doi: 10.1007/s00127-002-0563-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Grant BF, Dawson DA, Stinson FS, Chou SP, Dufour MC, Pickering RP. The 12-month prevalence and trends in DSM-IV alcohol abuse and dependence: United States, 1991–1992 and 2001–2002. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2004;74:223–234. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2004.02.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Guy W. ECDEU Assessment Manual for Psychopharmacology. US Dept of Health, Education, and Welfare publication ADM. Rockville, MD: National Institute of Mental Health; 1976. pp. 76–338. [Google Scholar]
  12. Hasin D, Paykin A. Dependence symptoms but not diagnosis: diagnostic orphans in a 1992 national sample. Drug Alcohol Depend. 1999;53:215–222. doi: 10.1016/s0376-8716(98)00133-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Hasin D, Paykin A. Dependence symptoms but not diagnosis: diagnostic orphans in a community sample. Drug Alcohol Depend. 1998;50:19–26. doi: 10.1016/s0376-8716(98)00007-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Kaczynski N, Martin CS. Diagnostic orphans: Adolescents with alcohol symptoms who do not qualify for DSM-IV abuse or dependence diagnoses. Poster presented at the Research Society on Alcoholism; Steamboat Springs, CO. 1995. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Pfohl B, Blum N, Zimmerman M. Structured Interview for DSM-IV Personality. American Psychiatric Press; Washington, DC: 1997. [Google Scholar]
  16. Pollock NK, Martin CS. Diagnostic orphans: Adolescents with alcohol symptoms who do not qualify for DSM-IV abuse or dependence diagnoses. Am J Psychiatry. 1999;156:897–901. doi: 10.1176/ajp.156.6.897. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Ray LA, Kahler C, Young D, Chelminski I, Zimmerman M. The factor structure and severity of DSM-IV alcohol abuse and dependence symptoms in psychiatric outpatients. (under review) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Sarr M, Bucholz KK, Phelps DL. Using cluster analysis of alcohol use disorders to investigate diagnostic orphans; subjects with alcohol dependence symptoms but not diagnosis. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2000;60:295–302. doi: 10.1016/s0376-8716(00)00118-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Schuckit MA, Saunders JB. The empirical basis of substance use disorders diagnosis: research recommendations for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition (DSM-V) Addiction. 2006;101(Suppl 1):170–173. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2006.01611.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. The SAS System for Windows [computer program]. Version 8.2. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc; 2003. [Google Scholar]
  21. Zimmerman M, Rothschild L, Chelminski I. The prevalence of DSM-IV personality disorders in psychiatric outpatients. Am J Psychiatry. 2005;162:1911–1918. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.162.10.1911. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Zimmerman M. Integrating the assessment methods of researchers in routine clinical practice: The Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services (MIDAS) project. In: MF, editor. Standardized Evaluation in Clinical Practice. 22. 2003. pp. 29–74. [Google Scholar]
  23. Zimmerman M, Mattia JI. Psychiatric diagnosis in clinical practice: Is commorbidity being missed? Compr Psychiatry. 1999;40:182–191. doi: 10.1016/s0010-440x(99)90001-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES