ABSTRACT
Background The term “mood stabilizer” is controversial in the literature. As there is no consensual meaning, its retirement has been suggested to avoid misuse. Nevertheless, it remains largely employed, and may carry an important meaning. This issue has not been approached using a validated qualitative inquiry.
Methods We employed document analysis for reviewing definitions for mood stabilizer. Then, we used concept analysis as a qualitative methodology to clarify the meanings associated with the term. Based on its results, we built a theoretical model for a mood stabilizer, matching it with evidence for drugs used in the treatment of bipolar disorder.
Results Concept analysis of documents defining the term unearthed four attributes of a mood stabilizer that were nested into the following ascending hierarchy: “not worsening”, “acute effects”, “prophylactic effects”, and “advanced effects”. To be considered a mood stabilizer, a drug had to reach the “prophylactic effects” tier, as this was discussed by authors as the core aspect of the class. After arranging drugs according to this scheme, “lithium” and “quetiapine” received the label, but only the former fulfilled all four attributes, as evidence indicates it has neuroprotective action.
Conclusion The proposed model uses a hierarchy of attributes that take into account the complexity of the term and help to determine whether a drug is a mood stabilizer. Prophylaxis is pivotal to the concept, whose utility lies in implying a drug able to truly treat bipolar disorder, as opposed to merely targeting symptoms. This could modify long-term outcomes and illness trajectory.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPQq, Brazil. PVSM is supported by a National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) productivity fellowship.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Fundings: this study was funded by the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientıfico e Tecnologico (CNPQ), Brazil. PVSM is supported by a National Council for Scientific and Technological Development – CNPq productivity fellowship.
Declarations of competing interests: the authors declare no potential conflicts of interest.
A more detailed description of the methodology for concept analysis is included. Also, the manuscript is throughout revised aiming a more concise presentation of the work, limiting the word count and facilitating reading.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript.
