Cinders, you shall go to the ball

S. Watson and A. H. Young

School of Neurology, Neurobiology and Psychiatry, University of Newcastle, Department of Psychiatry, The Royal Victoria Infirmary, Queen Victoria Road, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 4LF, UK

EDITED BY STANLEY ZAMMIT

Declaration of interest

The authors are supported in their research by the Staney Medical Research Institute.

Goodwin has described bipolar disorder as the Cinderella of psychiatry, largely on the basis of his study showing the relative paucity of research studies in bipolar disorder compared with schizophrenia (Goodwin, 2000). This study has been reinforced by Clement et al (2003), who similarly concluded that bipolar disorder is underrepresented compared with schizophrenia and that this disparity is not declining over time. The importance of this discrepancy is demonstrated by the finding that bipolar disorder causes a greater global burden of disease than schizophrenia (Murray & Lopez, 1997) and by the huge financial impact of bipolar disorder on society (Das Gupta & Guest, 2002)

Clement and colleagues appear to lay the responsibility for the relative lack of bipolar research on a national shortage of specialist clinical services and on the lack of interest of researchers. However, clinical services such as our own in the Northern Deanery are flourishing and we suggest that historical difficulties in obtaining public funding for bipolar disorder are of greater impact. Clement et al examined citations in 5-year periods from 1966 to 2000. However, examination of Medline citations on an annual basis between 1996 and 2002 shows that the relative difference between research in bipolar disorders and schizophrenia may be becoming smaller. It appears that this has not been driven by a change in priorities of public funding bodies but rather by the presence of a private organisation, the Stanley Medical Research Institute, which funds approximately half of all US studies in bipolar disorder and has provided US$130 million for research since its inception in 1989. This timely report by Clement and colleagues should serve as a rallying call to governments and charitable funding bodies to give bipolar disorder the priority it demands.

REFERENCES

Clement, S., Singh, S. P. & Burns, T. (2003) Status of bipolar disorder research. Bibliometric study. British Journal of Psychiatry, 182, 148–152.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Das Gupta, R. & Guest, J. F. (2002) Annual cost of bipolar disorder to UK society. British Journal of Psychiatry, 180, 227–233.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Goodwin, G. (2000) Perspectives for clinical research on bipolar disorders in the new millennium. Bipolar Disorder, 2, 302–304.[CrossRef]

Murray, C. & Lopez, A. (1997) Global mortality, disability, and the contribution of risk factors: Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet, 349, 1436–1442.[CrossRef][Medline]





This Article
Full Text (PDF)
Submit a response
Alert me when this article is cited
Alert me when eLetters are posted
Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Email this article to a friend
Similar articles in this journal
Similar articles in PubMed
Alert me to new issues of the journal
Download to citation manager
Google Scholar
Articles by Watson, S.
Articles by Young, A. H.
Articles citing this Article
PubMed
PubMed Citation
Articles by Watson, S.
Articles by Young, A. H.


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Psychiatric Bulletin Advances in Psychiatric Treatment All RCPsych Journals