Emotion regulation strategies in bipolar disorder: A systematic and critical review
Open accessAbstract
Background Theoretical frameworks emphasise associations between interpretations and responses to affect and bipolar disorder (BD). This review (PROSPERO CRD42016043801) investigated which emotion regulation (ER) strategies have been applied to BD, are elevated in BD compared to clinical and non-clinical controls, and are associated with clinical and functional outcomes in BD METHODS: Search terms relating to emotion regulation, coping and bipolar disorder were entered into Embase, MedLine and PsycInfo. Quantitative studies investigating relationships between ER strategies and BD were eligible for this narrative synthesis RESULTS: A large volume of research (n = 47) investigated specific ER strategies in BD. Maladaptive strategies such as rumination and dampening were elevated in BD compared to controls and these particular strategies had a detrimental impact on outcomes such as mood symptoms. BD had a similar profile of ER strategies to unipolar depression, but there was limited comparison to other clinical groups. People with BD did not generally have deficits in using adaptive strategies, as evidenced by comparisons with controls and experimental studies LIMITATIONS: Methodological heterogeneity and a lack of ecologically valid ER assessments CONCLUSIONS: Empirical literature is critiqued in line with contemporary theories of BD and of emotion regulation more generally, in order to inform future research recommendations. This includes investigation of the importance of context in the impact of ER strategies, and discrepancies between trait and state use of ER strategies, particularly through experience sampling.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 99 · Cited by 90
- Authors
- Dodd, A., Lockwood, E., Mansell, W., & Palmier-Claus, J.
- Affiliations
- Northumbria University (GB)
- National Health Service (GB)
- University of Manchester (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Dodd, Alyson
- Venue
- Journal of Affective Disorders
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-03
- Volume
- 246
- Pages
- 262-284
- ISSN
- 0165-0327 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2905052562
- Cited by
- 90
- References
- 99
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 6
- FWCI
- 0.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Affective Disorders (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- Northumbria Research Link (Northumbria University) (acceptedVersion)
- Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Bipolar Disorder and Treatment
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
- Keywords
- bipolar disorder, emotion regulation strategies, rumination, damping, coping, maladaptive emotion regulation, mood symptoms, major depressive disorder, ecological momentary assessment, functional outcome
- MeSH terms
- Ecological Momentary Assessment, Rumination, Cognitive, Adaptation, Psychological, Affect, Bipolar Disorder, Depressive Disorder, Major, Major Depressive Disorder, Emotions, Humans, Impulsive Behavior, Risk-Taking, Catastrophization
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review