Rumination, defined as intrusive and repetitive thoughts in response to negative emotions, uncertainty, and inconsistency between goal and current situation, is a significant risk factor for depressive disorders. The rumination literature presents diverse findings on functional connectivity and shows heterogeneity in research methods. This systematic review seeks to integrate these findings and provide readers diverse perspectives. For this purpose, the literature on functional connectivity in rumination was reviewed according to the PRISMA guidelines. Regional connectivity and network connectivity results were scrutinized according to the presence of depression, research methods, and type of rumination. After screening 492 articles, a total of 36 studies were included. The results showed that increased connectivity of the default mode network (DMN) was consistently reported. Other important findings include alterations in the connectivity between the DMN and the frontoparietal network and the salience network (SN) and impaired regulatory function of the SN. Region-level connectivity studies consistently show that increased connectivity between the posterior cingulate cortex and the prefrontal cortex is associated with rumination, which may cause the loss of control of the frontoparietal network over self-referential processes. We have seen that the number of studies examining brooding and reflective rumination as separate dimensions are relatively limited. Although there are overlaps between the connectivity patterns of the two types of rumination in these studies, it can be thought that reflective rumination is more associated with more increased functional connectivity of the prefrontal cortex. Although there are many consistent functional connectivity outcomes associated with trait rumination, less is known about connectivity changes during state rumination. Relatively few studies have taken into account the subjective aspect of this thinking style. In order to better explain the relationship between rumination and depression, rumination induction studies during episode and remission periods of depression are needed.

Introduction: Obsessive‐compulsive disorder (OCD) is a clinically heterogeneous disorder. The results of symptom‐based classification studies are inconsistent in resolving this heterogeneity. The aim of this study was to investigate clinical differences between clusters created according to neurocognitive performance.Methods: This study combined data sets from three previously published studies. A total of 135 outpatients diagnosed with OCD, and 106 healthy controls (HCs) were evaluated using the 17‐Item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS‐17) and a comprehensive neuropsychological battery. Patients were also administered the Yale‐Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (Y‐BOCS).Results: Two neurocognitive subgroups were identified by k‐means cluster analysis: globally impaired (GI, n = 42) and cognitively intact (CI, n = 93). The GI subgroup performed worse than the HC and CI groups on all neurocognitive tests. There was no difference between the CI group and HC in any cognitive domains. Compulsive symptom severity [t(133) = −2.45, p = 0.015], Y‐BOCS total score [t(133) = −2.09, p = 0.038], and age of onset were higher in the GI group than in the CI group [t(132) = −4.24, p < 0.001]. Years of education were higher in the CI and HC groups than in the GI group [F(238) = 35.27, p < 0.001]. There was no difference in symptom profile between the CI and GI groups.Conclusion: The identified cognitive clusters may indicate subtypes with different neurobiological bases. A better dissection of the cognitive structure of OCD could potentially facilitate genetic and neuroimaging studies.

Objective: The purpose of this study is to adapt the Mental Illness: Clinician Attitude scale version 4 (MICA-v4) into Turkish, conduct validity and reliability study. Method: The Turkish version of MICA-v4 was administered to 249 healthcare workers, including medical students, nurses, and physicians, and responses were collected in sealed envelopes. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (EFA and CFA) were employed to assess the structural validity of the scale. Cronbach's alpha coefficients were calculated to demonstrate reliability. The Beliefs Toward Mental Illness scale (BTMI) was used to assess criterion-related validity. Results: EFA yielded a three-factor solution explaining 53.88% of the total variance. Subscales were named MICA-Care (attitudes towards health/social care and views on mental illnesses), MICA-Stereotypes (stereotypes about mental illnesses), and MICA-Social interaction (social interactions with individuals with mental illnesses). Item factor loadings ranged from 0.469 to 0.852. Model fit indices calculated through CFA were at an acceptable level. The scale demonstrated good internal consistency with a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.774. Significant correlations were observed between MICA scores and BTMI scale scores. Conclusion: The findings of the study indicate that the Turkish version of MICA-v4 is valid and reliable. It is considered a useful tool for studies addressing stigma towards mental illnesses among healthcare workers in Türkiye.