Lam Dominic, Wright Kim, Smith Neil
Psychology Department, Henry Wellcome Building, Institute of Psychiatry, DeCrespigny Park, London SE5 8AF, UK.
J Affect Disord. 2004 Apr;79(1-3):193-9. doi: 10.1016/S0165-0327(02)00462-7.
Despite the initial encouraging outcome in developing CBT for bipolar affective disorder [Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 2002 (in press); Psychol. Med. 31 (2001) 459-467], very little is known about whether there are any differences in dysfunctional attitudes between unipolar and bipolar patients. Both the behavioural activation system theory [J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 67 (1994) 488-498; Major Theories of Personality Disorder, Guilford Press, New York, 1996; Psychol. Bull. 117 (1995) 434-449] and the cognitive model for bipolar affective disorder [Cognitive Therapy for Bipolar Disorder: A Therapist's Guide to Concepts, Methods and Practise, Wiley, New York, 1999] postulate high goal striving as a risk factor for bipolar disorder. However, the existing subscales in the dysfunctional attitude scale (DAS) were derived from patients and relatives of patients suffering from unipolar depression, patients with a mixed psychiatric diagnosis or normal controls. None of the existing subscales reflects high goal striving beliefs. Using a sample of bipolar patients may yield different factors.
A total of 143 bipolar 1 patients filled in the short version of DAS 24. Principal component analysis was carried out to derive factors. The scores of these factors were compared with those of 109 unipolar patients to investigate if these factors distinguish bipolar patients from unipolar patients.
Three factors were derived: factor 1 'Goal-attainment' accounted for 25.0% of the total variance. Factor 2 'Dependency' accounted for 11.0% of the total variance. Factor 3 'Achievement' accounted for 8.2% of the total variance. However, factor 1 appeared to consist of items that made a coherent theoretical construct. No significant differences were found when the validation sample was compared with 109 patients suffering from unipolar depression in any of the three factors. When subjects who were likely to be in a major depressive episode were excluded, the scores of bipolar patients (n=49) were significantly higher than euthymic unipolar patients (n=25) in factor 1 'Goal attainment'. Goal-attainment also correlated with the number of past hospitalisations due to manic episodes and to bipolar episodes as a whole.
The Goal-attainment subscale captures the risky attitudes described by the behavioural activation system theory and the cognitive model for bipolar affective disorder. It is postulated that these beliefs may interact with the illness and predispose bipolar patients to have a more severe course of the illness.
尽管在为双相情感障碍开发认知行为疗法(CBT)方面取得了初步令人鼓舞的成果[《美国普通精神病学文献》2002年(即将出版);《心理医学》31卷(2001年)459 - 467页],但对于单相和双相患者在功能失调态度方面是否存在差异知之甚少。行为激活系统理论[《人格与社会心理学杂志》67卷(1994年)488 - 498页;《人格障碍的主要理论》,吉尔福德出版社,纽约,1996年;《心理通报》117卷(1995年)434 - 449页]和双相情感障碍的认知模型[《双相情感障碍的认知疗法:治疗师的概念、方法和实践指南》,威利出版社,纽约,1999年]都假定高目标追求是双相情感障碍的一个风险因素。然而,功能失调态度量表(DAS)现有的分量表是从单相抑郁症患者及其亲属、患有混合性精神疾病诊断的患者或正常对照中得出的。现有的分量表均未反映高目标追求信念。使用双相患者样本可能会得出不同的因素。
总共143名双相I型患者填写了DAS 24的简短版本。进行主成分分析以得出因素。将这些因素的得分与109名单相患者的得分进行比较,以研究这些因素是否能区分双相患者和单相患者。
得出了三个因素:因素1“目标达成”占总方差的25.0%。因素2“依赖”占总方差的11.0%。因素3“成就”占总方差的8.2%。然而,因素1似乎由构成连贯理论结构的项目组成。在将验证样本与109名单相抑郁症患者在这三个因素中的任何一个进行比较时,未发现显著差异。当排除可能处于重度抑郁发作的受试者后,双相患者(n = 49)在因素1“目标达成”上的得分显著高于心境正常的单相患者(n = 25)。目标达成也与过去因躁狂发作和整体双相发作而住院的次数相关。
目标达成分量表捕捉到了行为激活系统理论和双相情感障碍认知模型所描述的风险态度。据推测,这些信念可能与疾病相互作用,使双相患者更易患病情更严重的疾病。