• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

冲动性严重程度、精神疾病发病率、功能失调性防御与人格障碍之间的临床关联:与轴I障碍的比较研究

Clinical Associations Between Severity of Impulsivity, Psychiatric Morbidity, Dysfunctional Defences and Personality Disorder: A Comparative Study With Axis-I Disorders.

作者信息

Chiesa Marco, Atti Anna Rita, Licitra Manuela, Alberti Siegfried, Epifani Andrea, Gilmozzi Rebecca, Pozzi Euro

机构信息

University College London, UK.

University of Bologna, Italy

出版信息

Clin Neuropsychiatry. 2020 Dec;17(6):339-348. doi: 10.36131/cnfioritieditore20200603.

DOI:10.36131/cnfioritieditore20200603
PMID:34909012
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8629056/
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Psychiatric morbidity, impulsive behaviour and use of dysfunctional and maladaptive defences are core features of personality disorder (PD). This study aims to evaluate the significance of the strength of the association between these three core dimensions and PD.

METHOD

Using a cross-sectional design, a sample of co-morbid Axis-I & -II disorders, and a sample of Axis-I disorders with no co-morbid PD were recruited at three general psychiatric mental health resource centres and then compared.PD as dependent variable was analysed both as a categorical and as a dimensional entity using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV. The Symptoms Checklist 90-R general severity index (GSI), the Barratt Impulsivity Scale (BIS) and the Defense Style Questionnaire (DSQ) were used to measure severity of psychiatric morbidity, impulsivity and defensive style, respectively.

RESULTS

BIS was a highly significant predictor of categorical PD (β = .13, SE = .03, p < .001), but not GSI and DSQ. BIS and GSI significantly predicted PD as a dimensional construct (β = 0.32, SE = .08, t = 4.05, p < 0.001; and β = 5.04, SE = 1.54, t = 3.28, p = 0.002, respectively). The diagnostic efficiency statistics found that BIS had greater sensitivity (.82) and specificity (.79), and overall predictive power (.87) of correctly identifying true positive and true negative PD diagnosis compared to the other two measures.

CONCLUSIONS

BIS may be used in routine clinical practice as a screening measure to identify the presence of PD in complex presentations.

摘要

目的

精神疾病发病率、冲动行为以及功能失调和适应不良防御机制的使用是人格障碍(PD)的核心特征。本研究旨在评估这三个核心维度与人格障碍之间关联强度的意义。

方法

采用横断面设计,在三个普通精神科心理健康资源中心招募了共病轴I和轴II障碍的样本以及无共病PD的轴I障碍样本,然后进行比较。使用《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第四版(DSM-IV)的结构化临床访谈,将人格障碍作为因变量,分别作为分类实体和维度实体进行分析。症状自评量表90修订版(SCL-90-R)的总体严重程度指数(GSI)、巴拉特冲动性量表(BIS)和防御方式问卷(DSQ)分别用于测量精神疾病发病率、冲动性和防御方式的严重程度。

结果

BIS是分类人格障碍的高度显著预测因子(β = 0.13,标准误 = 0.03,p < 0.001),但GSI和DSQ不是。BIS和GSI分别显著预测了作为维度结构的人格障碍(β = 0.32,标准误 = 0.08,t = 4.05,p < 0.001;β = 5.04,标准误 = 1.54,t = 3.28,p = 0.002)。诊断效率统计发现,与其他两项测量相比,BIS在正确识别真阳性和真阴性人格障碍诊断方面具有更高的敏感性(0.82)、特异性(0.79)和总体预测能力(0.87)。

结论

BIS可在常规临床实践中用作筛查措施,以识别复杂临床表现中人格障碍的存在。

相似文献

1
Clinical Associations Between Severity of Impulsivity, Psychiatric Morbidity, Dysfunctional Defences and Personality Disorder: A Comparative Study With Axis-I Disorders.冲动性严重程度、精神疾病发病率、功能失调性防御与人格障碍之间的临床关联:与轴I障碍的比较研究
Clin Neuropsychiatry. 2020 Dec;17(6):339-348. doi: 10.36131/cnfioritieditore20200603.
2
[Study on psychiatric disorders and defensive process assessed by the "defense style questionnaire" in sterile males SAMPLE consulting in andrology].[通过“防御方式问卷”对男科门诊不育男性样本进行精神障碍与防御过程的研究]
Encephale. 2005 Jul-Aug;31(4 Pt 1):414-25. doi: 10.1016/s0013-7006(05)82403-0.
3
The Severity of Personality Pathology: A Risk Factor for Concurrent Substance Use Disorders in Alcohol Use Disorder.人格病理学的严重程度:酒精使用障碍患者同时存在物质使用障碍的风险因素。
J Dual Diagn. 2019 Jul-Sep;15(3):159-171. doi: 10.1080/15504263.2019.1612131. Epub 2019 May 14.
4
[Preliminary comparative study of the personality disorder evaluation DIP instrument with the semi-structured SCID-II interview].[人格障碍评估工具DIP与半结构化访谈SCID-II的初步比较研究]
Encephale. 2009 Dec;35(6):544-53. doi: 10.1016/j.encep.2008.09.007.
5
[Mental health service utilization among borderline personality disorder patients inpatient].[边缘型人格障碍患者住院期间的心理健康服务利用情况]
Encephale. 2015 Apr;41(2):115-22. doi: 10.1016/j.encep.2014.10.008. Epub 2014 Dec 17.
6
[Validation of the dialectal Arabic version of Barratt's impulsivity scale, the BIS-11].[巴雷特冲动性量表阿拉伯方言版(BIS-11)的验证]
Encephale. 2013 Feb;39(1):13-8. doi: 10.1016/j.encep.2012.06.034. Epub 2012 Nov 1.
7
The relationship between childhood history of ADHD symptoms and DSM-IV borderline personality disorder features among personality disordered outpatients: the moderating role of gender and the mediating roles of emotion dysregulation and impulsivity.人格障碍门诊患者中多动症症状的童年病史与《精神疾病诊断与统计手册第四版》边缘型人格障碍特征之间的关系:性别调节作用以及情绪失调和冲动的中介作用
Compr Psychiatry. 2015 Jan;56:121-7. doi: 10.1016/j.comppsych.2014.09.023. Epub 2014 Oct 2.
8
Growth hormone responses to GABAB receptor challenge with baclofen and impulsivity in healthy control and personality disorder subjects.生长激素对 GABAB 受体激动剂巴氯芬的反应与健康对照和人格障碍受试者的冲动性。
Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2011 May;215(1):41-8. doi: 10.1007/s00213-010-2116-0. Epub 2010 Dec 22.
9
A dimensional approach to assessing personality functioning: examining personality trait domains utilizing DSM-IV personality disorder criteria.一种评估人格功能的维度方法:利用《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第四版人格障碍标准检查人格特质领域。
Compr Psychiatry. 2015 Jan;56:75-84. doi: 10.1016/j.comppsych.2014.09.001. Epub 2014 Sep 6.
10
The relationship among three models of personality psychopathology: DSM-III-R personality disorder, TCI scores and DSQ defences.三种人格精神病理学模型之间的关系:《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第三版修订本(DSM-III-R)人格障碍、气质和性格问卷(TCI)得分与防御方式问卷(DSQ)防御机制
Psychol Med. 1999 Jul;29(4):943-51. doi: 10.1017/s0033291799008533.

本文引用的文献

1
Prevalence of personality disorders in the general adult population in Western countries: systematic review and meta-analysis.西方国家普通成年人群中心身障碍的流行率:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Br J Psychiatry. 2018 Dec;213(6):709-715. doi: 10.1192/bjp.2018.202. Epub 2018 Sep 28.
2
Borderline personality disorder and substance use disorders: an updated review.边缘性人格障碍与物质使用障碍:最新综述
Borderline Personal Disord Emot Dysregul. 2018 Sep 19;5:15. doi: 10.1186/s40479-018-0093-9. eCollection 2018.
3
Comorbidity of personality disorder with intermittent explosive disorder.人格障碍与间歇性爆发性障碍共病。
J Psychiatr Res. 2018 Nov;106:15-21. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2018.08.013. Epub 2018 Aug 10.
4
Diagnosis and classification of personality disorders: novel approaches.人格障碍的诊断与分类:新方法。
Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2019 Jan;32(1):27-31. doi: 10.1097/YCO.0000000000000461.
5
Moving beyond categories and dimensions in personality pathology assessment and diagnosis.超越人格病理学评估和诊断中的类别和维度。
Br J Psychiatry. 2018 Dec;213(6):685-689. doi: 10.1192/bjp.2018.149. Epub 2018 Aug 14.
6
Interrater Reliability of the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorders Module i: Level of Personality Functioning Scale.DSM-5 人格障碍替代模型模块 i:人格功能水平评定量表的结构性临床访谈的评定者间信度。
J Pers Assess. 2018 Nov-Dec;100(6):630-641. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2018.1483377. Epub 2018 Aug 7.
7
Can Personality Disorders Be Redefined in Personality Trait Terms?人格障碍能否用人格特质术语重新定义?
Am J Psychiatry. 2018 Jul 1;175(7):590-592. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2018.18040481.
8
Using the Structured Interview of Personality Organization for DSM-5 Level of Personality Functioning Rating Performed by Inexperienced Raters.使用未经经验丰富的评定者进行 DSM-5 人格功能水平评定的人格组织结构访谈。
J Pers Assess. 2018 Nov-Dec;100(6):621-629. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2018.1448985. Epub 2018 Apr 4.
9
Mistrustful and Misunderstood: A Review of Paranoid Personality Disorder.多疑与误解:偏执型人格障碍综述
Curr Behav Neurosci Rep. 2017 Jun;4(2):151-165. doi: 10.1007/s40473-017-0116-7. Epub 2017 May 18.
10
The time has come for dimensional personality disorder diagnosis.进行维度性人格障碍诊断的时候到了。
Personal Ment Health. 2018 Feb;12(1):82-86. doi: 10.1002/pmh.1408. Epub 2017 Dec 11.