Verheul R, Hartgers C, Van den Brink W, Koeter M W
Amsterdam Institute for Addiction Research, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
J Stud Alcohol. 1998 Mar;59(2):227-36. doi: 10.15288/jsa.1998.59.227.
OBJECTIVE. In a recent review of empirical studies on the prevalence of DSM-III-R personality disorders among substance abusers, wide ranges of prevalence rates for overall Axis II, antisocial personality disorder (APD) and borderline personality disorder (BPD) were shown. Utilizing subsamples from within a single study population, the current report explores the effect of sampling, diagnostic criteria and assessment procedures on the observed prevalence of DSM-III-R personality disorders among treated alcoholics.
Personality disorders were assessed with the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire Revised (PDQR) at two times of measurement (Time 1 n = 459; Time 2 n = 90). In addition, APD was measured with the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI; n = 587). Finally, an unselected subgroup (n = 136) was interviewed with the International Personality Disorder Examination (IPDE).
There were few differences between inpatients or outpatients or between males and females. Using the IPDE, the exclusion of substance-related pathology did not affect the prevalence estimate. However, the prevalence rates according to the PDQR varied greatly across age groups. In a representative subsample (n = 109), the prevalence rates also varied greatly across assessment methods (PDQR, 52% vs IPDE, 31%). The prevalence estimate of APD according to the CIDI was related to setting, gender, age group and the applied time-frame.
These findings indicate the examined factors to be necessary qualifiers of prevalence estimates and, consequently, support the use of a multiple-criteria/multimethod assessment battery in research as well as in clinical work.
目的。在最近一项关于药物滥用者中DSM-III-R人格障碍患病率的实证研究综述中,显示了轴II、反社会人格障碍(APD)和边缘型人格障碍(BPD)总体患病率的广泛范围。本报告利用单一研究人群中的子样本,探讨抽样、诊断标准和评估程序对经治疗的酗酒者中观察到的DSM-III-R人格障碍患病率的影响。
使用修订版人格诊断问卷(PDQR)在两个测量时间点评估人格障碍(时间1,n = 459;时间2,n = 90)。此外,使用复合国际诊断访谈(CIDI;n = 587)测量APD。最后,对一个未选的亚组(n = 136)进行国际人格障碍检查(IPDE)访谈。
住院患者与门诊患者之间或男性与女性之间几乎没有差异。使用IPDE,排除与物质相关的病理情况不影响患病率估计。然而,根据PDQR得出的患病率在不同年龄组中差异很大。在一个代表性子样本(n = 109)中,患病率在不同评估方法之间也有很大差异(PDQR为52%,而IPDE为31%)。根据CIDI得出的APD患病率估计与环境、性别、年龄组和应用的时间框架有关。
这些发现表明所研究的因素是患病率估计的必要限定条件,因此支持在研究以及临床工作中使用多标准/多方法评估组。