![]() Patients with complex/severe personality disorders stood out as being worst off. Patients with no personality disturbance were significantly differentiated (p < 0.05) from the other groups regarding the BDI, 15D, and MHI-5 scores as well as the number of Axis I diagnoses. The proportions of the groups were as follows: no personality disturbance 38.4% ( n = 135), personality difficulty 14.5% ( n = 51), simple personality disorder 19.9% ( n = 70), and complex/severe personality disorder 24.4% ( n = 86). ![]() The patients were categorized into four groups according to the level of personality disturbance: 0 = No personality disturbance, 1 = Personality difficulty (one criterion less than threshold for one or more personality disorders), 2 = Simple personality disorder (one personality disorder), and 3 = Complex/Severe personality disorder (two or more personality disorders or any borderline and antisocial personality disorder). All underwent diagnostic assessments (SCID-I and SCID-II) and filled in questionnaires concerning their social situation and childhood adversities, and other validated tools, including the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), health-related quality of life (15D), and the five-item Mental Health Index (MHI-5). The sample consisted of 352 patients admitted to mental health services. For this, we used a simple four-level dimensional categorization based on the severity of personality disturbance. ![]() We aimed to evaluate the clinical importance of these conditions. Current categorical classification of personality disorders has been criticized for overlooking the dimensional nature of personality and that it may miss some sub-threshold personality disturbances of clinical significance. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |