Empirical evidence for a four factor framework of personality disorder organization: multigroup confirmatory factor analysis of the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III personality disorder scales across Belgian and Danish data samples.
The factor structure of the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III (Millon, Millon, Davis, & Grossman, 2006) personality disorder scales was analyzed using multigroup confirmatory factor analysis on data obtained from a Danish (N = 2030) and a Belgian (N = 1210) sample. Two-, three-, and four factor models, a priori specified using structures found by Dyce, O'Connor, Parkins, and Janzen (1997), were fitted to the data. The best fitting model was a four factor structure (RMSEA = .066, GFI = .98, CFI = .93) with partially invariant factor loadings. The robustness of this four-factor model clearly supports the efforts to organize future personality disorder description in a four-factor framework by corroborating four domains that were predominant in dimensional models (Widiger & Simonsen, 2005): Factor 1, 2, 3, and 4 respectively corresponded to emotional dysregulation versus stability, antagonism versus compliance, extraversion versus introversion, and constraint versus impulsivity.
The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013a) offers an alternative model for Personality Disorders (PDs) in Section III, which consists in part of a pathological personality traits criterion measured with the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5). The PID-5 selfreport instrument currently exists in the original 220-item form, a short 100-item form, and a brief 25-item form. For clinicians and researchers, the choice of a particular PID- 5 form depends on feasibility, but also reliability and validity. The goal of the present study was to examine the psychometric qualities of all 3 PID-5 forms, simultaneously, based on a Danish sample (N = 1376) of 451 psychiatric outpatients and 925 community-dwelling participants. Scale reliability and factorial validity were satisfactory across all 3 PID-5 forms. The correlational profiles of the short and brief PID-5 forms with clinician-rated PD dimensions were nearly identical with that of the original PID-5 (rICC = .99 and .95, respectively). All 3 forms discriminated appropriately between psychiatric patients and community-dwelling individuals. This supports that all 3 PID-5 forms can be used to reliably and validly assess PD traits and provides initial support for the use of the abbreviated PID-5 forms in a European population. However, only the original 220-item form and the short 100-item form capture all 25 trait facets, and the brief 25-item form may be ideally limited to preliminary screening or situations with substantial time restrictions.
Information on determinants of duration of untreated psychosis (DUP) is still needed to inform campaigns targeting people with first episode psychosis (FEP). This nation-wide study analysed the association between demographic factors (age, sex, ethnicity, marital status, and geographic area), premorbid and illness-related factors (global functional level, substance misuse, and contact to police), healthcare factors (referral source and first FEP contact) and DUP.
The study population of 1266 patients aged 15-25years diagnosed with FEP (ICD10 F20.0-F20.99) was drawn from the Danish National Indicator Project during 2009-2011. The study population was combined with data from national administrative registers. A multinomial regression model was estimated to analyse the impact of demographic, premorbid and illness-related, and healthcare factors on DUP.
One third of the population had a DUP below 6months. DUP longer than 12months was associated with older age at onset, being female, having cannabis misuse, and living in peripheral municipalities. Being charged by the criminal authorities during one year before FEP was associated with a DUP over 6months.
DUP is related to a number of demographic, premorbid and healthcare factors. These findings suggest that future information campaigns should focus on increasing the awareness of early signs of psychosis not only among mental health professionals but also other professionals in contact with adolescents such as the police. It may also be useful to consider how to target information campaigns towards persons living in peripheral areas.
Information about the cost-effectiveness of early intervention programmes for first-episode psychosis is limited.
To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of an intensive early-intervention programme (called OPUS) (trial registration NCT00157313) consisting of enriched assertive community treatment, psychoeducational family treatment and social skills training for individuals with first-episode psychosis compared with standard treatment.
An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomised controlled trial, adopting a public sector perspective was undertaken.
The mean total costs of OPUS over 5 years (€123,683, s.e. = 8970) were not significantly different from that of standard treatment (€148,751, s.e. = 13073). At 2-year follow-up the mean Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) score in the OPUS group (55.16, s.d. = 15.15) was significantly higher than in standard treatment group (51.13, s.d. = 15.92). However, the mean GAF did not differ significantly between the groups at 5-year follow-up (55.35 (s.d. = 18.28) and 54.16 (s.d. = 18.41), respectively). Cost-effectiveness planes based on non-parametric bootstrapping showed that OPUS was less costly and more effective in 70% of the replications. For a willingness-to-pay up to €50,000 the probability that OPUS was cost-effective was more than 80%.
The incremental cost-effectiveness analysis showed that there was a high probability of OPUS being cost-effective compared with standard treatment.
Reviews conclude that childhood and adolescence sexual, physical, emotional abuse and emotional and physical neglect are all risk factors for psychosis. However, studies suggest only some adversities are associated with psychosis. Dose-response effects of several adversities on risk of psychosis have not been consistently found. The current study aimed to explore adversity specificity and dose-response effects of adversities on risk of psychosis.
Participants were 101 persons with first-episode psychosis (FEP) diagnosed with ICD-10 F20 - F29 (except F21) and 101 non-clinical control persons matched by gender, age and parents' socio-economic status. Assessment included the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire and parts of the Childhood Experience of Care and Abuse Questionnaire.
Eighty-nine percent of the FEP group reported one or more adversities compared to 37% of the control group. Childhood and adolescent sexual, physical, emotional abuse, and physical and emotional neglect, separation and institutionalization were about four to 17 times higher for the FEP group (all p
BACKGROUND: Early detection programmes aim to reduce the duration of untreated psychosis (DUP) by public education and by prompt access to treatment via active outreach detection teams. AIMS: To determine whether those with first-episode psychosis in an early detection healthcare area with existing referral channels differ from those who access care via detection teams. METHOD: Those with first-episode psychosis recruited via detection teams were compared with those accessing treatment via conventional channels, at baseline and after 3 months of acute treatment. RESULTS: Patients recruited via detection teams are younger males with a longer DUP, a less dramatic symptom picture and better functioning; however they recover more slowly, and have more symptoms at 3-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: After establishing low threshold active case-seeking detection teams, we found clear differences between those patients entering treatment via detection teams v. those obtaining treatment via the usual channels. Such profiling may be informative for early detection service development.
To identify predictors of non-remission in first-episode, non-affective psychosis.
During 4 years, we recruited 301 patients consecutively. Information about first remission at 3 months was available for 299 and at 2 years for 293 cases. Symptomatic and social outcomes were assessed at 3 months, 1 and 2 years.
One hundred and twenty-nine patients (43%) remained psychotic at 3 months and 48 patients (16.4%) remained psychotic over 2 years. When we compared premorbid and baseline data for the three groups, the non-remitted (n = 48), remitted for