Skip header and navigation

2 records – page 1 of 1.

Affect regulation and psychopathology in women with borderline personality disorder.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature118764
Source
Dan Med J. 2012 Nov;59(11):A4521
Publication Type
Article
Date
Nov-2012
Author
Rune Andersen
Nina Timmerby
Erik Simonsen
Author Affiliation
Psykiatrisk Forskningsenhed, Region Sjælland, Roskilde, Denmark. runan@regionsjaelland.dk
Source
Dan Med J. 2012 Nov;59(11):A4521
Date
Nov-2012
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Adult
Affect
Affective Symptoms - etiology
Aggression - psychology
Borderline Personality Disorder - complications - diagnosis - psychology
Denmark
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
Female
Humans
Impulsive Behavior - etiology
Interpersonal Relations
Middle Aged
Personality Inventory - standards - statistics & numerical data
Psychiatric Status Rating Scales
Psychometrics
Psychopathology
Self Report
Self-Injurious Behavior - etiology
Translating
Abstract
Dysfunction in affect regulation is a prominent feature that grossly impairs behavioural and interpersonal domains of experience and underlies a great deal of the psychopathology in borderline personality disorder (BPD). However, no study has yet been published that evaluates the psychometric properties of the translated Danish version of self-report measures sensitive to the different aspects and dimensions of dysfunction in affect regulation prevalent in BPD.
This study comprised a group of women diagnosed with BPD (n = 29) and a comparison group of healthy subjects (n = 29) who reported psychopathology and levels of affective instability, aggression, impulsivity and alexithymia by self-report measures.
Our results demonstrated that women with BPD have significant psychopathology and report significantly higher levels of dysfunction in separate components of affect regulation by self-report measures than the comparison group of healthy subjects. Our results also provided partial support for the psychometric appropriateness and clinical relevance of the translated Danish version of affect regulation measures.
The normative reference range indicated by our results makes the measures useful as a practical assessment tool.
not relevant.
PubMed ID
23171744 View in PubMed
Less detail

Childhood adversity specificity and dose-response effect in non-affective first-episode psychosis.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature269845
Source
Schizophr Res. 2015 Jun;165(1):52-9
Publication Type
Article
Date
Jun-2015
Author
Anne Marie Trauelsen
Sarah Bendall
Jens Einar Jansen
Hanne-Grethe Lyse Nielsen
Marlene Buch Pedersen
Christopher Høier Trier
Ulrik H Haahr
Erik Simonsen
Source
Schizophr Res. 2015 Jun;165(1):52-9
Date
Jun-2015
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Adolescent
Adult
Case-Control Studies
Child Abuse - psychology
Denmark
Female
Humans
International Classification of Diseases
Logistic Models
Male
Psychopathology
Psychotic Disorders - diagnosis - epidemiology - psychology
Reproducibility of Results
Surveys and Questionnaires
Young Adult
Abstract
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
PubMed ID
25868932 View in PubMed
Less detail