用于确定边缘型人格障碍的诊断规则的差异会影响患病率以及与临床相关变量的关联:全国酒精及相关疾病流行病学调查-III》的研究结果。

Jennifer M Loya, Ashley Wagner, Brian Pittman, Margaret T Davis
{"title":"用于确定边缘型人格障碍的诊断规则的差异会影响患病率以及与临床相关变量的关联:全国酒精及相关疾病流行病学调查-III》的研究结果。","authors":"Jennifer M Loya, Ashley Wagner, Brian Pittman, Margaret T Davis","doi":"10.1037/per0000643","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a serious and understudied mental health condition associated with profound personal and public health consequences. Methodological differences in characterizing BPD may limit understanding the scope of the disorder's prevalence and effect. For example, using different diagnostic rules for BPD can affect apparent prevalence, comorbidity, and clinical presentation. This study examined how differences in diagnostic rules used to assign BPD diagnosis impacted its prevalence and associations with clinically relevant variables (e.g., demographics, comorbidity, treatment-seeking). Participants were a nationally representative sample of 36,309 noninstitutionalized U.S. adults. All variables were assessed via clinical interview (Alcohol Use Disorder and Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule-5). Six diagnostic rules determined BPD status. We used frequencies to examine prevalence rates of and associations between BPD and other clinical variables, and logistic regressions to examine the associations between each BPD variable and the other outcomes. The prevalence of BPD ranged widely-from 0.5% to 11.4%-per the diagnostic rule used. Associations between BPD diagnosis and various outcomes and clinical variables generally remained stable across all diagnostic rules, though effects became more extreme as diagnostic rules became more restrictive. Additionally, meaningful differences emerged as a function of the number of items used (30 vs. 18 items) even with no other changes to diagnostic rules. The field examining BPD and associated problem behaviors should critically consider how to most effectively characterize BPD to understand these problems more accurately and optimize the generalizability of findings. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":74420,"journal":{"name":"Personality disorders","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10786338/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Differences in diagnostic rules used to determine borderline personality disorder impact prevalence and associations with clinically relevant variables: Findings from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions-III.\",\"authors\":\"Jennifer M Loya, Ashley Wagner, Brian Pittman, Margaret T Davis\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/per0000643\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a serious and understudied mental health condition associated with profound personal and public health consequences. Methodological differences in characterizing BPD may limit understanding the scope of the disorder's prevalence and effect. For example, using different diagnostic rules for BPD can affect apparent prevalence, comorbidity, and clinical presentation. This study examined how differences in diagnostic rules used to assign BPD diagnosis impacted its prevalence and associations with clinically relevant variables (e.g., demographics, comorbidity, treatment-seeking). Participants were a nationally representative sample of 36,309 noninstitutionalized U.S. adults. All variables were assessed via clinical interview (Alcohol Use Disorder and Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule-5). Six diagnostic rules determined BPD status. We used frequencies to examine prevalence rates of and associations between BPD and other clinical variables, and logistic regressions to examine the associations between each BPD variable and the other outcomes. The prevalence of BPD ranged widely-from 0.5% to 11.4%-per the diagnostic rule used. Associations between BPD diagnosis and various outcomes and clinical variables generally remained stable across all diagnostic rules, though effects became more extreme as diagnostic rules became more restrictive. Additionally, meaningful differences emerged as a function of the number of items used (30 vs. 18 items) even with no other changes to diagnostic rules. The field examining BPD and associated problem behaviors should critically consider how to most effectively characterize BPD to understand these problems more accurately and optimize the generalizability of findings. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74420,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Personality disorders\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10786338/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Personality disorders\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000643\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Personality disorders","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000643","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

边缘型人格障碍(BPD)是一种严重的、未得到充分研究的精神疾病,对个人和公共健康造成了深远的影响。在描述 BPD 特征方面存在的方法差异可能会限制人们对该疾病患病率和影响范围的了解。例如,对 BPD 采用不同的诊断规则会影响其明显的患病率、合并症和临床表现。本研究考察了用于 BPD 诊断的诊断规则的不同如何影响其患病率以及与临床相关变量(如人口统计学、合并症、寻求治疗)的关联。研究对象是具有全国代表性的 36,309 名非住院美国成年人样本。所有变量均通过临床访谈(酒精使用障碍及相关残疾访谈表-5)进行评估。六项诊断规则决定了 BPD 状态。我们使用频率来检验 BPD 的患病率以及 BPD 与其他临床变量之间的关联,并使用逻辑回归来检验每个 BPD 变量与其他结果之间的关联。根据所使用的诊断规则,BPD 的患病率范围很广,从 0.5% 到 11.4%。在所有诊断规则中,BPD 诊断与各种结果和临床变量之间的关联通常保持稳定,但随着诊断规则的限制性增加,其影响也变得更加极端。此外,即使诊断规则没有其他变化,所使用的项目数量(30 个项目与 18 个项目)也会产生有意义的差异。研究 BPD 和相关问题行为的领域应该认真考虑如何最有效地描述 BPD,以便更准确地理解这些问题,并优化研究结果的可推广性。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA,保留所有权利)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Differences in diagnostic rules used to determine borderline personality disorder impact prevalence and associations with clinically relevant variables: Findings from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions-III.

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a serious and understudied mental health condition associated with profound personal and public health consequences. Methodological differences in characterizing BPD may limit understanding the scope of the disorder's prevalence and effect. For example, using different diagnostic rules for BPD can affect apparent prevalence, comorbidity, and clinical presentation. This study examined how differences in diagnostic rules used to assign BPD diagnosis impacted its prevalence and associations with clinically relevant variables (e.g., demographics, comorbidity, treatment-seeking). Participants were a nationally representative sample of 36,309 noninstitutionalized U.S. adults. All variables were assessed via clinical interview (Alcohol Use Disorder and Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule-5). Six diagnostic rules determined BPD status. We used frequencies to examine prevalence rates of and associations between BPD and other clinical variables, and logistic regressions to examine the associations between each BPD variable and the other outcomes. The prevalence of BPD ranged widely-from 0.5% to 11.4%-per the diagnostic rule used. Associations between BPD diagnosis and various outcomes and clinical variables generally remained stable across all diagnostic rules, though effects became more extreme as diagnostic rules became more restrictive. Additionally, meaningful differences emerged as a function of the number of items used (30 vs. 18 items) even with no other changes to diagnostic rules. The field examining BPD and associated problem behaviors should critically consider how to most effectively characterize BPD to understand these problems more accurately and optimize the generalizability of findings. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Comparing the clinical utility of the alternative model for personality disorders to the Section II personality disorder model: A randomized controlled trial. Comparing the DSM-5 categorical model of personality disorders and the alternative model of personality disorders regarding clinician judgments of risk and outcome. Comparing the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition, personality disorder models scored from the same interview. Longitudinal prediction of psychosocial functioning outcomes: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Section-II personality disorders versus alternative model personality dysfunction and traits. Prospective prediction of treatment outcomes in adolescents: A head-to-head comparison of alternative model for personality disorder versus borderline personality disorder.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1