青少年治疗效果的前瞻性预测:人格障碍与边缘型人格障碍替代模型的正面比较。

Personality disorders Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-27 DOI:10.1037/per0000675
Carla Sharp, Paulina Kulesz, Sophie Kerr
{"title":"青少年治疗效果的前瞻性预测:人格障碍与边缘型人格障碍替代模型的正面比较。","authors":"Carla Sharp, Paulina Kulesz, Sophie Kerr","doi":"10.1037/per0000675","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Despite substantial evidence in support of the alternative model for personality disorder (AMPD) that has accumulated over the last decade, a gap remains in terms of head-to-head comparisons of the predictive power of Section II categorical diagnoses versus Section III AMPD diagnoses for clinical outcomes. The current study uses archival data from a naturalistic treatment outcome study in an adolescent psychiatric inpatient sample to compare the predictive power of the Section III AMPD (combined Criterion A and B assessment) versus Section II borderline personality disorder (BPD) in predicting treatment outcomes from admission to discharge. Outcomes in general psychiatric severity and emotion dysregulation were assessed in a sample of 59 adolescents (76.3% female, <i>M</i><sub>age</sub> = 15.27, <i>SD</i> = 1.17) at admission and at discharge on average about a month later. Results showed that, on average, predictive power of both AMPD measures and BPD were relatively modest. However, the AMPD, operationalized through combined measures of identity diffusion and maladaptive traits, was a stronger predictor of reduction in general psychiatric severity than a measure of BPD. The findings of the study add to a growing body of literature pointing to the advantages of Section III AMPD over Section II categorical diagnosis for clinical utility in predicting treatment response. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":74420,"journal":{"name":"Personality disorders","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prospective prediction of treatment outcomes in adolescents: A head-to-head comparison of alternative model for personality disorder versus borderline personality disorder.\",\"authors\":\"Carla Sharp, Paulina Kulesz, Sophie Kerr\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/per0000675\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Despite substantial evidence in support of the alternative model for personality disorder (AMPD) that has accumulated over the last decade, a gap remains in terms of head-to-head comparisons of the predictive power of Section II categorical diagnoses versus Section III AMPD diagnoses for clinical outcomes. The current study uses archival data from a naturalistic treatment outcome study in an adolescent psychiatric inpatient sample to compare the predictive power of the Section III AMPD (combined Criterion A and B assessment) versus Section II borderline personality disorder (BPD) in predicting treatment outcomes from admission to discharge. Outcomes in general psychiatric severity and emotion dysregulation were assessed in a sample of 59 adolescents (76.3% female, <i>M</i><sub>age</sub> = 15.27, <i>SD</i> = 1.17) at admission and at discharge on average about a month later. Results showed that, on average, predictive power of both AMPD measures and BPD were relatively modest. However, the AMPD, operationalized through combined measures of identity diffusion and maladaptive traits, was a stronger predictor of reduction in general psychiatric severity than a measure of BPD. The findings of the study add to a growing body of literature pointing to the advantages of Section III AMPD over Section II categorical diagnosis for clinical utility in predicting treatment response. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74420,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Personality disorders\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Personality disorders\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000675\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/6/27 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Personality disorders","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000675","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

尽管在过去十年中已经积累了大量支持人格障碍替代模型(AMPD)的证据,但在第二部分分类诊断与第三部分 AMPD 诊断对临床结果的预测能力的正面比较方面仍存在差距。本研究利用青少年精神病住院病人样本自然治疗结果研究的档案数据,比较了第三部分 AMPD(标准 A 和 B 合并评估)与第二部分边缘型人格障碍(BPD)对入院至出院治疗结果的预测能力。我们对 59 名青少年(76.3% 为女性,Mage = 15.27,SD = 1.17)在入院时和平均约一个月后出院时的一般精神病严重程度和情绪失调情况进行了评估。结果显示,平均而言,AMPD和BPD的预测能力都相对较弱。然而,通过对身份扩散和适应不良特质的综合测量,AMPD 比 BPD 测量更能预测一般精神病严重程度的减轻。越来越多的文献指出,在预测治疗反应的临床实用性方面,第三部分 AMPD 比第二部分分类诊断更有优势。(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
Prospective prediction of treatment outcomes in adolescents: A head-to-head comparison of alternative model for personality disorder versus borderline personality disorder.

Despite substantial evidence in support of the alternative model for personality disorder (AMPD) that has accumulated over the last decade, a gap remains in terms of head-to-head comparisons of the predictive power of Section II categorical diagnoses versus Section III AMPD diagnoses for clinical outcomes. The current study uses archival data from a naturalistic treatment outcome study in an adolescent psychiatric inpatient sample to compare the predictive power of the Section III AMPD (combined Criterion A and B assessment) versus Section II borderline personality disorder (BPD) in predicting treatment outcomes from admission to discharge. Outcomes in general psychiatric severity and emotion dysregulation were assessed in a sample of 59 adolescents (76.3% female, Mage = 15.27, SD = 1.17) at admission and at discharge on average about a month later. Results showed that, on average, predictive power of both AMPD measures and BPD were relatively modest. However, the AMPD, operationalized through combined measures of identity diffusion and maladaptive traits, was a stronger predictor of reduction in general psychiatric severity than a measure of BPD. The findings of the study add to a growing body of literature pointing to the advantages of Section III AMPD over Section II categorical diagnosis for clinical utility in predicting treatment response. (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