Specific Personality Disorder Types Research Articles

Factors Associated with Hospital Readmission in a Population with a Diagnosis of Personality Disorder.

Hospital readmissions of users with personality disorders are frequent and represent a high personal and economic cost for health systems. This study aimed to identify risk factors associated with readmission in this population, examining sociodemographic and clinical variables. A retrospective observational study was conducted, using electronic records. The study was carried out at the Mental Health Hospitalization Unit of the Regional University Hospital of Málaga, covering all admissions between January 1, 2007, and March 31, 2024. Patients with a primary or secondary International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition (ICD-10) personality disorder diagnosis were included. The dependent variable was hospital readmission, analyzed both at 30 days and at 1 year. Mixed logistic regression models were used to identify risk factors. A total of 2403 admissions of 1072 individuals for 30-day readmission and 2256 admissions of 1029 individuals for 1-year readmission were analyzed; 17.15% of the admissions resulted in readmission at 30 days, and 42.33% at 1 year. The variables significantly associated with early readmission in the multivariate analysis were younger age (odds ratio (OR) = 0.973, p < 0.001), having a history of previous admissions (OR = 1.900, p < 0.001), and voluntary admission (OR = 1.348, p = 0.033). For readmission at 1 year, the significant variables included younger age (OR = 0.973, p < 0.001), history of previous admissions (OR = 1.956, p < 0.001), having another type of personality disorder diagnosis other than emotionally unstable personality disorder (OR = 0.654, p = 0.006), and comorbidity with affective (OR = 1.726, p = 0.025) and anxiety (OR = 1.915, p = 0.034) disorders compared to no comorbidity. This study identified key risk factors for hospital readmission of individuals with personality disorders, including younger age, previous admissions, voluntary admission, specific personality disorder types, and comorbidity with affective and anxiety disorders. These findings underscore the need for future research to better understand the risk factors for readmission in this population.

The longitudinal impact of DSM–5 Section III specific personality disorders on relationship satisfaction.

Maladaptive personality features, in the form of dimensional traits or symptoms of personality disorders, have been linked with lower levels of relationship satisfaction. Most of this research, however, has been cross-sectional, and little is known about the effect of specific personality disorder types, as measured dimensionally, on relationship satisfaction. In the current study, we used actor partner interdependence modeling (APIM) with self-reported personality traits from the Personality Inventory for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition and spouse-reported traits from the Personality Inventory for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition Informant Report Form. Composite scores for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition Section III Specific Personality Disorder Types, based on combinations of PID facets as outlined in the Section III criteria, were used to predict relationship satisfaction 1 year after personality was assessed. The alternative model of personality disorders composites significantly predicted relationship satisfaction both cross-sectionally and longitudinally. Results indicated that spouse reports of personality disorder types from the alternative model of personality disorders framework were robust predictors of satisfaction. Thus, individuals who perceive their partners as high in personality pathology (at any point in a relationship) are likely to be subsequently dissatisfied in the relationship. Interventions targeting perceptions of one's partner might be an effective way to improve marital satisfaction for these individuals. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Antipsychotics: treatment of schizophrenia and other therapeutic options

Antipsychotics are used in the treatment of schizophrenia and other psychoses, as well as bipolar disorder, anxiety disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and specific types of personality disorders. Due to better tolerability, as well as some advantages of the pharmacological profile, the second-generation antipsychotics are preferred in clinical practice. A special place among antipsychotics is taken by sulpiride, which shows the ability to improve the condition of patients with different types of mental disorders as well as with internal diseases.

Trastornos de la personalidad clínicamente más significativos: límite, obsesivo compulsivo y paranoide

Personality disorders are characterized by a permanent pattern of inner experience and behavior that are clearly distanced from the expectations of the individual's sociocultural environment. These disorders are pervasive, seldom flexible and are stable over time. These conditions start in adolescence or childhood and result in discomfort or impairment. The disorders are defined by a series of behaviors, perceptions, emotions, cognitions and descriptions of the affected individuals. There are 11 specific types of personality disorders and 1 unspecified type. Cluster A includes individuals who exhibit strange or eccentric behavior; cluster B is characterized by individuals with exaggerated dramatic, emotional or erratic behavior; and cluster C is characterized by anxiety or fear. In this update, we cover the most relevant disorders in clinical practice.

Clinical utility of the DSM-5 alternative model of personality disorders: six cases from practice.

In Section III, Emerging Measures and Models, DSM-5 presents an Alternative Model of Personality Disorders, which is an empirically based model of personality pathology measured with the Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS) and the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5). These novel instruments assess level of personality impairment and pathological traits. Objective. A number of studies have supported the psychometric qualities of the LPFS and the PID-5, but the utility of these instruments in clinical assessment and treatment has not been extensively evaluated. The goal of this study was to evaluate the clinical utility of this alternative model of personality disorders. Method. We administered the LPFS and the PID-5 to psychiatric outpatients diagnosed with personality disorders and other nonpsychotic disorders. The personality profiles of six characteristic patients were inspected (involving a comparison of presenting problems, history, and diagnoses) and used to formulate treatment considerations. We also considered 6 specific personality disorder types that could be derived from the profiles as defined in the DSM-5 Section III criteria. Results. Using the LPFS and PID-5, we were able to characterize the 6 cases in a meaningful and useful manner with regard to understanding and treatment of the individual patient and to match the cases with 6 relevant personality disorder types. Implications for ease of use, communication, and psychotherapy are discussed. Conclusion. Our evaluation generally supported the utility for clinical purposes of the Alternative Model for Personality Disorders in Section III of the DSM-5, although it also identified some areas for refinement. (Journal of Psychiatric Practice 2015;21:3-25).

IS THERE A LINK BETWEEN NON-EPILEPTIC ATTACK DISORDERS (NEAD) AND PERSONALITY DISORDERS (PD)? – A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

ObjectiveThis systematic review determined whether there are specific types of Personality disorders (PD) cluster(s) and/or specific PD disorder(s) that is more likely to occur in people with Non-epileptic attack disorders...

Mapping the Personality Psychopathology Five Domains Onto DSM–IV Personality Disorders in Dutch Clinical and Forensic Samples: Implications for DSM–5

The Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY–5) model represents 5 broadband dimensional personality domains that align with the originally proposed DSM–5 personality trait system, which was eventually placed in Section III for further study. The main objective of this study was to examine the associations between the PSY–5 model and personality disorder criteria. More specifically, we aimed to determine if the PSY–5 domain scales converged with the alternative DSM–5 Section III model for personality disorders, with a particular emphasis on the personality trait profiles proposed for each of the specific personality disorder types. Two samples from The Netherlands consisting of clinical patients from a personality disorder treatment program (n = 190) and forensic psychiatric hospital (n = 162) were used. All patients had been administered the MMPI–2 (from which MMPI–2–RF PSY–5 scales were scored) and structured clinical interviews to assess personality disorder criteria. Results based on Poisson or negative binomial regression models showed statistically significant and meaningful associations for the hypothesized PSY–5 domains for each of the 6 personality disorders, with a few minor exceptions that are discussed in detail. Implications for these findings are also discussed.

Too few or too many? Reactions to removing versus retaining specific personality disorders in DSM-5

The present review examines the decision of the DSM-5 Personality and Personality Disorders Working Group to retain or to remove specific personality disorders included in DSM-IV-TR and presents the reactions elicited by the decision and published between 10 February 2010 and 30 September 2012. In the first draft of Chapter P (Personality disorders), posted on the DSM-5 Internet site on 10 February 2010, the DSM-5 Personality and Personality Disorders Working Group proposed to remove paranoid, schizoid, histrionic, dependent and narcissistic personality disorders from the classification. A revised version of the draft, posted on the Internet in June 2011, reinstated narcissistic personality disorder but not the four remaining types that had been slated for removal. Underlying the decision of the Work Group for retaining versus removing specific personality disorder types are arguments concerning the clinical utility and validity of each type. The arguments provided by the Work Group have not been accepted unanimously by other personality disorder experts. DSM-5 will retain six out of the 10 personality disorder types listed in DSM-IV-TR while removing the remaining four types. Reactions to the decision and to the arguments presented for doing so have been mixed.

Distinguishing general and specific personality disorder features and implications for substance dependence comorbidity.

Clinical and population-based samples show high comorbidity between Substance Use Disorders (SUDs) and Axis II Personality Disorders (PDs). However, Axis II disorders are frequently comorbid with each other, and existing research has generally failed to distinguish the extent to which SUD/PD comorbidity is general or specific with respect to both specific types of PDs and specific types of SUDs. We sought to determine whether ostensibly specific comorbid substance dependence-Axis II diagnoses (e.g., alcohol use dependence and borderline personality disorder) are reflective of more pervasive or general personality pathology or whether the comorbidity is specific to individual PDs. Face-to-face interview data from Wave 1 and Wave 2 of the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions were analyzed. Participants included 34,653 adults living in households in the United States. We used hierarchical factor models to statistically partition general and specific personality disorder dimensions while simultaneously testing for specific PD-substance dependence relations. Results indicated that substance dependence-Axis II comorbidity is characterized by general (pervasive) pathology and by Cluster B PD pathology over and above the relationship to the general PD factor. Further, these relations between PD factors and substance dependence diagnoses appeared to largely account for the comorbidity among substance dependence diagnoses in the younger but not older participants. Our findings suggest that a failure to consider the general PD factor, which we interpret as reflecting interpersonal dysfunction, can lead to potential mischaracterizations of the nature of certain PD and SUD comorbidities.

Comorbidity of personality disorders and depression: Implications for treatment.

This article reviews naturalistic and controlled studies of the impact of comorbidity of personality disorders and depression on response to various forms of treatment. The findings support the common belief that personality disorders are associated with a poorer response to treatment for depression. In contrast, the limited data available suggest that the presence of depression may be a positive prognostic indicator for patients with borderline and antisocial personality disorder. There are insufficient data to draw conclusions regarding the influence of specific types of personality disorders on outcome with specific forms of treatment for depression. More specific assessment of personality disorders, particularly of possible underlying dimensions, is likely to be a more fruitful approach than the currently used categorical approach in identifying effective treatments for patients with personality disorders and depression.

Characteristics of male spouse abusers consistent with personality disorders.

Researchers and clinicians have tended to minimize the role of psychological characteristics of male spouse abusers, which has restricted the selection of potentially appropriate treatment interventions. A review of clinical literature on psychological characteristics of male batterers, including some studies incorporating psychometric testing, suggests that many of the characteristics of batterers are consistent with DSM-III criteria for personality disorders. Several authors have defined subtypes of batterers, which can be associated with specific types of personality disorders. Treatment programs for male spouse abusers should address the specific problems presented by patients with personality disorders, including alcohol-abusing batterers, a particularly difficult group to treat.