ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to assess the prevalence of DSM-IV dissociative disorders in an inner-city outpatient psychiatric population. METHOD: Subjects were 231 consecutive admissions (84 men and 147 women, mean age=37 years) to an inner-city, hospital-based outpatient psychiatric clinic. The subjects completed self-report measures of dissociation (Dissociative Experiences Scale) and trauma history (Traumatic Experiences Questionnaire). Eighty-two patients (35%) completed a structured interview for dissociative disorders (Dissociative Disorders Interview Schedule). RESULTS: The 82 patients who were interviewed did not differ significantly on any demographic measure or on the self-report measures of trauma and dissociation from the 149 patients who were not interviewed. Twenty-four (29%) of the 82 interviewed patients received a diagnosis of a dissociative disorder. Dissociative identity disorder was diagnosed in five (6%) patients. Compared to the patients without a dissociative disorder diagnosis, patients with a dissociative disorder were significantly more likely to report childhood physical abuse (71% versus 27%) and childhood sexual abuse (74% versus 29%), but the two groups did not differ significantly on any demographic measure, including gender. Chart review revealed that only four (5%) patients in whom a dissociative disorder was identified during the study had previously received a dissociative disorder diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Dissociative disorders were highly prevalent in this clinical population and typically had not been previously diagnosed clinically. The high prevalence of dissociative disorders found in this study may be related to methodological factors (all patients were offered an interview rather than only those who had scored high on a screening self-report measure) and epidemiological factors (extremely high prevalence rates for childhood physical and sexual abuse were present in the overall study population).
Subject(s)
Ambulatory Care , Dissociative Disorders/epidemiology , Mental Disorders/epidemiology , Adult , Child , Child Abuse/psychology , Child Abuse/statistics & numerical data , Child Abuse, Sexual/psychology , Child Abuse, Sexual/statistics & numerical data , Comorbidity , Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders , Dissociative Disorders/diagnosis , Dissociative Disorders/psychology , Dissociative Identity Disorder/diagnosis , Dissociative Identity Disorder/epidemiology , Dissociative Identity Disorder/psychology , Female , Humans , Male , Mental Disorders/diagnosis , Mental Disorders/psychology , New York City/epidemiology , Outpatient Clinics, Hospital , Personality Inventory , Prevalence , Psychiatric Status Rating Scales , Sex Factors , Surveys and Questionnaires , Urban PopulationABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Comparison of patients with and without atypical depression on comorbid Axis I and I disorders to determine whether atypical depression is associated with a higher comorbidity. METHOD: Twenty-nine major depressive disorder patients with and without atypical depression were compared on clinical measures using multiple regression analyses. RESULTS: Atypical depression predicted the presence of comorbid Axis I (100% vs 33%), Axis II (90% vs 35%), and both Axis I and II (65% vs 8.14%) disorders. Personality disorders did not mediate the relationship between atypical depression and Axis I comorbidity. CONCLUSIONS: The high prevalence of Axis I and II comorbidity in major depression may be explained, at least in part, by the presence of atypical depression. Our findings also suggest that the increased Axis I comorbidity observed in atypical depression is independent of the effects of personality disorders and is probably a direct effect of atypical depression subtype. Future research should confirm whether clinical findings associated with atypical depression are independent of their association with personality disorders in a larger sample of depressed patients and also examine treatment implications in atypical depression other than a preferential monoamine oxidase inhibitor responsivity.
Subject(s)
Depressive Disorder, Major/epidemiology , Personality Disorders/epidemiology , Adult , Comorbidity , Female , Humans , Interview, Psychological , Male , Personality Disorders/classification , Prospective Studies , Regression AnalysisABSTRACT
This article describes the provider evaluation of a multifaceted system of care for pregnant women experiencing domestic violence and who receive prenatal care in an urban family practice site, one of four national demonstration projects. Providers reported changes in their own self-efficacy and behavior, but showed little improvement in overall attitudes or knowledge. Focus groups revealed that an easily accessible domestic violence coordinator was important, whereas providers stated that most domestic violence protocol materials were not useful. Guidelines that rely on training and protocols have had limited national success, suggesting that additional systems of care such as written chart prompts, quality improvement, and on-site domestic violence services may be necessary. This intervention was well received by providers, a key factor in any effort to alter provider behavior.
