Browsing by Author "Doering, Stephan"

Dimensional approaches regard personality disorders as extreme or maladaptive variants of traits that are commonly used to describe normal personality. Previous clinical and nonclinical studies identified four factors interpreted as Antisocial, Asocial, Asthenic, and Anankastic. To investigate the validity of this four-factor structure in healthy volunteers, 97 male and 98 female students completed versions of the NEO-PI-R and TPQ. Symptoms of personality disorders were assessed using the ADP-IV questionnaire. A factor analysis of the personality and symptom scales revealed a four-factor solution accounting for 71.55% of the total variance. These factors resembling the "four A's" were labelled Asthenic, Sociable vs. Asocial, Antisocial, and Disorderly vs. An- ankastic. The results of this study support the presence of four factors in the description of adaptive as well as maladaptive personality traits.

Background Reliable outcome data of psychosomatic inpatient and day hospital treatment with a focus on psychotherapy are important to strengthen ecological validity by assessing the reality of mental health care in the field. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of inpatient and day hospital treatment in German university departments of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy in a prospective, naturalistic, multicenter design including structured assessments. Methods Structured interviews were used to diagnose mental disorders according to ICD-10 and DSM-IV at baseline. Depression, anxiety, somatization, eating disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, as well as personality functioning were assessed by means of questionnaires on admission and at discharge. Results 2,094 patients recruited by 19 participating university hospitals consented to participation in the study. Effect sizes for each of the outcome criteria were calculated for 4–5 sub-groups per outcome domain with differing severity at baseline. Pre-post effect sizes for patients with moderate and high symptom severity at baseline ranged from d = 0.78 to d = 3.61 with symptoms of PTSD, depression, and anxiety showing the largest and somatization as well as personality functioning showing somewhat smaller effects. Conclusions Inpatient and day hospital treatment in German university departments of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy is effective under field conditions. Clinical trial registration https://drks.de/search/de/trial/DRKS00016412 , identifier: DRKS00016412.

Introduction: Germany is one of the few countries with a medical specialty of psychosomatic medicine and psychotherapy and many treatment resources of this kind. Objective: This observational study describes the psychosomatic treatment programs as well as a large sample of day-hospital and inpatients in great detail using structured diagnostic interviews. Methods: Mental disorders were diagnosed according to ICD-10 and DSM-IV by means of Mini-DIPS and SCID-II. In addition to the case records, a modified version of the CSSRI was employed to collect demographic data and service use. The PHQ-D was used to assess depression, anxiety, and somatization. Results: 2,094 patients from 19 departments participated in the study after giving informed consent. The sample consisted of a high proportion of “complex patients” with high comorbidity of mental and somatic diseases, severe psychopathology, and considerable social and occupational dysfunction including more than 50 days of sick leave per year in half of the sample. The most frequent diagnoses were depression, somatoform and anxiety disorders, eating disorders, personality disorders, and somato-psychic conditions. Conclusions: Inpatient and day-hospital treatment in German university departments of psychosomatic medicine and psychotherapy is an intensive multimodal treatment for complex patients with high comorbidity and social as well as occupational dysfunction.