2 results
Early onset of alcohol use: a different personality profile?
- L. Diaz-Digon, G. Mateu-Codina, R. Martinez-Riera, L. Morro-Fernandez, M. Romero-Sanchez, M.-T. Nascimento-Osorio, M. Forns-Nadal, A. Bulbena-Vilarrasa, M. Torrens-Mèlich
-
- Journal:
- European Psychiatry / Volume 26 / Issue S2 / March 2011
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 16 April 2020, p. 28
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Introduction
Early onset of substances use disorders (SUD) has been related to some personality characteristics and a higher prevalence of social, psychiatric and organic problems.
ObjetivesTo describe personality differences in early onset of alcohol use (EO, age≤ 15) subjects and late onset of alcohol use (LO, age≥16), both affected of acute non-substance use psychiatric disorders (Non-SUD) and alcohol related substance use disorders (alcohol SUD).
MethodsData on sociodemographic and clinical factors were gathered among subjects meeting DSM-IV criteria of alcohol SUD. Psychometric characteristics were explored with TCI-R.
ResultsThe whole sample (N = 188; age 36,8 ± 9,2; 71,4% male) showed mainly hallucinations/delusions (37,7%) at admittance and personality disorders (50,3%) as a most prevalent non-SUD. Most common comorbid SUD were alcohol (59,5%).
EO subjects (N = 103) had more prevalence of legal problems (51,4% vs. 15,9%), sedatives misuse (73,8% vs. 54,1%), polydrug abuse (2 ± 1,1 vs. 1,6 ± 1,0) and higher score in ASI psychopathology (5,8 ± 1,3 vs. 4,8 ± 1,8). Most frequent dual diagnosis in EO subjects were psychosis+cannabis SUD (8,7%).
EO group was characterized by higher impulsiveness (102,9 ± 16,4 vs 97,0 ± 14,5), disorderliness (127,6 ± 19,2 vs. 117,4 ± 21,7), harm avoidance (30,7 ± 4,9 vs. 28 ± 7,6), eagerness of effort (34,7 ± 7,5 vs. 31,6 ± 8,0), ambitious (19,2 ± 4,6 vs. 17,9 ± 3,1), perfectionist (29,8 ± 5,9 vs. 27,8 ± 6,2), responsibility (30,5 ± 6,9 vs. 27,9 ± 7,7), resourcefulness (25,9 ± 6,3 vs. 23,2 ± 6,8), enlightened second nature (17,7 ± 3,9 vs. 13,9 ± 4,6), social acceptance (32,0 ± 5,8 vs. 29,4 ± 7,1) and lower anticipatory worry (71,7 ± 18,5 vs. 79,8 ± 17,9), dependence (54,5 ± 12,4 vs. 59,2 ± 14,9).
ConclusionsEO was characterized by higher scores in impulsiveness, disorderliness, and self-directedness and showed more severity on social, psychopathologic and substance problems.
1769 – Psychotic Disorder And Hospitalization Through Mobile Crisis Unit
- L. Gómez Pérez, M.T. Nascimento Osorio, A. Sabaté Gómez, D. Córcoles Martínez, Á. Malagón Amor, P. Álvaro Serón, M. Bellsolà, A. González, L.M. Martín López, A. Bulbena Vilarrasa
-
- Journal:
- European Psychiatry / Volume 28 / Issue S1 / 2013
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 15 April 2020, 28-E1034
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Introduction
The utility of Mobile Crisis Unit (MCU) and its target population has been a controversial issue and many scientific articles have been writen about it (1,2).
ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to identify the demographic and clinical features of patients diagnosed with psychotic disorder who have been hospitalized and have not required hospitalization in psychiatric unit through a Mobile Crisis Unit (MCU).
MethodsWe collected retrospectively demographic and clinical variables. These include psychiatric rating scales of severity: Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGI) and Psychiatric Disease Severity (GEP); of functionality as Global Assessment of Functioning Scale (GAF); the aggressive behaviour and violence scale (AVAT) and psychopathology with the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) of a total of 136 patients between June 2007 and July 2010.
ResultsThere have been found stadisticaly significative differences between patients who have been hospitalized versus patients who have not in the items of treatment adherence and security staff intervention (Table 1). There is a positive correlation between patients who required hospitalization and the clinical scales CGI, GEP, GAF, AVAT, SUMD, PANSS-P and PANSS-G (Table 2).
ConclusionsWe can conclude that patients cared for by the Mobile Crisis Unit (MCU) that require of psychiatric hospitalization have poor adherence to previous treatment. A high frequency of cases require intervention of security staff for having a higher risk of aggressiveness at the moment of hospitalization. The presence of greater psychopathology and functionality severity in patients hospitalized through the Mobile Crisis Unit (MCU) is also considered.
Variables No hospitalization Hospitalization p N % N % Sex Men 33 54.1 41 54.7 0.95 Cohabitation Alone 15 24.6 25 33.3 0.27 Toxics Yes 14 23 17 22.7 0.97 Psychiatric history Yes 45 78.9 54 77.1 0.81 Previous hospitalizations Yes 42 68.9 42 56 0.12 Treatment adherence Yes 14 31.1 2 3.5 < 0,05 Security staff Yes 1 1.7 39 57.4 < 0,05 Chi-square