Assessing Suicide Risk in Cluster C Personality Disorders

Crisis ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 128-133 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea P. Chioqueta ◽  
Tore C. Stiles

Abstract: The aim of the study was to assess suicide risk in psychiatric outpatients with specific cluster C personality disorders (avoidant, dependent, and obsessive-compulsive). A sample of 142 psychiatric outpatients was used for the study. The sample was composed of 87 outpatients meeting diagnostic criteria for a personality disorder and 53 psychiatric outpatients meeting criteria for an axis I disorder only. The results showed that dependent, but not avoidant or obsessive-compulsive, personality disorders, as well as the clusters A and B personality disorders, were significantly associated with suicide attempts. This association remained significant after controlling for both a lifetime depressive disorder and severity of depression for the cluster A and the cluster B personality disorders, but not for dependent personality disorder. The results underline the importance of assessing suicide risk in patients with cluster A and cluster B personality disorders, while the assessment of suicide risk in patients with cluster C personality disorders seems to be irrelevant as long as assessment of a comorbid depressive disorder is appropriately conducted.

2016 ◽  
Vol 33 (S1) ◽  
pp. S506-S506
Author(s):  
O.W. Muquebil Ali Al Shaban Rodriguez ◽  
J.R. López Fernández ◽  
C. Huergo Lora ◽  
S. Ocio León ◽  
M.J. Hernández González ◽  
...  

IntroductionThe personality disorders are defined according to the DSM-5 like “an enduring maladaptive patterns of behavior, cognition and inner experience, exhibited across many contexts and deviating markedly from those accepted by the individual's cultures. These patterns develop in adolescence and the beginning of adulthood, and are associated with significant distress or disability”. The personality disorders can be a risk factor for different processes of the psychiatric pathology like suicide. The personality disorders are classified in 3 groups according to the DSM-5:– cluster A (strange subjects): paranoid, schizoid and schizotypal;– cluster B (immature subjects): antisocial, bordeline, histrionic and narcissistic;– cluster C (frightened subjects): avoidant, dependent and obsessive-compulsive.AimsTo describe the influence of personality disorders in suicide attempts.MethodologyExhibition of clinical cases.ResultsIn this case report, we exhibit three clinical cases of suicide attempts which correspond to a type of personality disorder belonging to each of the three big groups of the DSM-5 classification, specifically the paranoid disorder of the cluster A, the disorder borderline of cluster B and the obsessive compulsive of cluster C.ConclusionsThe personality disorders have a clear relation with the suicide attempts, increasing this influence in some of them, especially the borderline personality disorder.Disclosure of interestThe authors have not supplied their declaration of competing interest.


Crisis ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea P. Chioqueta ◽  
Tore C. Stiles

Summary: The aim of the study was to assess suicide risk in psychiatric outpatients with and without somatization disorder. A total sample of 120 psychiatric outpatients was used in the study, 29 of whom met diagnostic criteria for somatization disorder. The results indicated that somatization disorder was significantly associated with suicide attempts even when the effects of both a comorbid major depressive disorder and a comorbid personality disorder were statistically controlled for. The results suggest that, although a patient meets the criteria for a principal diagnosis of major depressive disorder and/or a personality disorder, it is still of significant importance to decide whether or not the patient also meets the criteria for a somatization disorder in order to more optimally assess suicide risk. The findings highlight the fact that the potential for suicide in patients with somatization disorder should not be overlooked when a diagnosable depressive disorder or personality disorder is not present.


1999 ◽  
Vol 4 (6) ◽  
pp. 5-6

Abstract Personality disorders are enduring patterns of inner experience and behavior that deviate markedly from those expected by the individual's culture; these inflexible and pervasive patterns reflect issues with cognition, affectivity, interpersonal functioning and impulse control, and lead to clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning. The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Fourth Edition, defines two specific personality disorders, in addition to an eleventh condition, Personality Disorder Not Otherwise Specified. Cluster A personality disorders include paranoid, schizoid, and schizotypal personalities; of these, Paranoid Personality Disorder probably is most common in the legal arena. Cluster B personality disorders include antisocial, borderline, histrionic, and narcissistic personality. Such people may suffer from frantic efforts to avoid perceived abandonment, patterns of unstable and intense interpersonal relationships, an identity disturbance, and impulsivity. Legal issues that involve individuals with cluster B personality disorders often involve determination of causation of the person's problems, assessment of claims of harassment, and assessment of the person's fitness for employment. Cluster C personality disorders include avoidant, dependent, and obsessive-compulsive personality. Two case histories illustrate some of the complexities of assessing impairment in workers with personality disorders, including drug abuse, hospitalizations, and inpatient and outpatient psychotherapy.


CNS Spectrums ◽  
2000 ◽  
Vol 5 (9) ◽  
pp. 23-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandro Rossi ◽  
Maria Grazia Marinangeli ◽  
Giancarlo Butti ◽  
Artemis Kalyvoka ◽  
Concetta Petruzzi

AbstractThe aim of this study was to examine the pattern of comorbidity among obsessive-compulsive personality disorder (OCPD) and other personality disorders (PDs) in a sample of 400 psychiatric inpatients. PDs were assessed using the Semistructured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R Personality Disorders (SCID-II). Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated to determine significant comorbidity among OCPD and other axis II disorders. The most elevated odds ratios were found for the cooccurrence of OCPD with cluster A PDs (the “odd” PDs, or paranoid and schizoid PDs). These results are consistent with those of previous studies showing a higher cooccurrence of OCPD with cluster A than with cluster C (“anxious”) PDs. In light of these observations, issues associated with the nosologic status of OCPD within the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders clustering system remain unsettled.


2002 ◽  
Vol 32 (6) ◽  
pp. 1049-1057 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. FAVA ◽  
A. H. FARABAUGH ◽  
A. H. SICKINGER ◽  
E. WRIGHT ◽  
J. E. ALPERT ◽  
...  

Background. Personality disorders (PDs) were assessed among depressed out-patients by clinical interview before and after antidepressant treatment with fluoxetine to assess the degree of stability of PD diagnoses and determine whether changes in PD diagnoses across treatment are related to the degree of improvement in depressive symptoms.Method. Three hundred and eighty-four out-patients (55% women; mean age = 39.9±10.5) with major depressive disorder (MDD) diagnosed with the SCID-P were enrolled into an 8 week trial of open treatment with fluoxetine 20 mg/day. The SCID-II was administered to diagnose PDs at baseline and endpoint.Results. A significant proportion (64%) of our depressed out-patients met criteria for at least one co-morbid personality disorder. Following 8 weeks of fluoxetine treatment, there was a significant reduction in the proportion of patients meeting criteria for avoidant, dependent, passive-aggressive, paranoid and narcissistic PDs. From baseline to endpoint, there was also a significant reduction in the mean number of criteria met for paranoid, schizotypal, narcissistic, borderline, avoidant, dependent, obsessive–compulsive, passive aggressive and self-defeating personality disorders. While changes in cluster diagnoses were not significantly related to improvement in depressive symptoms, there were significant relationships between degree of reduction in depressive symptoms (percentage change in HAM-D-17 scores) and degree of change in the number of criteria met for paranoid, narcissistic, borderline and dependent personality disorders.Conclusions. Personality disorder diagnoses were found to be common among untreated out-patients with major depressive disorder. A significant proportion of these patients no longer met criteria for personality disorders following antidepressant treatment, and changes in personality disorder traits were significantly related to degree of improvement in depressive symptoms in some but not all personality disorders. These findings suggest that the lack of stability of PD diagnoses among patients with current MDD may be attributable in part to a direct effect of antidepressant treatment on behaviours and attitudes that comprise PDs.


Author(s):  
José Luis Carrasco ◽  
Dusica Lecic-Tosevski

This chapter begins by discussing the epidemiology, aetiology, clinical picture, course, differential diagnosis, and treatment of various Cluster A personality disorders (Paranoid personality disorder, paranoid personality disorder, schizotypal personality disorder), Cluster B personality disorders (antisocial personality disorder, borderline personality disorder (BPD), histrionic personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder) and Cluster C personality disorders (avoidant personality disorder, dependent personality disorder (JLC), and obsessive–compulsive (anankastic) personality disorder). Other personality disorders (not included in DSM-IV) are also covered, including passive–aggressive (negativistic) personality disorder, self-defeating (masochistic) personality disorder, sadistic personality disorder, depressive personality disorder, and personality changes, including enduring personality changes after traumatic experiences and personality change due to a general medical condition (JLC).


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 195-203
Author(s):  
Simona Trifu ◽  
Beligeanu Mihaela ◽  
Iacob Beatrice Ștefana ◽  
Larimian Ștefania Parisa

Motivation/Background: In this paper we aimed at clinically analyzing a patient diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, who also displays features specific to multiple personality disorders, in the context of a presentation whose key topic is sexuality. Given the global prevalence and the severity of schizophrenia, it is increasingly important to appropriately adapt and identify the patients' clinical and non-clinical personality profile. This paper also aims at making the profile of a patient diagnosed with axis I disorder ever since the age of 19, who also has got traits specific to certain personality disorders. At the same time, the work provides an interpretation of the behaviour from the psycho-dynamic point of view. Method: The following instruments were used for performing the analysis: a clinical interview, heteroanamnesis, psychological tests, clinical course monitoring, psychodynamic interpretations, defence mechanisms identification, psychiatric observation and treatment. Results: Based on the materials aforementioned, it has been established a possible diagnosis which includes multiple disorders: Antisocial Personality Disorder, Histrionic Personality Disorder, Schizotypal Personality Disorder, Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder, Cotard Syndrome, Kandinsky-Clérambault Syndrome. and there were identified defense mechanisms and coping strategies, under the influence of sexuality and sadomasochistic impulses. Conclusions: It is highlighted the clinical picture of a patient with paranoid schizophrenia, who presents symptoms for differential diagnoses, with disorganized discourse focused on sexuality, with delusional ideation, psychotic manifestation, but also with high suggestibility, especially on the paternal line


Psychology ◽  
2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edelyn Verona ◽  
Sean McKinley ◽  
M. Sima Finy

Personality disorders (PDs) are defined in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; published by the American Psychiatric Association in 2013) as “an enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the expectations of the individual’s culture, is pervasive and inflexible, has an onset in adolescence or early adulthood, and leads to distress or impairment” (p. 645). Although broad in scope, this definition is meant to distinguish PDs from other psychological disorders that are less clearly related to enduring personality. Indeed, as of 1980, in DSM-III, PDs were introduced in a different “axis” from other disorders, such as mood or anxiety disorders, ensuring that clinicians pay attention to acute disorders as well as personality-based problems in living. The former were classified under Axis I, or “Clinical Disorders,” representing acute manifestations of illness (e.g., schizophrenia, panic disorder), whereas PDs were classified under Axis II (along with mental retardation) in order to capture inflexible personality traits that have become problematic and that require psychological attention. However, with the publication of DSM-5, the multi-axial system has been eliminated in favor of a general scheme that places all disorders (clinical and personality) on the same diagnostic plane. In DSM-5, ten distinct PDs are listed, organized into three clusters: odd or eccentric (paranoid, schizoid, schizotypal); dramatic, emotional, or erratic (antisocial, borderline, narcissistic, histrionic); and anxious or fearful (avoidant, obsessive-compulsive, dependent) disorders. Individuals who show broad dysfunctions in personality that warrant treatment but who do not meet criteria for any specific PD are often classified as “Unspecified Disorder,” which is not in itself a personality disorder, but instead used to enhance specificity of an existing disorder or as a means of attaching a diagnosis to an individual for treatment purposes. Furthermore, a dimensional model of personality disorder, in which symptoms would be identified on a gradient scale of severity rather than a diagnostic checklist, was proposed during the DSM-5 revision process; however, this model was not approved to replace the categorical schema and was instead placed in section III of the manual (entitled “Emerging measures and models”). As of the early 21st century the etiology for PDs is unclear and multidetermined, but specific temperamental (e.g., neuroticism, disinhibition), environmental (e.g., childhood abuse), and biological (e.g., prefrontal cognitive control systems) factors have been most implicated. Specific etiological factors studied in regard to the three PD clusters as well as treatment approaches are reviewed in subsequent sections, with a focus on empirical and scientifically grounded publications.


2000 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 235-246 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hans M. Nordahl ◽  
Tore C. Stiles

The aim of the study was to examine whether there are specific cognitive personality traits that are related to specific cluster C personality disorders as suggested by Beck's cognitive model. The study included 135 psychiatric outpatients and 41 healthy controls. The subjects were diagnosed according to DSM-III-R axis I and axis II. The cognitive dimensions of sociotropy, autonomy and dysfunctional attitudes were assessed. The results indicated some cognitive specificity, especially when the effects of a lifetime depressive disorder were statistically controlled for. Dependent personality disorder was significantly associated with higher scores on all sociotropic subscales and dysfunctional attitudes. Avoidant personality disorder was significantly associated with the sociotropic subscales “concern about disapproval” and “pleasing others” as well as dysfunctional attitudes, while obsessive-compulsive personality disorder was associated with only higher scores on the sociotropic subscale “concern about disapproval”.


2000 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hans Ottosson ◽  
Martin Grann ◽  
Gunnar Kullgren

Summary: Short-term stability or test-retest reliability of self-reported personality traits is likely to be biased if the respondent is affected by a depressive or anxiety state. However, in some studies, DSM-oriented self-reported instruments have proved to be reasonably stable in the short term, regardless of co-occurring depressive or anxiety disorders. In the present study, we examined the short-term test-retest reliability of a new self-report questionnaire for personality disorder diagnosis (DIP-Q) on a clinical sample of 30 individuals, having either a depressive, an anxiety, or no axis-I disorder. Test-retest scorings from subjects with depressive disorders were mostly unstable, with a significant change in fulfilled criteria between entry and retest for three out of ten personality disorders: borderline, avoidant and obsessive-compulsive personality disorder. Scorings from subjects with anxiety disorders were unstable only for cluster C and dependent personality disorder items. In the absence of co-morbid depressive or anxiety disorders, mean dimensional scores of DIP-Q showed no significant differences between entry and retest. Overall, the effect from state on trait scorings was moderate, and it is concluded that test-retest reliability for DIP-Q is acceptable.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document