Treatment of Personality

2018 ◽  
pp. 281-286
Author(s):  
S. Nassir Ghaemi

The diagnosis and treatment of personality are probed. Some DSM definitions are viewed as either invalid (narcissistic personality disorder) or related to other conditions (schizotypal personality). Instead, DSM-based personality “disorders” are seen as psychoanalytic speculations, with weak empirical support, except for borderline personality and antisocial personality. Other aspects of personality are best understood as traits, rather than “disorders,” or as symptomatic changes that are acute and occur lower in the hierarchy of diagnosis than mood or psychotic states, and are caused by the latter. The common report of purported comorbidity is seen as an overestimation, with personality changes often being part of other conditions. Symptomatic treatment is seen to be questionable in benefit over risk, both for dopamine blockers and for SRIs.

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).


Author(s):  
Anthony W. Bateman ◽  
Peter Fonagy

Psychotherapy has historically been the mainstay of treatment for personality disorder (PD). It remains so. Psychoanalysis was probably the earliest formal treatment for PD, which led to the first clinical descriptions of borderline personality disorder. A parallel but linked development was the application of psychoanalytic ideas in therapeutic communities which have been in existence for over 60 years and remain a treatment context and method for patients with PD. It was only in the 1960s that modified psychotherapeutic treatments were developed. Initially these were based on psychodynamic understanding of PD, but gradually other theoretically and practically driven models have developed, leading to the current situation in which there are behavioural, cognitive, dynamic, and supportive treatments offered in a range of contexts. Some of these methods have more empirical support than others. These methods will be described in this chapter. Psychological therapies for personality disorders take place against the background of the natural course and outcome of the disorder. Until recently, the natural history of personality disorder had not been systematically studied. Several major cohort follow-along studies have yielded surprising data concerning the rate of symptomatic remissions in a disorder that was assumed to have a lifelong course. For example, over a 10-year follow-along period, 88 per cent of those initially diagnosed with borderline personality disorder appeared to remit in the sense of no longer meeting DIB-R or DSM-III criteria for BPD for 2 years. The symptoms that remit most readily, irrespective of treatment, appear to be the acute ones, such as parasuicide and self-injury, which are the most likely to trigger psychotherapeutic intervention. Temperamental symptoms, such as angry feelings and acts, distrust and suspicion, abandonment concerns, and emotional instability, appear to resolve far more slowly. In the Collaborative Longitudinal Personality Disorder Study (CLPS), when remission was defined as 12 months at two or fewer criteria for PDs, over half of BPD and 85 per cent of major depressive disorder (MDD) patients were reported to remit over a 4-year period. Psychosocial functioning recovered far more slowly than acute symptoms. There is a considerable body of literature on psychotherapeutic interventions for personality disorders, but significant evidence for effective treatment remains sparse. Much of the literature is dominated by expert opinion, which is not invariably the most helpful guide. In this chapter, we focus on psychological treatments where at least some evidence for treatment effectiveness exists. The evidence is strongest for borderline personality disorder (BPD). Treatment of some other personality disorders, for example schizoid, narcissistic, obsessive–compulsive, dependent, is evidenced mainly by clinical case reports in which theory is combined with clinical description and where, if outcome is measured at all, it is measured for the purpose of illustration and has little probative value.


CNS Spectrums ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. 737-754 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda M. Bierer ◽  
Rachel Yehuda ◽  
James Schmeidler ◽  
Vivian Mitropoulou ◽  
Antonia S. New ◽  
...  

ABSTRACTBackground:Childhood history of abuse and neglect has been associated with personality disorders and has been observed in subjects with lifetime histories of suicidality and self-injury. Most of these findings have been generated from inpatient clinical samples.Methods:This study evaluated self-rated indices of sustained childhood abuse and neglect in an outpatient sample of well-characterized personality disorder subjects (n=182) to determine the relative associations of childhood trauma indices to specific personality disorder diagnoses or clusters and to lifetime history of suicide attempts or gestures. Subjects met criteria for ~2.5 Axis II diagnoses and 24% reported past suicide attempts. The Childhood Trauma Questionnaire was administered to assess five dimensions of childhood trauma exposure (emotional, physical, and sexual abuse, and emotional and physical neglect). Logistic regression was employed to evaluate salient predictors among the trauma measures for each cluster, personality disorder, and history of attempted suicide and self-harm. All analyses controlled for gender distribution.Results:Seventy-eight percent of subjects met dichotomous criteria for some form of childhood trauma; a majority reported emotional abuse and neglect. The dichotomized criterion for global trauma severity was predictive of cluster B, borderline, and antisocial personality disorder diagnoses. Trauma scores were positively associated with cluster A, negatively with cluster C, but were not significantly associated with cluster B diagnoses. Among the specific diagnoses comprising cluster A, paranoid disorder alone was predicted by sexual, physical, and emotional abuse. Within cluster B, only antisocial personality disorder showed significant associations with trauma scores, with specific prediction by sexual and physical abuse. For borderline personality disorder, there were gender interactions for individual predictors, with emotional abuse being the only significant trauma predictor, and only in men. History of suicide gestures was associated with emotional abuse in the entire sample and in women only; self-mutilatory behavior was associated with emotional abuse in men.Conclusion:These results suggest that childhood emotional abuse and neglect are broadly represented among personality disorders, and associated with indices of clinical severity among patients with borderline personality disorder. Childhood sexual and physical abuse are highlighted as predictors of both paranoid and antisocial personality disorders. These results help qualify prior observations of the association of childhood sexual abuse with borderline personality disorder.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Min Zhang ◽  
Na Liu ◽  
Haocheng Chen ◽  
Ning Zhang

Abstract Background: Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is caused by a variety of biological and environmental factors. Accumulating evidence suggests that childhood maltreatment is a risk environmental factor in the development of BPD, but research on the genetic pathology of BPD is still in its early stages, and very little is known about the oxytocin receptor (OXTR) gene. The purpose of this study is to further explore the interactive effects between OXTR gene polymorphisms and childhood maltreatment on BPD risk. Methods: Among the 1804 male inmates, 765 inmates who had BPD or antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) or highly impulsive or violent crime were considered as high-risk inmates and included in this study. Childhood maltreatment, BPD, antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) and impulsivity were measured by self-reported questionnaires. Peripheral venous blood was collected for the genotype test. Results: Analyses revealed that the BP group (inmates with BPD features) had higher rs53576 AA genotype frequency and rs237987 AA genotype frequency than the non-BP group, while the statistical significances were lost after Bonferroni correction. Total childhood maltreatment score, emotional abuse and neglect could positively predict BPD risk. Among the high-risk samples, rs53576 GG genotype carriers had higher BPD scores at higher levels of physical abuse and sexual abuse and had lower BPD scores at lower levels of physical abuse and sexual abuse. Conclusions: The findings suggest that the interaction between OXTR gene variations and childhood maltreatment is an important mechanism for the development of BPD. The moderating role of the OXTR gene provides evidence for gene plasticity.


Author(s):  
Shaunak Ajit Ajinkya ◽  
Pranita Shantanu Sharma ◽  
Aparna Ramakrishnan

Introduction: Personality disorders are a group of behavioural patterns associated with significant personal and socio-occupational disturbances. Numerous studies have demonstrated borderline personality to be one of the most common personality disorders. It’s less often diagnosed with just a clinical assessment. Aim: To examine the proportion of patients with Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD), and its associated personality types and clinical syndromes, using the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory version-III (MCMI-III). Materials and Methods: A retrospective observational study was carried out on 450 adult patients who attended the psychiatry outpatient department of an urban tertiary care hospital. They had been administered the MCMI-III, a self-rating questionnaire commonly used to provide information on personality types and associated clinical syndromes. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (IBM SPSS, Windows) version 20.0 was used for statistical analyses. Data was expressed in terms of actual number, mean and percentages. Chi-Square or Fisher’s-exact test, as appropriate, was used for categorical data to test for associations. Odds ratio was estimated to measure strength of the association. Results: Borderline was the most common personality type comprising nearly half (46.63%) of the study population. 25.5% had borderline traits while 21.1% had Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD). BPD was significantly higher in females (p<0.001), younger age group below the age of 40 years (p<0.001) and unmarried persons (p<0.001). It was comorbid most with Anxiety (90.91%; OR=4.05; p<0.001), Major Depression (85.23%; OR=18.39; p<0.001), Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) (46.59%; OR=6.30; p<0.001) and Thought disorders (56.82%; OR=18.15; p<0.001). Alcohol (22.73%; OR=3.54; p<0.001) and Drug dependence (13.64%; OR=11.52; p<0.001) were also seen significantly higher in patients with BPD. Personality types significantly comorbid with BPD were Sadistic, Depressive, Masochistic, Negativistic, Schizotypal, Avoidant, Dependent, Antisocial and Paranoid types, with odds being most for Sadistic personality (OR=9.44). Conclusion: It is recommended that mental health professionals and clinicians should start to look for underlying symptoms of BPD in patients of anxiety and mood syndromes. If found these patients should be directed for psychotherapy as early as possible. The MCMI psychological test would be an important contribution to this area, given the need for systematic, quick, and objective testing methods that facilitate the diagnosis.


BJPsych Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (S1) ◽  
pp. S122-S122
Author(s):  
Nyakomi Adwok ◽  
Sharon Nightingale

AimsThe overarching aim of the session was to address and reduce stigma around Borderline Personality Disorder among doctors. The three main objectives were:To increase empathy and understanding around Borderline Personality Disorder by exposing junior doctors to service user perspectives outside a clinical setting;To address knowledge gaps identified by junior doctors in a self-reported questionnaire disseminated prior to the teaching session;To offer junior doctors a basic psychological framework to base their assessment and formulation of service users with personality disorders.Background‘Borderline Personality Disorder: The Person Behind the Label’ was the title of the first co-produced teaching session in the Leeds and York Partnership Foundation Trust (LYPFT). Prior to the teaching session, an online questionnaire was sent out to trainees. The results highlighted three key issues:Negative attitudes towards service users with personality disorders;Poor subjective knowledge of the psychological models of personality disorders;Perception among trainees that they do not receive adequate training to deal with the challenges service users with personality disorders present.MethodA teaching session was co-produced by a team of two service users, a principal clinical psychologist within the Leeds Personality Disorder Network (PDN) and a core Psychiatry trainee. It was delivered in a 75 minute session to 40 attendees consisting of both trainee doctors and consultants.ResultFeedback was collected immediately after the session through the use of anonymous feedback forms. The response to the training was overwhelmingly positive with all 28 respondents rating the session as 4/5 or 5/5 on a satisfaction scale ranging from 1 (poor) to excellent (5). Key themes from the feedback included appreciation for the service user perspective and teaching on psychological theory. The fourth question in the questionnaire: “How will this teaching impact your work?” produced the highest number of responses (25/28) and provided evidence that the above listed objectives of the session were met.ConclusionCo-produced teaching has great potential to address negative attitudes around highly stigmatised conditions by bridging the gap that often exists between service users and mental health professionals.


2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yosefa A. Ehrlich ◽  
Amir Garakani ◽  
Stephanie R Pavlos ◽  
Larry Siever

Personality can be defined as an organizational system of self that shapes the manner in which a person interacts with his or her environment. Personality traits develop in adolescence or early adulthood and are thought to be shaped by early childhood experiences and enduring throughout a lifetime. Personality traits that prevent an individual from being able to function in society or that cause significant distress are diagnosed as personality disorders. A thorough history is needed to rule out other psychiatric and medical disorders. This chapter reviews the diagnostic criteria, differential diagnosis, comorbidity, prevalence, etiology (including genetics and neurobiology), prognosis, and treatment of paranoid, schizoid, schizotypal, borderline, antisocial, narcissistic, histrionic, avoidant, obsessive-compulsive, and dependent personality disorders. A discussion of the relevance of personality disorders to primary care practices and approaches to managing such patients is also included. Tables describe the diagnostic criteria of each personality disorder. Figures illustrate the prevalence of personality disorders in the general and psychiatric populations; schizotypal personality disorder in the community, general population, and clinical population; childhood trauma in individuals with personality disorder; and comorbid disorders in individuals with borderline personality disorder. A model of brain processing in borderline personality disorder is also featured. This chapter contains 5 highly rendered figures, 10 tables, 230 references, and 5 MCQs.


2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 58-60
Author(s):  
Peter Tyrer

SUMMARYThe classification of mood and personality disorders has become unnecessarily complicated. It has become bogged down by well-meaning but unhelpful subcategories that puzzle the will of clinicians to make useful judgements. The answer is to think of bipolar, depressive and personality disorders as each constituting a spectrum of severity and not to be too preoccupied with individual labels. It would also be useful to avoid the diagnostic chimera of borderline personality disorder, a condition that defies proper classification.


Author(s):  
Waqar Rizvi

In this chapter essential aspects of personality disorder will be reviewed including paranoid personality disorder, schizoid personality disorder, schizotypal personality disorder, borderline personality disorder, histrionic personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, Avoidant personality disorder, dependent personality disorder, obsessive-compulsive personality disorder and antisocial personality disorder


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document