3.9 Article

Conversion Disorder Comorbidity and Childhood Trauma

期刊

出版社

TURKISH NEUROPSYCHIATRY ASSOC-TURK NOROPSIKIYATRI DERNEGI
DOI: 10.5152/npa.2017.19184

关键词

Conversion disorder; co-morbidity; childhood trauma

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: The aim of this study is to examine the socio-demographic and clinical characteristics, the presence of comorbidity, and the link with childhood traumatic experiences in patients with conversion disorder (CD) in a psychiatric outpatient clinic. Methods: A total of 60 literate, female patients between 18 and 65 years of age who were referred to the general psychiatry outpatient clinic and who were diagnosed with conversion disorder according to the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria were included in the study. A questionnaire on sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS), the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HARS), the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ), and the Dissociative Events Scale (DES) were used to assess the cases. Results: The mean age of the participants was 36.27 +/- 11.18 years. 72% of the patients were married and 63% were primary school graduates. The most common symptoms were asthenia (100%), aphasia (96.7%), and crying-convulsions (93%). The most common co-morbidities were depression (50%) and dissociative disorders (48.3%). Among the patients, 53.3% reported a history of exposure to physical violence and 25% reported a history of sexual assault in childhood. Assessment of the Childhood Traumatic Questionnaire revealed a significant positive relation between emotional, physical, and sexual abuse scores and DES score. Conclusion: CD has not yet been fully analyzed in detail in health institutions; co-existence of another mental disorder and the presence of traumatic experiences in the past further complicate the issue. Consideration of these factors during treatment will have a positive impact on the course and prognosis of the disorder.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据