4.2 Article

Gender differences in the prevalence of symptom disorders and personality disorders among poly-substance abusers and pure alcoholics - Substance abusers treated in two counties in Norway

期刊

EUROPEAN ADDICTION RESEARCH
卷 9, 期 1, 页码 8-17

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000067732

关键词

pure alcoholics; poly-substance abusers; gender differences; personality disorders; symptom pathology; comorbidity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Gender differences in the prevalence of Axis I and 11 disorders in poly-substance abusers and pure alcoholics and between these two groups are explored. Method. A consecutive sample (n = 260) of in- and outpatients from two Norwegian counties were assessed by CIDI (Axis I disorders) and MCMI-II (Axis 11 disorders). Results: Major depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and eating disorders were significantly more prevalent in women than in men. A significantly higher prevalence of antisocial, passive-aggressive, and borderline personality disorders (PD) was observed among poly-substance abusers, whereas pure alcoholics were found to have dependent PDs more often. Female poly-substance abusers differed significantly from all other substance abusers by suffering more often from major depression, simple phobia, PTSD and borderline PD. Male poly-substance abusers more often presented antisocial PD and less often Cluster C disorders than all other substance abusers. Female pure alcoholics more often had major depression and Cluster C disorders than all other substance abusers. Male pure alcoholics presented less often with Axis I disorders, major depression, and PTSD, but more often with Cluster A disorders, in particular schizoid PD, than all other substance abusers. Conclusion: The pattern of comorbid disorders is clearly different between male and female poly-substance abusers and pure alcoholics. This implies that these four subgroups have important differences in their treatment needs. Copyright (C) 2003 S. Karger AG, Basel.

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

4.2
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