Psychiatry research · 2017
Associations between self-harm and distinct types of impulsivity.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Chamberlain Samuel R, Redden Sarah A, Grant Jon E
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: There is an ongoing debate regarding how self-harm should be classified. The aim of this study was to characterize associations between self-harm and impulsivity.
METHOD: Total 333 adults (mean [SD] age 22.6 (3.6) years, 61% male) were recruited from the general community. History of self-harm was quantified using the Self-Harm Inventory (SHI), which asks about 22 self-harm behaviors. Principal components analysis was used to identify latent dimensions of self-harming behaviors. Relationships between self-harm dimensions and other measures were characterized using ordinary least squares regression.
RESULTS: Principal Components Analysis yielded a three factor solution, corresponding to self-injurious self-harm (e.g. cutting, overdoses, burning), interpersonal related self-harm (e.g. engaging in emotionally or sexually abusive relationships), and reckless self-harm (e.g. losing one's job deliberately, driving recklessly, abusing alcohol). Regression modelling showed that all three dimensions of self-harm were associated with lower quality of life.
CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests the existence of three distinct subtypes or 'latent factors' of self-harm: all three appear clinically important in that they are linked with worse quality of life. Clinicians should screen for impulse control disorders in people with self-harm, especially when it is self-injurious or involves interpersonal harm.
METHOD: Total 333 adults (mean [SD] age 22.6 (3.6) years, 61% male) were recruited from the general community. History of self-harm was quantified using the Self-Harm Inventory (SHI), which asks about 22 self-harm behaviors. Principal components analysis was used to identify latent dimensions of self-harming behaviors. Relationships between self-harm dimensions and other measures were characterized using ordinary least squares regression.
RESULTS: Principal Components Analysis yielded a three factor solution, corresponding to self-injurious self-harm (e.g. cutting, overdoses, burning), interpersonal related self-harm (e.g. engaging in emotionally or sexually abusive relationships), and reckless self-harm (e.g. losing one's job deliberately, driving recklessly, abusing alcohol). Regression modelling showed that all three dimensions of self-harm were associated with lower quality of life.
CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests the existence of three distinct subtypes or 'latent factors' of self-harm: all three appear clinically important in that they are linked with worse quality of life. Clinicians should screen for impulse control disorders in people with self-harm, especially when it is self-injurious or involves interpersonal harm.