English 
Spanish 
Chinese 
Russian 
German 
French 
Portuguese 
Hindi 当社グループは 3,000 以上の世界的なカンファレンスシリーズ 米国、ヨーロッパ、世界中で毎年イベントが開催されます。 1,000 のより科学的な学会からの支援を受けたアジア および 700 以上の オープン アクセスを発行ジャーナルには 50,000 人以上の著名人が掲載されており、科学者が編集委員として名高い
。オープンアクセスジャーナルはより多くの読者と引用を獲得
700 ジャーナル と 15,000,000 人の読者 各ジャーナルは 25,000 人以上の読者を獲得
インデックス付き
- CAS ソース インデックス (CASSI)
- 索引コペルニクス
- Google スカラー
- シェルパ・ロミオ
- Jゲートを開く
- Genamics JournalSeek
- アカデミックキー
- ジャーナル目次
- セーフティライト付き
- 中国国家知識基盤 (CNKI)
- 電子ジャーナルライブラリ
- レフシーク
- ハムダード大学
- エブスコ アリゾナ州
- OCLC-WorldCat
- SWBオンラインカタログ
- 仮想生物学図書館 (vifabio)
- パブロン
- ジュネーブ医学教育研究財団
- ユーロパブ
- ICMJE
役立つリンク
オープンアクセスジャーナル
このページをシェアする
抽象的な
How Addiction Changes You: A Clinical Study on Substance Abuse, Attachment Style and Reflective Function in Borderline Personality Disorder
Guido Nosari*, Boso Marianna, Sacco Giulia, Urru Anna, Valentina Ciappolino, Tiraboschi Giorgio, Monti Maria Cristina and Edgardo Caverzasi
Background: Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) and Substance Use Disorder (SUD) co-morbidity, often described as “Dual Diagnosis” (DD), is a severe and complex condition. Attachment abnormalities and Reflective Functioning (RF) impairments are crucial in BPD, but may be also implicated in SUD. Aim of the present study is to investigate psychopathological dimensions, attachment style and the RF in two distinct groups of patients, respectively affected by SUD with BPD and by SUD without BPD.
Methods: 2 groups of subjects with diagnosis of “SUD with BPD” (40 patients) and for “SUD without BPD” (30 patients), were included and assessed with the Addiction Severity Index (ASI), Adult Attachment Questionnaire (AAQ), Reflective Function Questionnaire (RFQ).
Results: Significant differences between both groups were shown in pharmacological therapy (p<0.0001), substitutive therapy (p=0.025), suicide attempts (p=0.005), self-harming behavior (p<0.001), trauma (p=0.003). ASI reported significant differences in social relationships (p=0.0115) and psychiatric condition (p=0.0003). RFQ showed statistically significant differences on the Uncertainty Scale (p=0.0340). The SUD with BPD group showed a prevalent dismissing attachment style (58%), with a low percentage of disorganized attachment style (3%). The SUD without BPD group showed a prevalent secure style (47%), followed by the dismissing style (30%).
Conclusions: A comprehensive assessment in all SUD subjects with psychiatric symptoms and history of psychological trauma is crucial, since it allows to start a tailored intervention for DD patients, aimed to minimize the poor outcome related with this condition. Additional psychotherapy could be proposed for SUD patients with a dismissive attachment style.