Differentiation of depression and anxiety groups using defense mechanisms

Ego-defense mechanisms and brief psychotherapies for the management of major depressive disorder in adults: A longitudinal and quasi-experimental study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of psychotherapies on ego defense mechanisms and the reduction of depressive symptoms in a 12-month follow-up period.

METHODS

This longitudinal and quasi-experimental study nested within a randomized clinical trial included a clinical sample of adults (18-60 years) diagnosed with major depressive disorder using the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview. Two models of psychotherapy were used: Supportive Expressive Dynamic Psychotherapy (SEDP) and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT). Defense Style Questionnaire 40 was used to analyze defense mechanisms and the Beck Depression Inventory was used to measure the depressive symptoms.

RESULTS

The total sample comprised 195 patients (113 SEDP and 82 CBT), with the mean age was 35.63 (11.44) years. After adjustments, increased mature defenses was significantly associated with reduced depressive symptoms at all follow-up times (p < 0.001) and the decrease in immature defenses was significantly associated with the reduction of depressive symptoms at all follow-up times (p < 0.001). While neurotic defenses were not associated with a reduction in depressive symptoms at any time of follow-up (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Both models of psychotherapy were effective in increasing mature defenses and decreasing immature ones, as well as decreasing depressive symptoms at all evaluation times. With this, it is understood that a greater understanding of these interactions will allow a more adequate diagnostic and prognostic evaluation and the design of useful strategies that adapt to the patient's reality.

Defense Mechanisms in "Pure" Anxiety and "Pure" Depressive Disorders

Our study was intended to test whether there are any differences in the way defense mechanisms are used by patients suffering from pure anxiety and those with pure depressive disorders. The sample size was as follows: depressive disorders without psychotic symptoms 30, anxiety disorders 30, and the healthy control group 30. The assessment of defense mechanisms was made using the DSQ-40 questionnaire. Our findings show that "pure" anxiety disorders differ from "pure" depressive disorders only in the use of immature defense mechanisms. The group with depressive disorders was significantly more prone to use immature defense mechanisms than the group with anxiety disorders (p = 0.005), primarily projection (p = 0.001) and devaluation (p = 0.003). These defense mechanisms may therefore be used both to differentiate between anxiety and depressive disorders and also to determine which symptoms (anxiety or depressive disorders) are dominant at any given stage of treatment.

Psychopathological Functioning Levels (PFLs) and their possible relevance in psychiatric treatments: a qualitative research project

BACKGROUND

Symptoms description is often not enough to provide clinicians with guidelines for treatments and patients' clinical history does not represent an exhaustive source of data. Psychopathological dysfunctions are known to relate to the core disturbances that underlie different forms of psychopathology so the identification of such dysfunctions could be helpful for treatments. Some tools are available although highly complex and lengthy. This study aimed to provide clinicians with an easy-to-administer instrument able to capture different levels of impairment in psychopathological functioning, namely the Psychopathological Functioning Levels - Rating Scale (PFL-RS).

METHODS

The Psychopathological Functioning Level - Research and Training Committee (PFL-RTC) has been established in Turin since 2002 including psychiatrists and clinical psychologists with extensive clinical and research experience. Our research was grounded on the Qualitative Research Criteria (QRC) 1-7 and conducted with subsequent steps in order to identify those core psychopathological dysfunctions to be rated by this tool.

RESULTS

From 2002 until 2014, 316 outpatients were administered the clinical interview on at least two different occasions. Diagnoses were mixed and included: Schizophrenic and Psychotic Disorders, Depressive Disorders, Anxiety Disorders, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, Post- Traumatic Stress Disorder, Somatic Symptoms Disorders, Eating Disorders and Personality Disorders. Focus groups were conducted to identify those psychopathological dysfunctions which needed to be rated, according to two Phenomenological Selection Criteria (PhSC) and four Etiopathogenetic Selection Criteria (EtSC). As a result, five dysfunctional areas emerged: Identity (ID); Comprehension (CO); Negative Emotions (NE); Action-Regulation (AR); Social Skills (SS). After checking such dimensions for consistency with the existing instruments, 7 levels of severity were identified for each area. Finally, a provisional Italian schedule of Psychopathological Functioning Levels - Rating Scale (PFL-RS) was obtained and checked for semantic comprehension and then administered gathering preliminary data.

CONCLUSIONS

Psychopathological dysfunctions underlying mental disorders have been recognized in the present study with the PFL-RS. This instrument seems promising to inform in a specific way treatments strategies and goals, specifically concerning psychotherapy. Notwithstanding, further research is needed in order to confirm validity, sensitivity and reliability of this instrument.

Differentiating disordered affect in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes

BACKGROUND

There is evidence for increased risk of affective disorders (AD) in adults with type 1 diabetes however, the prevalence and characteristics of AD in young people with the condition is unclear. Comorbid AD in type 1 diabetes is associated with deleterious self-management, sub-optimal clinical indicators, reduced quality of life, poorer physical health, increased complications, increased high risk behaviours in adolescence and young adulthood, and earlier mortality. The present study investigated the prevalence and character of AD in young people with type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

The self-report PH-PANAS-C was employed in a cross-sectional, case-control design to identify and differentiate full-syndrome (FS) and subthreshold (St) levels of AD in 53 participants with type 1 diabetes (case) and 54 age-balanced controls (N=107; 7-18 yrs).

RESULTS

Case participants reported greater AD than controls. When differentiated, only anxiety was significantly more prevalent. Case participants reported less positive affect, and greater negative affect and autonomic arousal. Further, 1:3 case participants presented with St symptoms of AD.

LIMITATIONS

Self-report measures are known to produce moderated responses therefore symptoms may be more severe than reported. There has been some suggestion that responses to somatic items in the PH-PANAS-C may relate to diabetes-specific states rather than affect-related symptoms however, recent evidence has refuted this argument.

CONCLUSIONS

AD, particularly anxiety, represents a significant clinical concern in young people with type 1 diabetes both as a disorder in its own right and as a major impediment to primary care and management of the diabetes. The significant dominance of anxiety-related symptoms and prevalence of subthreshold presentation warrant further investigation.

The role of defense mechanisms in borderline and antisocial personalities

We examined whether borderline personality disorder (BPD) and antisocial personality disorder (APD) could be differentiated based on defense mechanisms as measured by observer (Defense-Q; MacGregor, Olson, Presniak, & Davidson, 2008) and self-report (Defense Style Questionnaire; Andrews, Singh, & Bond, 1993) measures. We conducted 2 studies whereby nonclinical participants were divided into borderline and antisocial groups based on scores from the Personality Assessment Inventory (Morey, 1991). Multivariate analysis of variance results revealed significant overall group differences in defense use. Univariate analyses further showed group differences on several individual defenses (e.g., acting out, denial, and turning against self). Together, the findings suggest that in BPD, the defenses may emphasize interpersonal dependency and a tendency to direct aggression toward the self; whereas in APD, the defenses may emphasize egocentricity, interpersonal exploitation, and a tendency to direct aggression toward others. Overall, this study demonstrates important differences in defense use between borderline and antisocial personality groups across both observer and self-report measures.