Coverage of child maltreatment in undergraduate psychopathology textbooks.

OBJECTIVE: Past research found that undergraduate psychopathology textbooks present child maltreatment (CM) and its consequences inadequately or inaccurately. Given the prevalence and psychological impact of CM, it is essential that mental health professionals receive adequate training in CM, including trauma-related dissociation. Updated research is needed to determine whether current psychopathology textbooks adequately present information about CM and its consequences. METHOD: Ten undergraduate psychopathology textbooks were analyzed for the number of times CM was mentioned, number of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed., Text Revision; DSM-5-TR) diagnostic categories CM was associated with, number of citations used to support claims about CM and related psychopathology, and coverage of trauma-related dissociation. RESULTS: Textbooks varied in their coverage of CM and dissociation. The average number of times CM-related keywords mentioned per book was 259.00 (SD = 110.42; range: 113-508). Childhood sexual abuse and sex trafficking received the most attention, followed by general references of child abuse or childhood trauma. The average number of citations provided with mentions of CM or related psychopathology for each textbook was 123.2 (SD = 77.44; range: 44-316). CM was stated to be associated with many DSM-5-TR diagnostic categories, including but not limited to trauma, dissociative, anxiety, mood, somatic, and personality disorders. The textbooks' coverage of dissociation was found to be largely inadequate, with most textbooks emphasizing popular media, the fantasy model of dissociation, and myths about dissociation. CONCLUSIONS: Undergraduate psychopathology textbooks need to improve their scholarly coverage of CM and its mental health consequences. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Exploring false negatives in self-reported trauma exposure status.

INTRODUCTION: Trauma exposure is often assessed using checklists such as the Life Events Checklist for DSM-5 (LEC-5; Weathers et al., 2013b). When participants endorse multiple events, respondents are asked to identify a single, worst event (i.e., index event). Recent work indicates that the "worst event" method leads to a concerning number of false negatives. The purpose of the current study was to replicate previous findings of false negatives and extend them by examining characteristics associated with false negatives, such as trauma type, means of exposure, recency of trauma, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptom severity. METHOD: Adults (n = 476) provided data on trauma history assessed using a revised version of the LEC-5 that asked participants to provide follow-up information for each traumatic event endorsed. Participants also provided demographic data and completed the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5. Results: Two hundred thirty-four participants (49.16%) reported a worst event that met the DSM-5 definition of Criterion A trauma ("primary Criterion A" group). However, of the 242 participants who did not, 138 participants (57.02%, or 28.99% of the total sample) reported a secondary event that did meet Criterion A ("secondary Criterion A" group). The secondary Criterion A group most commonly reported serious life-threatening illnesses/injuries and "other" stressful life experiences as their index trauma that did not fulfill Criterion A. Participants in the primary and secondary Criterion A groups reported similar levels of PTSD symptoms. No differences were observed in means of exposure and recency of index trauma between the Criterion A groups. DISCUSSION: Findings raise questions regarding the efficiency and accuracy of the worst event method to determine trauma exposure status via self-report. Researchers should consider alternative methods for assessing trauma exposure rather than relying on the worst event scoring method. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Compensation and Pension Exams for Military Sexual Trauma-Related Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: Examiner Perspectives, Clinical Impacts on Veterans, and Strategies.

BACKGROUND: It is estimated that in one in three women veterans experience military sexual trauma (MST), which is strongly associated with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). A 2018 report indicated the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) processed approximately 12,000 disability claims annually for PTSD related to MST, most of which are filed by women. Part of the VBA adjudication process involves reviewing information from a Compensation and Pension (C&P) exam, a forensic diagnostic evaluation that helps determine the relationship among military service, diagnoses, and current psychosocial functioning. The quality and outcome of these exams may affect veteran well-being and use of Veterans Health Administration (VHA) mental health care, but no work has looked at examiner perspectives of MST C&P exams and their potential clinical impacts on veteran claimants. METHODS: Thirteen clinicians ("examiners") who conduct MST C&P exams through VHA were interviewed. Data were analyzed using rapid qualitative methods. RESULTS: Examiners described MST exams as more clinically and diagnostically complex than non-MST PTSD exams. Examiners noted that assessing "markers" of MST (indication that MST occurred) could make veterans feel disbelieved; others raised concerns related to malingered PTSD symptoms. Examiners identified unique challenges for veterans who underreport MST (e.g., men and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer [LGBTQ+] veterans), and saw evaluations as a conduit to psychotherapy referrals and utilization of VHA mental health care. Last, examiners used strategies to convey respect and minimize retraumatization, including a standardized process and validating the difficulty of the process. CONCLUSIONS: Examiners' responses offer insight into a process entered by thousands of veterans annually with PTSD. Strengthening the MST C&P process is a unique opportunity to enhance trust in the VBA claims process and increase likelihood of using VHA mental health care, especially for women veterans.

Characteristics, Methods, And Functions Of Non-Suicidal Self-Injury Among Highly Dissociative Individuals.

Upto 86% of dissociative individuals engage in non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI). Research suggests that people who dissociate utilize NSSI to regulate posttraumatic and dissociative experiences, as well asrelated emotions. Despite high rates of NSSI, no quantitative study has examined the characteristics, methods, and functions of NSSIwithin a dissociative population. The present study examined thesedimensions of NSSI among dissociative individuals, as well aspotential predictors of intrapersonal functions of NSSI. The sample included 295 participants who indicated experiencing one or more dissociative symptoms and/or having been diagnosed with a trauma- or dissociation-related disorder. Participants were recruited through online trauma- and dissociation- related forums. Approximately 92% of participants endorsed a history of NSSI. The most common methods of NSSI were interfering with wound healing (67%), hitting oneself (66%), and cutting (63%). After controlling for age and gender, dissociation was uniquely associated with cutting, burning, carving, interfering with wound healing, rubbing skin against rough surfaces, swallowing dangerous substances, and other forms of NSSI. Dissociation was correlated with affect regulation, self-punishment,anti-dissociation, anti-suicide, and self-care functions of NSSI;however, after controlling for age, gender, depressive symptoms, emotion dysregulation, and PTSD symptoms, dissociation was no longer associated with any function of NSSI. Instead, only emotion dysregulation was associated with the self-punishment function ofNSSI and only PTSD symptoms were associated with the anti-dissociation function of NSSI. Understanding the unique properties of NSSI among dissociative individuals may improve the treatment of people who dissociate and engage in NSSI.

Distinguishing clinical and simulated dissociative identity disorder using the Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with dissociative identity disorder (DID) experience severe and broad-ranging symptoms which can be associated with elevations on measures designed to detect feigning and/or malingering. Research is needed to determine how to distinguish genuine DID from simulated DID on assessment measures and validity scales. OBJECTIVE: This study examined whether the Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test (M-FAST), a screening measure of malingering, could differentiate between individuals with DID and DID simulators. METHOD: Thirty-five individuals with clinical, validated DID were compared to 88 individuals attempting to simulate DID on the M-FAST. A MANCOVA compared the two groups on total M-FAST score and subscales. Univariate ANCOVA's examined differences between the groups. A series of logistic regressions were conducted to determine whether group status predicted the classification of malingering. Utility statistics evaluated how well the M-FAST discerned clinical and simulated DID. RESULTS: The M-FAST correctly classified 82.9% of individuals with DID as not malingering when using the suggested cut-off score of six. However, utilizing a cut-off score of seven correctly classified 93.6% of all participants and maintained adequate sensitivity (.96) but demonstrated increased specificity (.89). CONCLUSIONS: The M-FAST shows promise in distinguishing genuine DID when the cut-off score is increased to seven. This study adds to the growing body of literature identifying tests that can adequately distinguish clinical from simulated DID. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Barriers to accessing and continuing mental health treatment among individuals with dissociative symptoms.

Background: Dissociative disorders (DDs) are characterized by interruptions of identity, thought, memory, emotion, perception, and consciousness. Patients with DDs are at high risk for engaging in dangerous behaviours, such as self-harm and suicidal acts; yet, only between 28% and 48% of individuals with DDs receive mental health treatment. Patients that do pursue treatment are often misdiagnosed, repeatedly hospitalized, and experience disbelief from providers about their trauma history and dissociative symptoms. Lack of dissociation-specific treatment can result in poor quality of life, severe symptoms requiring utilization of hospitalization and intensive outpatient treatment, and high rates of disability. Objective: Given the extensive and debilitating symptoms experienced by individuals with DDs and the infrequent utilization of treatment, the current study explored barriers to accessing and continuing mental health treatment for individuals with dissociative symptoms and DDs. Method: A total of 276 participants with self-reported dissociative symptoms were recruited via online social media platforms. Participants completed a survey which featured 35 possible barriers to accessing treatment and 45 possible reasons for discontinuing treatment, along with open text boxes for adding barriers/reasons that were not listed. Results: Results showed 97% of participants experienced one or more barriers to accessing treatment (M = 9 barriers) and 92% stopped treatment with a provider due to at least one of the reasons captured in the survey (e.g. limited insurance coverage, poor therapeutic alliance, disbelief from providers, etc.; M = 7 barriers). Conclusions: The most frequently endorsed barriers were structural barriers, such as those related to finances, insurance, and lack of provider availability. It is imperative more service providers are trained to treat dissociation and that insurers and health care systems recognize the need for specialized, dissociation-focused treatment.

Antecedentes: Los trastornos disociativos (TD) se caracterizan por interrupciones en la identidad, pensamiento, memoria, emoción, percepción y conciencia. Los pacientes con TD tienen un alto riesgo de participar en conductas peligrosas, como autolesiones y actos suicidas; sin embargo, solo entre el 28­48% de las personas con TD reciben tratamiento de salud mental. Los pacientes que buscan tratamiento a menudo son mal diagnosticados, hospitalizados repetidamente y experimentan incredulidad por parte de los proveedores sobre su historial de trauma y síntomas disociativos. La falta de un tratamiento específico para la disociación puede resultar en una mala calidad de vida, síntomas graves que requieren hospitalización y tratamiento ambulatorio intensivo y altas tasas de discapacidad.Objetivo: Dados los síntomas extensos y debilitantes que experimentan las personas con TD y la utilización poco frecuente del tratamiento, el presente estudio exploró las barreras para acceder y continuar el tratamiento de salud mental para las personas con síntomas disociativos y TD.Método: Un total de 276 participantes con síntomas disociativos auto-reportados fueron reclutados a través de plataformas de redes sociales en línea. Los participantes completaron una encuesta que presentaba 35 posibles barreras para acceder al tratamiento y 45 posibles razones para interrumpir el tratamiento, junto con cuadros de texto abiertos para agregar barreras/razones no incluidas en la lista.Resultados: Los resultados mostraron que el 97% de los participantes experimentó una o más barreras para acceder al tratamiento (M = 9 barreras) y el 92% interrumpió el tratamiento con un proveedor debido al menos a una de las razones capturadas en la encuesta (por ejemplo, cobertura de seguro médico limitada, pobre alianza terapéutica, incredulidad por parte de los proveedores, etc.; M = 7 barreras).Conclusiones: Las barreras confirmadas con mayor frecuencia fueron las barreras estructurales, como las relacionadas con las finanzas, los seguros médicos y la falta de disponibilidad de proveedores. Es imperativo que más proveedores de servicios estén capacitados para tratar la disociación y que las aseguradoras y los sistemas de atención médica reconozcan la necesidad de un tratamiento especializado centrado en la disociación.

An examination of the relations between emotion dysregulation, dissociation, and self-injury among dissociative disorder patients.

Background: Dissociative disorder (DD) patients report high rates of self-injury. Previous studies have found dissociation and self-injury to be related to emotional distress. To the best of our knowledge, however, the link between emotion dysregulation and self-injury has not yet been examined within a DD population. Objective: The present study investigated relations between emotion dysregulation, dissociation, and self-injury in DD patients, and explored patterns of emotion dysregulation difficulties among DD patients with and without recent histories of self-injury. Method: We utilized linear and logistic regressions and t-test statistical methods to examine data from 235 patient-clinician dyads enrolled in the TOP DD Network Study. Results: Analyses revealed emotion dysregulation was associated with heightened dissociative symptoms and greater endorsement of self-injury in the past six months. Further, patients with a history of self-injury in the past six months reported more severe emotion dysregulation and dissociation than those without recent self-injury. As a group, DD patients reported the greatest difficulty engaging in goal-directed activities when distressed, followed by lack of emotional awareness and nonacceptance of emotional experiences. DD patients demonstrated similar patterns of emotion dysregulation difficulties irrespective of recent self-injury status. Conclusions: Results support recommendations to strengthen emotion regulation skills as a means to decrease symptoms of dissociation and self-injury in DD patients.

Antecedentes: Los pacientes con trastorno disociativo (DD en sus siglas en inglés) reportan altas tasas de autolesiones. Estudios anteriores han encontrado que la disociación y las autolesiones están relacionadas con el sufrimiento emocional. Sin embargo, hasta donde sabemos, la relación entre la desregulación emocional y las autolesiones aún no se ha examinado en una población con DD.Objetivo: El presente estudio investigó las relaciones entre la desregulación emocional, la disociación y la autolesión en pacientes con DD, y exploró los patrones de las dificultades de desregulación emocional entre los pacientes con DD con y sin historias recientes de autolesión.Método: Se utilizaron regresiones lineales y logísticas y métodos estadísticos de prueba t para examinar los datos de 235 díadas paciente-médico inscritas en el Estudio TOP DD Network.Resultados: Los análisis revelaron que la desregulación emocional se asoció con un aumento de los síntomas disociativos y una mayor tendencia a la autolesión en los últimos seis meses. Además, los pacientes con un historial de autolesiones en los últimos seis meses informaron de una desregulación emocional y una disociación más graves que los que no se habían autolesionado recientemente. Como grupo, los pacientes con DD informaron de la mayor dificultad para participar en actividades dirigidas a objetivos cuando estaban angustiados, seguidos por la falta de conciencia emocional y la no aceptación de las experiencias emocionales. Los pacientes con DD demostraron patrones similares de dificultades de desregulación emocional, independientemente del estado de autolesión reciente.Conclusiones: Los resultados apoyan las recomendaciones de fortalecer las habilidades de regulación de las emociones como medio para disminuir los síntomas de disociación y autolesión en pacientes con DD.

The reasons dissociative disorder patients self-injure.

Background: Most individuals with dissociative disorders (DDs) report engaging in self-injury. Objective: The present study aimed to understand the reasons for self-injury among a clinical sample of 156 DD patients enrolled in the TOP DD Network study. Method: Participants answered questions about self-injury, including a prompt asking how often they are aware of the reasons they have urges to self-injure, as well as a prompt asking them to list three reasons they self-injure. Results: Six themes of reasons for self-injury, each with subthemes, were identified in the qualitative data: (1) Trauma-related Cues, (2) Emotion Dysregulation, (3) Stressors, (4) Psychiatric and Physical Health Symptoms, (5) Dissociative Experiences, and (6) Ineffective Coping Attempts. Participants reported that they were able to identify their reasons for self-injuring sometimes (60.26%) or almost always (28.85%), with only 3.20% unable to identify any reasons for their self-injury. Conclusion: Results suggest that the vast majority of DD patients (92.31%) reported being at least partially unaware of what leads them to have self-injury urges, and many individuals with DDs experience some reasons for self-injury that are different from those with other disorders. The treatment implications of these findings are discussed.

Antecedentes:La mayoría de los individuos con trastornos disociativos (DDs por sus siglas en inglés) informan realizarse autolesiones. Objetivo: El presente estudio tuvo como objetivo el comprender las razones de las autolesiones en una muestra clínica de 156 pacientes con DD enroladas en el estudio TOP DD Network.Método:Los participantes respondieron a preguntas sobre las autolesiones, incluyendo una pregunta sobre la frecuencia con la que son conscientes de las razones por las que se autolesionan, así como una pregunta que les pedía que enumeraran tres razones por las que se autolesionan.Resultados:En los datos cualitativos se identificaron seis temas de motivos de autolesión, cada uno con subtemas: (1) Claves relacionadas con el trauma, (2) Desregulación emocional, (3) Estresores, (4) Síntomas psiquiátricos y de salud física, (5) Experiencias disociativas y (6) Intentos de afrontamiento ineficaces. Los participantes informaron que pudieron identificar sus razones para autolesionarse a veces (60,26%) o casi siempre (28,85%), y solo el 3,20% no pudo identificar las razones de sus autolesiones.Conclusiones:Los resultados sugieren que la gran mayoría de los pacientes con DD (92.31%) informaron no ser, al menos parcialmente, conscientes de lo que los lleva a tener deseos de autolesionarse y muchos individuos con DDs experimentan algunas razones de autolesión que son distintas de las que padecen otros trastornos. Se discuten las implicaciones de estos hallazgos en el tratamiento.

Dissociative Identity Disorder: Diagnostic Accuracy and DSM-5 Criteria Change Implications.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5) revised the diagnostic criteria for dissociative identity disorder (DID) to more accurately reflect the symptom profile of DID patients. No study has examined how this change affects clinical diagnosis of DID. The present study examined clinician reports of patient symptoms in relation to DSM-IV-TR and DSM-5 DID diagnostic criteria. Data were analyzed from 169 clinicians who participated in the Treatment of Patients with Dissociative Disorders Network Study with a patient they assigned a DID diagnosis. Clinicians evaluated their patients with respect to DSM-IV-TR and DSM-5 DID diagnostic criteria. Researchers determined a clinician-assigned DID diagnosis as "accurate" when the patient's reported dissociative symptoms matched DSM-IV-TR and/or DSM-5 criteria for DID. Most of the clinicians (95.27%) accurately diagnosed DID. Of those accurately diagnosed, 83.85% of patients met DSM-IV-TR and DSM-5 DID criteria, 9.94% only met DSM-IV-TR DID criteria, and 6.21% only met DSM-5 DID criteria. Further examination of responses suggested that possible idiomatic responses to the negative wording of the DSM-5 exclusionary criteria might have accounted for the DSM-IV-TR appearing to fit for a greater number of cases in this study. Changes in the DSM criteria for DID did not substantially change the frequency or accuracy of assigned DID diagnoses, but the removal of the requirement in DSM-5 that self-states regularly take control of an individual's behavior slightly increased the number of individuals meeting criteria for DID.

Emotional Consequences of Participating in Research: How Does a History of Non-Suicidal Self-Injury and Trauma Exposure Affect Participants' Experiences?

Although research into trauma and non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI) is critical to informing evidence-based interventions, IRB committees express caution about the potential safety concerns these questions pose to participants. The present study examined the emotional consequences of participating in research asking questions about trauma and NSSI. A total of 544 participants completed self-report questionnaires assessing trauma exposure, NSSI, and reactions to research participation. Results indicated that trauma exposure was positively related with emotional reactions, and NSSI engagement was associated with higher incidences of trauma. Additionally, those with a history of NSSI reported greater emotional reactions and perceived drawbacks after participation. However, overall, individuals with a history of NSSI still indicated a positive research experience. Implications for how to safely conduct research with participants who have a history of NSSI and previous trauma exposure are discussed.