Usefulness of the International Personality Disorder Examination Screening Questionnaire for borderline and impulsive personality pathology in adolescents.

UNLABELLED: The aim of this study was to analyze the usefulness of the International Personality Disorder Examination Screening Questionnaire (IPDE-SQ) for identifying DSM-IV and ICD-10 Borderline and Impulsive personality disorders (PD) in Spanish adolescents. METHOD: The DSM-IV and ICD-10 IPDE-SQ screeners were used and compared with the diagnoses obtained with the IPDE semistructured interview in a sample of 125 adolescents treated in a psychiatric department. RESULTS: For primary screening, the cutoff point with the best combination of sensitivity and specificity for ICD-10 impulsive and borderline PDs was obtained with three positive items, whereas for DSM-IV borderline the best PD cut-off was five positive items. For secondary screening, the best option would be one item above the cut-off points proposed for primary screening. CONCLUSION: The 3-item cut-off point in the IPDE-SQ produces a high proportion of false positives on impulsive and borderline PDs in clinical adolescents. We propose several cut-off points, depending on whether the study is designed to perform primary or secondary screening.

The influence of personality disorders on the use of mental health services in adolescents with psychiatric disorders.

OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to explore the influence of personality disorders (PDs) in Spanish adolescents with Axis I psychiatric disorders on their use of mental health services and to analyze the risk of having a comorbid PD in relation to psychiatric service use. METHODS: The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) and International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) modules of the semistructured interview International Personality Disorders Examination were administered to a sample of 112 adolescent psychiatric patients (mean age = 15.8 years; SD, 0.8; range, 15-17; 79% women) at the point of initiating treatment. On the basis of the interview, subjects were divided into two groups: a PD group (PDG) and a non-PD group (NPDG). After 3 years of treatment, clinical records were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: The PDG showed a significantly higher number of psychiatric admissions (P < .001), days per psychiatric admission (P < .001), and psychiatric emergencies (P < .010) than the NPDG, although the number of outpatient consultations was not significantly higher. Logistic regression analysis showed that the probability of belonging to the PDG rather than the NPDG increased with each psychiatric admission (odds ratio [OR] = 1.67 for DSM-IV criteria and OR = 1.59 for ICD-10 criteria), after controlling by sex, age, and comorbidity (Axis I disorders). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with comorbid PD used more inpatient and emergency psychiatric services than did patients without a PD. Large number of psychiatric hospitalizations suggests the likelihood of a PD being present.