The recent epidemiologic studies report extremely varied rates for social phobia (SP). One of the reasons for this may be the difficulty in diagnosing SP, the boundaries of which are uncertain. A community survey was carried out using doctors with experience in clinical psychiatry as interviewers, and a clinical diagnostic instrument. Two thousand three hundred and fifty-five people (out of the 2,500 randomly selected from the population) living in Sesto Fiorentino, a suburb of Florence, Italy, were interviewed by their own general practitioner, using the MINI plus six additional questions. Six hundred and ten of the 623 subjects that were found positive for any form of psychopathology at the screening interview, and 57 negative subjects, were re-interviewed by residents in psychiatry using the Florence Psychiatric Interview (FPI). The FPI is a validated composite instrument that has the format of a structured clinical research record. It was found that 6.58% of subjects showed social anxiety not attributable to other psychiatric or medical conditions during their life. Social or occupational impairments meeting DSM-IV diagnostic requirements for SP was detected in 76 subjects (lifetime prevalence = 3.27%). Correction for age raises the lifetime expected prevalence to 4%. Sex ratio was approximately (F:M) 2:1. The most common fear was speaking in public (89.4%), followed by entering a room occupied by others (63.1%) and meeting with strangers (47.3%). Eighty-six point nine percent of subjects with SP complained of more than one fear. The mean age of onset (when the subjects first fully met DSM-IV criteria for SP) was 28.8 years, but the first symptoms of SP usually occurred much earlier, with a mean age of onset at 15.5 years. Ninety-two percent of cases with SP also showed at least one other co-morbid psychiatric disorder during their life. Lifetime prevalence of avoidant personality disorder (APD) was 3.6%. Forty-two point nine percent of cases with SP also had APD, whereas 37.9% of cases with APD developed SP.
ABSTRACT. Objective: Management of chronic pain is one of the most common reasons given by individuals seeking medical cannabis. However, very little information exists about the concurrent use of cannabis and prescription pain medication (PPM). This study fills this gap in knowledge by systematically comparing medical cannabis users who use or do not use PPM, with an emphasis on understanding whether concurrent use of cannabis and PPM is associated with more serious forms of alcohol and other drug involvement. Method: Data from this study were collected from a medical cannabis clinic in southwestern Michigan (N = 273). Systematic comparisons were made on measures of sociodemographics, reasons for substance use, pain, functioning, and perceptions of PPM and medical cannabis efficacy. Results: PPM users tended to be older and reported higher levels of pain and lower levels of functioning. The overall sample exhibited higher lifetime and past-3-month rates of alcohol and other noncannabis drug use than did the general population. Approximately 40% of subjects reported combining cannabis with alcohol, but no significant difference was observed between PPM users and nonusers. PPM users and nonusers did not exhibit any difference in either lifetime or past-3-month use of other drugs, including cocaine, sedatives, street opioids, and amphetamines. PPM users rated the efficacy of cannabis higher than PPM for pain management and indicated a strong desire to reduce PPM usage. Conclusions: Use of PPM among medical cannabis users was not identified as a correlate for more serious forms of alcohol and other drug involvement. However, longitudinal study designs are needed to better understand the trajectories of alcohol and other drug involvement over time among medical cannabis users. (J. Stud. Alcohol Drugs, 76, 406-413, 2015)
While many health insurance plans now cover at least some gender-affirming care for transgender persons, no study to date has examined contract language about gender-affirming care in self-insured corporate plans. We sought to evaluate private company offerings from the perspective of an employee, analyzing clarity as well as what gender-affirming care is covered or excluded. Methods: We coded 435 health insurance contracts from 40 U.S. self-insured corporations from 2019 for inclusion of 52 coverage aspects from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) recommendations. We categorize contracts by clarity of the document and its inclusions and exclusions, and compare each company's contract ratings to their 2019 Human Rights Campaign (HRC) Workplace Equality Index rating. Results: Findings reveal higher levels of total exclusions in contracts (9% here vs. 3% found in prior studies of more highly regulated plans), as well as extensive variation in clarity, coverage specifications, and types of exclusions. Facial confirmation surgery procedures are commonly excluded even in plans that affirm the WPATH guidelines. Twenty-five percent of the companies in the study offered at least one contract with a categorical exclusion. HRC ratings did not match up to our ratings of gender-affirming coverage. Conclusion: Legal complexity has resulted in a patchwork of continued health insurance exclusions of genderaffirming care even as coverage has expanded. Lack of transparency and clarity also contributes to challenges in understanding one's own coverage as well as mapping the national picture of transgender inclusion in health care plans.
The Florence Psychiatric Interview (FPI) is an interviewing instrument for evaluating psychopathology in the community. The FPI is designed to be completed by clinical interviewers, and focuses on single episodes of illness where the symptoms are assessed and graded according to their severity on five‐point scales. Psychiatric symptoms are evaluated regardless of their diagnostic collocation, and period and lifetime diagnoses may be generated by combining the episodes and using the appropriate algorithms (the information provided by the FPI covers the requirements of all the present diagnostic systems). Other aspects of psychiatric disorders that are usually ignored in other interviews are investigated (for example, costs of illness, use of health facilities, life events, and personality traits). Data on reliability (inter‐rater agreement and test‐retest reliability) and agreement with other instruments such as the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) and the Structured Clinical Interview for the Diagnostic and Statistic Manual of Mental Disorders (SCID) seem encouraging. The FPI's ability to collect lifetime symptoms by combining episodes matches that of an interview (the CIDI) that uses the lifetime approach. Agreement between fully qualified psychiatrists and trained residents was excellent. The ability of the cases to recall symptoms experienced several years before was also acceptable. This instrument is therefore proposed for clinical studies at the epidemiological level. Copyright © 2001 Whurr Publishers Ltd.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.