The Defense Mechanisms Rating Scales (DMRS), one of the most widely used and validated instruments in the study of defense mechanisms, does not include psychotic defenses. The Psychotic-DMRS (P-DMRS) has been developed to include 6 psychotic defense mechanisms: psychotic denial, autistic withdrawal, distortion, delusional projection, fragmentation, and concretization. We discuss psychotic defenses, including the difference between psychotic defenses and psychotic symptoms. Six clinical illustrations demonstrate how the 6 P-DMRS defenses can be identified in patients' narratives selected from the transcripts of dynamic interviews. Implications with respect to patient evaluation and treatment are discussed.

Early modifications of blood lipid levels following prescription of psychotropic drugs inducing dyslipidemia should therefore raise questions on clinical strategies to control long-term dyslipidemia.

IntroductionPhysician interpersonal competence is crucial for patient care. How interpersonal competence develops during undergraduate medical education is thus a key issue. Literature on the topic consists predominantly of studies on empathy showing a trend of decline over the course of medical school. However, most existing studies have focused on narrow measures of empathy. The first aim of this project is to study medical students’ interpersonal competence with a comprehensive framework of empathy that includes self-reported cognitive and affective empathy, performance-based assessments of emotion recognition accuracy, and a behavioural dimension of empathy. The second aim of the present project is to investigate the evolution of mental health during medical school and its putative link to the studied components of interpersonal competence. Indeed, studies documented a high prevalence of mental health issues among medical students that could potentially impact their interpersonal competence. Finally, this project will enable to test the impact of mental health and interpersonal competence on clinical skills as evaluated by experts and simulated patients.Methods and analysisThis project consists of an observational longitudinal study with an open cohort design. Each year during the four consecutive years of the project, every medical student (curriculum years 1–6) of the University of Lausanne in Switzerland will be asked to complete an online questionnaire including several interpersonal competence and mental health measures. Clinical skills assessments from examinations and training courses with simulated patients will also be included. Linear mixed models will be used to explore the longitudinal evolutions of the studied components of interpersonal competence and mental health as well as their reciprocal relationship and their link to clinical skills.Ethics and disseminationThe project has received ethical approval from the competent authorities. Findings will be disseminated through internal, regional, national and international conferences, news and peer-reviewed journals.

Interpreting or addressing defenses is an important aspect of psychoanalytic technique. Previous research has shown that therapist addressing defenses (TADs) can produce a positive effect on alliance. The potential value of TADs during the process of alliance rupture and resolution has not yet been documented. We selected patients (n = 17) undertaking a short-term dynamic psychotherapy in which the therapeutic alliance, measured with the Helping Alliance Questionnaire and monitored after each session, showed a pattern of rupture and resolution. Two control sessions (5 and 15) were also selected. Presence of TADs was examined in each therapist interpretation. Compared with control sessions, rupture sessions were characterized by fewer TADs and especially fewer TADs addressing specifically intermediate-essentially neurotic-defenses. Resolution sessions were characterized by more TADs addressing specifically intermediate defenses. This confirms the link between therapist technique and alliance process in psychodynamic psychotherapy.

Background:Lack of adherence to medication is a trigger of graft rejection in solid-organ transplant (SOT) recipients.Objective:This exploratory study aimed to assess whether a biopsychosocial evaluation using the INTERMED instrument before transplantation could identify SOT recipients at risk of suboptimal post-transplantation adherence to immunosuppressant drugs. We hypothesized that complex patients (INTERMED>20) might have lower medication adherence than noncomplex patients (INTERMED≤20).Methods:Each patient eligible for transplantation at the University Hospital of Lausanne, Switzerland, has to undergo a pre-transplantation psychiatric evaluation. In this context the patient was asked to participate in our study. The INTERMED was completed pre-transplantation, and adherence to immunosuppressive medication was monitored post-transplantation by electronic monitors for 12 months. The main outcome measure was the implementation and persistence to two calcineurin inhibitors, cyclosporine and tacrolimus, according to the dichotomized INTERMED score (>20 or ≤20).Results:Among the 50 SOT recipients who completed the INTERMED, 32 entered the study. The complex (N=11) and noncomplex patients (N=21) were similar in terms of age, sex and transplanted organ. Implementation was 94.2% in noncomplex patients versus 87.8% in complex patients (non-significant p-value). Five patients were lost to follow-up: one was non-persistent, and four refused electronic monitoring. Of the four patients who refused monitoring, two were complex and withdrew early, and two were noncomplex and withdrew later in the study.Conclusion:Patients identified as complex pre-transplant by the INTERMED tended to deviate from their immunosuppressant regimen, but the findings were not statistically significant. Larger studies are needed to evaluate this association further, as well as the appropriateness of using a nonspecific biopsychosocial instrument such as INTERMED in highly morbid patients who have complex social and psychological characteristics.

No abstract

Résumé Les mécanismes de défense sont des processus psychologiques automatiques qui protègent l’individu de l’anxiété ou de la perception de dangers ou de facteurs de stress internes ou externes. A ce jour, il existe de nombreuses classifications permettant d’évaluer les mécanismes de défense utilisés par les patients, soit sous la forme d’auto-questionnaires, de tests projectifs ou de méthodes d’évaluation clinique. Le Defense Mechanisms Rating Scales (DMRS – échelles d’évaluation des mécanismes de défense) est l’instrument le plus utilisé et le plus reconnu dans l’étude empirique des mécanismes de défense. Il a permis de mettre en évidence des liens entre les défenses et le niveau d’adaptation des patients, entre les défenses et la psychopathologie, et de montrer l’évolution des défenses au cours des psychothérapies psychanalytiques. Cet instrument ne comprend cependant pas de mécanismes de défense psychotiques, ce qui n’est pas sans poser de problèmes, par exemple dans l’étude des troubles graves de la personnalité, des patients paranoïaques, des patients bipolaires et des patients présentant un trouble du spectre de la schizophrénie. Notre groupe de travail s’attache à construire, puis à valider un instrument d’évaluation des mécanismes de défense psychotiques sous la forme d’un addendum au DMRS.

No abstract