[Attitudes of general physicians and family medicine residents towards patients with borderline personality disorder].
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVES: Several studies suggest that health professionals show negative attitudes towards people with Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD). Many publications have focused on the attitudes of nurses or other type of clinicians like social workers or psychologists. Few researches concern the attitudes of general physicians towards BPD even if they are the main professionals involved in the evaluation and treatment of these patients. Additionally, patients with BPD frequently consult general physicians and, because of the difficulties interacting with these patients, they do not always receive the treatments required by their condition. This research aims to assess the attitudes of general physicians and family medicine residents regarding patients presenting with this disorder. METHOD: Forty family medicine residents and thirty-five general physicians were compared to thirty-nine mental health professionals using the Attitudes toward people with BPD Scale (ABPDS; Bouchard, 2001). This measure has two subscales labeled Comfort when interacting with someone who has BPD and Positives perceptions about BPD. The internal consistency of the scale as well as the two distinct factors are satisfactory. The participants also complete a socio-demographic questionnaire. Means, t tests, ANOVAs and factorial ANOVAs are completed in order to compare the three groups on the ABPDS and explore the influence of variables such as sex, age, years of experience, and professional setting (urban or rural) on the results. RESULTS: The results show that general physicians have similar attitudes than mental health professionals towards people presenting with BPD and that family medicine residents present less positive attitude than the other two groups. In addition, clinicians with less experience tend to have less positive attitudes towards people with BPD and clinicians from urban settings seem to have more positive attitude. It was difficult to determinate which variables influence the results because the years of experience, the professional settings and the title of the participants are extremely related. The factorial ANOVAs show no interaction effect between these three variables. CONCLUSION: Several studies show that health professionals present negative attitudes toward patients with BPD. This study reveals that general physicians and family medicine residents show respectively similar attitudes or less positive attitudes than other mental health professionals. These results underline the importance of providing specific training about BPD to family medicine residents. Because general physicians guide the evaluations and interventions concerning these patients and mental health professionals interact regularly with BPD, it will be helpful if all the clinicians receive more specific training regarding this disorder.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».