Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Hoarding, which includes the excessive acquisition of, and inability to discard, numerous possessions, is a debilitating mental health condition and is associated with significant family dysfunction and burden on family members. Currently, little is known about the effect that family members have on individuals‟ hoarding symptomatology and functioning, and vice versa. Thus, the present study examined the nature and frequency of family accommodation (i.e., the process by which family members participate in hoarding symptoms or modify personal and family routines in response to an individual‟s symptoms; Calvocoressi, Mazure, Stanislav, et al., 1999), in 52 individuals with self-reported hoarding problems and their close significant others (CSOs; i.e., intimate partner or family member). Participants completed the Family Accommodation Interview for Hoarding (FAI-H), which is an 11-item clinician-rated interview that was adapted from a previously validated measure for this study, and a series of self-report questionnaires. The FAI-H was found to be a valid and reliable assessment of accommodation in this hoarding sample. Most CSOs reported engaging in at least some accommodating behaviours; however, CSOs who lived with the individual with the hoarding problem engaged in accommodating behaviours more frequently than those who did not live with the individual with the hoarding problem. More than half of the CSOs endorsed hoarding participant-driven, as well as personally-driven motivations for engaging in accommodating behaviours, and believed that their accommodating behaviours were reasonable or helpful for both the individual with the hoarding problem and themselves. Family accommodation was positively associated with hoarding symptom severity, relationship conflict, CSOs‟ rejecting attitudes toward the individual with hoarding problems, relationship problems, impairment in activities of daily living, and hoarding participant-rated anger. Family accommodation partially mediated the association between hoarding symptom severity and relationship conflict, averaging across hoarding participants and CSOs, and between hoarding symptom severity and impairment in activities of daily living for individuals with hoarding problems, but not CSOs. Results of the present study further elucidate the role of accommodation in hoarding, and increase our understanding of the interpersonal processes that may play an important role in problematic hoarding.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| 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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».