Psihopatološke specifičnosti adolescenata sa samoozljeđujućim ponašanjem [Psychopathological features of adolescents who self-harm]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: \nSelf-harming behavior is prevalent both in community and in clinical population of adolescents. Potential negative outcomes of such behavior range from low quality of life, academic failure, development of mental health problems in later life to risk of suicide attempts and completition. Broadening and deepening of understanding of psychopathological and enviromental background and function of self-harming behavior is needed. Main goal of this study was identification of psychopathological features in referred adolescents with self-harming behavior which differentiate them from referred adolescents who do not engage self-harming behavior. Data provided with this study could be used in planning, preparing and conducting optimized treatment programs for adolescents and their caregivers, on primary and secondary prevention and treatment levels. \nMaterials and methods: \nDuring their initial interview with an child and adolescent psychiatrist adolescents filled out self-rated questionnaires. General questionnaire (with detailed family history), Youth Self Report, (ASEBA, 2001.), Functional Assessment of Self Mutilation (Lloyd E.,1997) - Adapted and modified, Parental bonding instrument (Parker, 1979.), Toronto Alexithymia Scale 20 (Taylor, 1992.) and Defense Style Questionnaire (Bond, 1983.). One hundred and fifty adolescents, 54% female, 46 % male (14–18 years old, median age 17 years) participated in the study. Exclusion criteria were psychotic disorders, cognitive impairment, pervasive spectrum, psychiatric emergency. They were assigned to two \n \ngroups according to self-harming status. In the self-harming group there were 24 males i 55 females, and in the non self-harming group there were 45 males and 26 females. \nResults: Self-harming behavior among females, compared to non self-harming group, corelates with low parental, especially paternal, care, commorbidity of depressive and externalising problems (clinical level on all YSR problem scales, except aggression), poor peer relationships, usage of immature defense mechanisms, and latent alexithymia. Self-harming behavior had negative interpersonal function. Self-harming behavior among males was correlated with maternal chronic illnes, maternal overprotection, commorbidity of externalising and latent internalising problems, usage of immature defense mechanisms, significant alexithymic difficulties, poor peer functioning. Self-harming behavior had positive interpersonal and identity and identification seeking function. Predominant parental style in both groups with self-harming behavior was affectionless control. Clinical levels of YSRs’ Total problems scale were found in both gender. \nConclusion \nSelf-harming behavior is prevalent among adolescents. Affected adolescents carry heavy psychopathological burden, with a risk for numerous negative events and outcomes including fatality. It has diverse, individually specific manifestations and functions which complicates research, understanding and clinical work. Hence, there are no specific, standardized preventive measures and treatment strategies developed yet. Interventions dealing with self-harming behavior should encompass multidisciplinary and multilevel approach, significant others need to be actively included in the process. Close follow-up and availability of help is needed because of the suicidal risk.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".