Skip to content

Advertisement

You're viewing the new version of our site. Please leave us feedback.

Learn more

BMC Psychiatry

Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Personality disorders and psychosocial problems in a group of participants to therapeutic processes for people with severe social disabilities

BMC Psychiatry201111:192

https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-244X-11-192

Received: 20 January 2011

Accepted: 11 December 2011

Published: 11 December 2011

Abstract

Background

Homeless people have high dropout rates when they participate in therapeutic processes. The causes of this failure are not always known. This study investigates whether dropping-out is mediated by personality disorders or whether psychosocial problems are more important.

Method

Eighty-nine homeless people in a socio-laboral integration process were assessed. An initial interview was used, and the MCMI II questionnaire was applied to investigate the presence of psychosocial disorders (DSM-IV-TR axis IV). This was designed as an ex post-facto prospective study.

Results

Personality disorders were very frequent among the homeless people examined. Moreover, the high index of psychosocial problems (axis IV) in this population supported the proposal that axis IV disorders are influential in failure to complete therapy.

Conclusion

The outcomes of the study show that the homeless people examined presented with more psychopathological symptoms, in both axis II and axis IV, than the general population. This supports the need to take into account the comorbidity between these two types of disorder among homeless people, in treatment and in the development of specific intervention programs. In conclusion, the need for more psychosocial treatments addressing the individual problems of homeless people is supported.

Background

Homeless people live in city streets and temporary shelters because of successive sudden and traumatic rupture of family, social and labor ties [1]. They form one of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged groups in society [2]. Their situation is also related to a low quality of life and to a high rate of physical and psychic diseases [3]. They suffer obvious mental deterioration because they inhabit the street [46] and they are considered to represent the maximum level of social exclusion in modern society [7].

Personality disorders (PD) are the mental pathologies most obviously present in this population. Sometimes several disorders coexist [8]. It also must be considered that such psychosocial conditions existed prior to the individuals' departure from their homes [9].

There has been extensive work on how to deal with PD [1014]. Recently, there has also been much research on PD in populations being treated for addictions [1517]. Treatments for psychosocial disorders remain less fully developed because of the possible variables in community treatment [18].

In this study, our aim was to investigate which factors (psychosocial or personality disorders) are more important contributors to treatment dropout among homeless people.

Methods

Participants

The sample consisted of homeless people (N = 89) who registered at the center for the homeless under consideration. The 89 subjects in the study were selected from among 96 people who underwent an inclusion assessment for homeless people based on the following criteria; (a) being homeless; (b) more than two months' stay in the center; (c) voluntary participation in the study; and (d) a long enough stay to complete the study.

Assessment measurements

  • Initial assessment interview: Initially, a structured individual interview was conducted in order to make a diagnosis. In this interview the most significant data were collected: age, marital status, educational level, age and cause of onset of transient life, familial relationships, alcohol and drug consumption and previous psychological treatment.

  • Millon Multiaxial Clinical Inventory MCMI-II [19]: The MCMI-II provides theoretically derived measures which predict diagnostic probabilities and a wide range of cognitive, affective, perceptual, interpersonal, and behavioral clinical attributes (Millon, 1987). The questionnaire comprises 175 questions, with true or false choices, which are answered in 25-30 minutes.

  • Axis IV disorder evaluation interview of DSM-IV-TR: A structured individual interview was carried out in order to diagnose the problems in relation to axis IV psychosocial disorders. In this interview, data about different factors of the problem were collected: problems with the family of origin or the created family, problems at school, work, home, economic, health or legal problems.

Procedure

The study was conducted through interviews carried out by clinical psychologists; they performed the Initial Assessment interview. In order to measure the disorders in axis II of DSM-IV-TR, after analyzing different personality assessment tools, the MCMI II Millon Multiaxial Clinical Inventory was selected because it is quick and easy to apply and provides an opportunity to obtain more relevant information about the subjects. Finally, to assess problems in axis IV of DSM-IV-TR (psychosocial disorders), a complementary diagnostic interview was carried out, in which the problems relating to that axis were analyzed (family of origin, created family, school, work, home, economic, health and legal).

All the subjects were males, over 18 and with sufficiently long pathways in the treatment process for the data to be collected and an objective assessment made. They also signed an informed consent form for participation in the research.

Both the interviews and the MCMI II were applied and corrected by the two clinical psychologists. The study considered the presence of a personality disorder when the score in the rate-base (RB) of the MCMI II was more than 74. Also, in order to measure adherence to treatment and achieve honesty and reliability in the interviews and tests, all cases were examined after two months' stay in the center.

For statistical analysis of the data, the statistical program SPSS 15.0 version was used. A descriptive analysis was performed (maxima, minima, averages and standard deviation) for each of the variables. In all cases the significance level used was 5%. Crossed variables and bilaterally correlated analysis were also carried out. The study conformed to the policies established by the Code of Ethics of the World Medical Association (Declaration of Helsinki) and ethics approval was obtained from the Doctoral Commission of the University of Zaragoza.

Results

In this section (table 1), the large number of young homeless people in the integration process stands out; nearly one in every four subjects was younger than 30. The percentage of persons older than 50 years was surprisingly low (7.9%). This could indicate the low interest of people at this age in integration processes, an obvious result of the damage suffered during their stay in the street and their disillusionment with previous processes (Cabrera, 1998; Salavera et al, 2009). Regarding their marital status, although 60.7% (N = 47) were single parents, with or without maintenance obligations, the low number of people with a partner during their stay at the center (3.3%) stands out, and so does the high number of breakups among people who have had a partner (36%). But above all, the number of people who had not established a stable relationship with their partner stands out. These data are consistent with other studies [20]. From the research done, a low level of schooling can be seen, mainly because of early incorporation into the labor market.
Table 1

Sociodemographic features (N = 89)

AGE

N

%

Average

37,86

Range

(22-52)

< 30 years

19

(21,3%)

30-39 years

32

(36%)

40-49 years

31

(34,8%)

> 50 years

7

(7,9%)

MARITAL STATUS

  

Sigles

54

(60,7%)

Separated/Divorced

32

(36%)

De facto partnership

3

(3,3%)

SCHOOLING

  

School Certificate

31

(35,2%)

EGB

42

(47,2%)

FP

10

(11,2%)

BUP

5

(5,6%)

Moreover, organic problems in the subjects were analyzed (Figure 1), alcohol and drugs abuse high incidence were observed, as well as a low frequency of cognitive damage.
Figure 1

Organic disorders in the population.

Axis II variables

Table 2 shows the Millon Multiaxial Clinical Inventory MCMI-II results for the current study. The antisocial (35.1%, N = 27), dependent (29.9%, N = 23), compulsive (28.6%, N = 22) and narcissistic (28.6%, N = 22) disorders show higher scores, RB > 74. It is remarkable that some subjects gave test results showing they could have one or more subscales with high scores.
Table 2

MCMI II Scores (N = 89)

 

Minimum

Maximum

Average

S.D.

F

Signif.

% RB > 74

Schizoid

0

117

59,98

26,543

3,925

,051

24 (27%)

Phobic

2

103

50,82

29,466

1,772

,187

22 (24,7%)

Dependent

0

108

55,93

29,523

6,670

,011

25 (28,1%)

Histrionic

5

100

51,66

24,518

1,039

,311

18 (20,2%)

Narcissist

0

109

56,61

24,982

,608

,438

24 (27%)

Antisocial

0

121

65,84

28,324

2,893

,093

34 (38,2%)

Aggressive

0

120

54,64

28,161

,828

,365

19 (21,3%)

Compulsive

5

120

65,82

26,168

1,268

,263

29 (32,6%)

Passive

0

103

41,93

27,971

1,632

,205

13 (14,6%)

Self-destructive

0

109

52,28

25,259

,090

,765

12 (13,5%)

Schizotipical

5

117

55,70

25,988

2,112

,150

18 (20,2%)

Limit

0

112

45,48

27,667

1,462

,230

11 (12,4%)

Paranoid

8

118

62,43

22,869

,061

,805

19 (21,3%)

The number of personality disorders was also analyzed in every subject (Figure 2). Some subjects in homeless integration treatment had no personality disorder (19.5% of cases, N = 15), but some presented one (23.4%, N = 18), two (18.2%, N = 14) or three or more (39%, N = 30) personality disorders.
Figure 2

Personality disorders in the population.

Axis IV Variables

Each participant was interviewed in order to diagnose the various disorders in axis IV (DSM-IV-TR). This was evaluated separately by both clinical psychologists to ensure inter-tester reliability (table 3).
Table 3

Psychosocial disorders (axis IV) present in the subjects studied.

 

Present problems

F

Sig.

Origin family problems

73 (82%)

5,623

,020

Created family problems

38 (42,7%)

,229

,633

Shool problems

31 (35,2%)

,420

,519

Work problems

36 (40,4%)

16,643

,000

Home problems

89 (100%)

.

.

Economical problems

89 (100%)

.

.

Health problems

33 (37,1%)

1,569

,214

Arrested

48 (53,9%)

,275

,601

Moreover the importance both axes (II and IV) in the rate of dropping out from treatment processes was analyzed. Among the participants in the study, 33 (37.08%) failed to complete and 56 (62.92%) completed the process. In table 4, the disorders of the subjects are indicated, and also the percentages of total dropouts and integrations.
Table 4

Dropouts according to axis II and IV (N = 33)

 

Disorders seen in

dropouts

Dropouts in relation to the total simple size

Schizoid

12 (36,36%)

12 (13,48%)

Phobic

10 (30,30%)

10 (11,23%)

Dependent

4 (12,12%)

4 (4,49%)

Histrionic

8 (24,24%)

8 (8,98%)

Narcissist

11 (33,33%)

11 (12,35%)

Antisocial

16 (48,48%)

16 (17,97%)

Aggressive

7 (21,21%)

7 (7,86%)

Compulsive

10 (30,30%)

10 (11,23%)

Passive

7 (21,21%)

7 (7,86%)

Self-destructive

6 (18,18%)

6 (6,74%)

Schizotipical

9 (10,11%)

9 (10,11%)

Limit

7 (21,21%)

7 (7,86%)

Paranoid

10 (30,30%)

10 (11,23%)

Origin family

10 (30,30%)

10 (11,23%)

Created family

20 (60,60%)

20 (11,23%)

School

13 (39,39%)

13 (14,60%)

Work

22 (66,66%)

22 (24,71%)

Home

33 (100%)

33 (100%)

Economical

33 (100%)

33 (100%)

Health

15 (45,45%)

15 (16,85%)

Arrested

19 (57,57%)

19 (21,34%)

Finally, correlations between organic, personality and psychosocial disorders were analyzed (table 5).
Table 5

Correlations between personality, organic and psychosocial disorders

  

Origin family

Created family

School

Work

Home

Economic

Health

Arrested

Organic disorders

Anxiety

        
 

Hysteriform

        
 

Hypomania

       

-,238(*)

 

Dysthymia

    

,614(**)

,300(**)

  
 

Alcohol abuse

       

-,260(*)

 

Drugs abuse

       

-,383(**)

 

Thought

psychotic

        
 

Depression

,267(*)

       
 

Disorder delirious

        

Personality disorders

Schizoid

    

,241(*)

   
 

Phobic

    

,261(*)

   
 

Dependent

        
 

Histrionic

        
 

Narcissistic

        
 

Antisocial

        
 

Aggressive

        
 

Compulsive

,236(*)

       
 

Passive

        
 

Self-destructive

   

,270(*)

    
 

Schizotypical

   

,212(*)

 

,212(*)

  
 

Limit

        
 

Paranoid

        

The high prevalence of personality disorders (75.3%), the high number of personality disorder/person present in the sample (X = 2.84) and the homogeneity presented in the psychosocial problems in the population (remember that issues such as home environment, economy, employment status... are part of the definition of homelessness), makes difficult to attribute to personality disorders, valued in general, the presence of psychosocial disorders. Something similar happens in the case of organic disorders and their relation to psychosocial problems. In this case, the sample (homeless people for a long time), has an important organic impairment. Analyzing the correlations between personality disorders, with organic and disorders (table 5), we conclude that they are so linked in the sample that it is difficult to establish causal relationships between them other than those outlined in this table.

Discussion and conclusions

This study focused on identifying the cause of dropping out from the integration process, evaluating whether the personality disorders or the psychosocial problems found in homeless people were more prominent.

According to the data, the typical profile of a homeless person would be one with more than one PD (X = 2.84), who usually presents with psychosocial problems, mostly home and economic problems in the sample studied, but also with serious problems in axis IV. The axis II disorders from which the homeless people suffered belonged mainly to the group of interpersonal and ambivalent conflicting problems. The disorders most commonly found were: antisocial: 38.2%; compulsive: 32.6%; dependent: 28.1%; narcissistic and schizoid: 27.0%, very similar percentages to those found in previous studies [15, 21].

As expected, the most common disorders in the sample were related to interpersonal problems (dependent, narcissistic and antisocial), along with one belonging to the group of ambivalent personalities with conflicts (compulsive). This explains the correlation between these types of PD and the psychosocial problems as the main cause for dropping out. This, analyzed using Millon's typology [22], shows a person looking for independence not by his own self-confidence but by the distrust of others, with frequent failures in their obligations and with irresponsible and transgressive behavior (ASPD), expressively arrogant and interpersonally exploitative, ignoring coexistence rules (NPD), with serious internal divisions from which he cannot escape (CPD), avoiding adult responsibilities and self-assertiveness, and with a lack of functional competence (DPD)

The disorder most prevalent in the study population (one in every three subjects) was the antisocial personality disorder (ASPD); in the normal population it appears in only 3%, which rises to 75% among prisoners [23].

It is surprising that, along with ASPD, there was a high prevalence of the dependent personality (DPD). This was found in 29.9% of the subjects, three times the incidence obtained in previous studies. It is found in 3% of the clinical population and in 10% of the general population [14]. The fact that all the subjects were male makes the implication of this result even more far reaching. Subjects with DPD adhered well to treatment, with a low dropout rate.

In this study it was shown that 28.6% (N = 22) of the subjects can be considered to have a narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), more than reported in previous studies. This can be explained because in pathological narcissism, self-esteem is disturbed [24] and becomes fragile [25], something that occurs in homeless people. The prevalence of the narcissistic personality disorder in a general population has been reported to be 1% [26]. Other researchers have found a greater NPD rate [27], for instance 22% of the adult clinical population, and both are far from the results of our study.

As a preliminary conclusion, a high prevalence of PD was observed in this study, well above the rate found from epidemiological data concerning the general population [28].

Regarding the disorders in axis IV, every subject experienced home and economic difficulties, typical features of homeless people. Moreover, work problems, and difficulties with created family or the person's legal processes, have a marked impact on dropping-out, even greater than the personality disorders (axis II). This finding is consistent with studies concerning how the existence of a personality disorder influences the treatment dropout rate [29]. It can be said that the subjects in the sample with more than one type of personality disorder have a worse prognosis, and comorbidity between axes II and IV is a complicating factor.

The outcomes of the study show that the homeless people examined present with greater psychopathological symptoms, both in axis II and in axis IV, than the general population. This determines the rate of dropping-out from treatment processes. Our findings indicate the need to take the comorbidity between the two types of disorders in homeless people into account, both in treatment and in the development of specific intervention programs.

List of abbreviations

ASPD: 

Antisocial Personality Disorder

CPD: 

Compulsive Personality Disorder

DPD: 

Dependent Personality Disorder

DSM-IV-TR: 

Diagnostical and Stadistical Manual of Mental Disorders

MCMI II: 

Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory

NPD: 

Narcissistic Personality Disorder

PD: 

Personality Disorder

SPSS: 

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences.

Declarations

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Departament de Psychology and Sociology. Education Faculty, Zaragoza University
(2)
Physiotherapy Research Unit, Zaragoza University

References

  1. Cabrera PJ, Malgesini G, López JA: Un techo y un futuro: buenas prácticas de intervención social con personas sin hogar. 2003, Barcelona: IcariaGoogle Scholar
  2. Pascual JC, Malagón A, Arcega JM, Gines JM, Navinés R, Gurrea A, García-Ribera C, Bulbena A: Utilization of psychiatric emergency services by homeless persons in Spain. General Hospital Psychiatry. 2008, 30 (1): 14-19. 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2007.08.006.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Folsom DF, Hawthorne W, Lindamer L, Gilmer T, Bailey A, Golshan S, García P, Unützer J, Hough R, Jeste DV: Prevalence and risk factors for homelessness and utilization of mental health services among 10,340 patients with serious mental illness in a large public mental health system. American Journal of Psychiatry. 2005, 162: 370-376. 10.1176/appi.ajp.162.2.370.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Cabrera PJ: La Acción Social con personas sin hogar en España. 2000, Madrid: CáritasGoogle Scholar
  5. Muñoz M, Vázquez JJ, Panadero S, Vázquez C: Características de las personas sin hogar en España: 30 años de estudios empíricos. Cuadernos de Psiquiatría Comunitaria. 2003, 3 (2): 100-116.Google Scholar
  6. Salavera C, Puyuelo M, Orejudo S: Trastornos de personalidad y edad: Estudio con personas sin hogar. Anales de Psicología. 2009, 25 (1): 261-265.Google Scholar
  7. Twenge JM, Baumeister RF, DeWall CN, Ciarocco NJ, Bartels JM: Social exclusion decreases prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2007, 92: 56-66.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Salavera C: Personality disorders in homeless people. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy. 2009, 9 (2): 275-283.Google Scholar
  9. Salavera C, Puyuelo M, Tricás JM, Lucha O: Comorbilidad de trastornos de personalidad: Estudio en personas sin hogar. Universitas Psychologica. 2010, 9 (2): 457-467.Google Scholar
  10. Davidson KM: Cognitive-behavioural therapy for personality disorders. Psychiatry. 2008, 7 (3): 117-120. 10.1016/j.mppsy.2008.01.005.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Gunderson JG, Gabbard GO, Coords: Psychotherapy of personality disorders. 2000, Washington, DC.: American Psychiatric PressGoogle Scholar
  12. Millon T, Davis RD: Trastornos de la personalidad. Más allá del DSM-IV. 1998, Barcelona: MassonGoogle Scholar
  13. Quiroga E, Errasti JM: Tratamientos psicológicos eficaces para los trastornos de personalidad. Psicothema. 2001, 13 (3): 393-406.Google Scholar
  14. Rubio V, Pérez A: Trastornos de la personalidad. 2003, Madrid: Ed. ElsevierGoogle Scholar
  15. Fernández-Montalvo J, López-Goñi JJ, Landa N, Illescas C, Lorea I, Zarzuela A: Trastornos de personalidad y abandonos terapéuticos en pacientes adictos: resultados en una comunidad terapéutica. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology. 2004, 4 (2): 271-283.Google Scholar
  16. Navas E, Muñoz JJ: Características de personalidad en drogodependencias. Revista Chilena de Psicología Clínica. 2006, 1: 51-61.Google Scholar
  17. Pedrero EJ: Dimensiones de los trastornos de personalidad en el MCMI-II en adictos a sustancias en tratamiento. Adicciones: revista de socidrogalcohol. 2009, 21 (1): 29-38.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Dixon L, Weiden P, Torres M, Lehman A: Assertive community treatment and medication compliance in the homeless mentally ill. American Journal of Psychiatry. 1997, 154: 1302-1304.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Millon T: MCMI-II: Inventario Clínico multiaxial de Millon. Manual (2ª ed. Revisada). 1999, Madrid: TEAGoogle Scholar
  20. Cabrera PJ: Huéspedes del Aire. Sociología de las personas sin hogar en Madrid. 1998, Madrid: Universidad Pontificia ComillasGoogle Scholar
  21. Bricolo F, Gomma M, Bertani M, y Serpelloni G: Prevalencia de trastornos de personalidad en una muestra de 115 clientes con trastornos por uso de drogas. Adicciones. 2002, 14: 491-496.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Millon T, Grossman S, Millon C, Meagher S, Ramnath R: Trastornos de la personalidad en la vida moderna, 2ª edición. 2006, Barcelona: MassonGoogle Scholar
  23. Widiger T, y Seidlitz L: Personality, psychopathology, and aging. Journal of Research in Personality. 2002, 36: 335-362. 10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00013-2.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Kernberg O: Narcissistic Personality Disorder. 1989, Philadelphia: SaundersGoogle Scholar
  25. Ronningstam E, Gunderson J, y Lyons M: Changes of pathological narcissism. American Journal of Psychiatry. 1995, 152: 253-257.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Zimmerman M, y Coryell WH: Diagnosing personality disorders in the community. Archives General of Psychiatry. 1990, 47: 145-149.Google Scholar
  27. Morey LC, Jones JK: Empirical studies of the construct validity of narcissistic personality disorder. Disorders of narcissism. Diagnostic, clinical, and empirical implications. Edited by: Ronningstam EF. 1998, Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press, 351-373.Google Scholar
  28. American Psychiatric Association: Manual diagnóstico y estadístico de los trastornos mentales (4ª ed. Revisada). 2004, Barcelona: Ed. MassonGoogle Scholar
  29. Chiesa M, Drahorad C, Longo S: Early termination of treatment in personality disorder treated in a psychotherapy hospital: Quantitative and qualitative study. British Journal of Psychiatry. 2000, 177: 107-111. 10.1192/bjp.177.2.107.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Pre-publication history

    1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-244X/11/192/prepub

Copyright

© Salavera et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2011

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement