↓ Skip to main content

Psychopathological Functioning Levels (PFLs) and their possible relevance in psychiatric treatments: a qualitative research project

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychiatry, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Psychopathological Functioning Levels (PFLs) and their possible relevance in psychiatric treatments: a qualitative research project
Published in
BMC Psychiatry, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12888-016-0940-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrea Ferrero, Barbara Simonelli, Simona Fassina, Elisabetta Cairo, Giovanni Abbate-Daga, Enrica Marzola, Secondo Fassino

Abstract

Symptoms description is often not enough to provide clinicians with guidelines for treatments and patients' clinical history does not represent an exhaustive source of data. Psychopathological dysfunctions are known to relate to the core disturbances that underlie different forms of psychopathology so the identification of such dysfunctions could be helpful for treatments. Some tools are available although highly complex and lengthy. This study aimed to provide clinicians with an easy-to-administer instrument able to capture different levels of impairment in psychopathological functioning, namely the Psychopathological Functioning Levels - Rating Scale (PFL-RS). The Psychopathological Functioning Level - Research and Training Committee (PFL-RTC) has been established in Turin since 2002 including psychiatrists and clinical psychologists with extensive clinical and research experience. Our research was grounded on the Qualitative Research Criteria (QRC) 1-7 and conducted with subsequent steps in order to identify those core psychopathological dysfunctions to be rated by this tool. From 2002 until 2014, 316 outpatients were administered the clinical interview on at least two different occasions. Diagnoses were mixed and included: Schizophrenic and Psychotic Disorders, Depressive Disorders, Anxiety Disorders, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, Post- Traumatic Stress Disorder, Somatic Symptoms Disorders, Eating Disorders and Personality Disorders. Focus groups were conducted to identify those psychopathological dysfunctions which needed to be rated, according to two Phenomenological Selection Criteria (PhSC) and four Etiopathogenetic Selection Criteria (EtSC). As a result, five dysfunctional areas emerged: Identity (ID); Comprehension (CO); Negative Emotions (NE); Action-Regulation (AR); Social Skills (SS). After checking such dimensions for consistency with the existing instruments, 7 levels of severity were identified for each area. Finally, a provisional Italian schedule of Psychopathological Functioning Levels - Rating Scale (PFL-RS) was obtained and checked for semantic comprehension and then administered gathering preliminary data. Psychopathological dysfunctions underlying mental disorders have been recognized in the present study with the PFL-RS. This instrument seems promising to inform in a specific way treatments strategies and goals, specifically concerning psychotherapy. Notwithstanding, further research is needed in order to confirm validity, sensitivity and reliability of this instrument.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 85 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 11%
Student > Master 8 9%
Researcher 6 7%
Other 14 16%
Unknown 27 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 35 41%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 2%
Environmental Science 2 2%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 30 35%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 July 2016.
All research outputs
#12,838,596
of 14,533,317 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#2,917
of 3,293 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#221,930
of 264,346 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,533,317 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,293 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,346 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them