论文部分内容阅读
目的:探讨癫患者及家属述情障碍与人格特征的相关性。方法:选择确诊癫患者145例为癫组,选择直系亲属89例为家属组,选择健康志愿者48例为对照组。采用多伦多述情障碍量表(TAS-20)和艾森克个性问卷(EPQ),对其述情障碍、人格特征进行测评,并分析其相关性。结果:癫组及家属组TAS-20总分及各因子分值均显著或非常显著高于对照组(P<0.05,P<0.01),癫组与家属组TAS-20总分及各因子分值比较,差异不显著(P>0.05)。病程10年以上癫患者TAS-20总分及难以识别自己情感(F1)因子分值显著或非常显著高于病程10年以下癫患者(P<0.05,P<0.01);难以描述自己情感(F2)、外向性思维(F3)因子分值两者比较,差异不显著(P>0.05)。初中文化程度癫患者TAS-20总分及F3因子分值非常显著高于高中和大专及以上癫患者(P<0.01)。F1、F2因子分值3者比较,差异不显著(P>0.05)。全面发作与局灶发作癫患者TAS-20总分及各因子分值比较,差异不显著(P>0.05)。癫组神经质(N)、精神质(P)因子分值非常显著高于对照组(P<0.01),掩饰性(L)因子分值非常显著低于对照组(P<0.01);家属组L因子分值显著低于对照组(P<0.05),其他因子分值比较,差异不显著(P>0.05)。不同性别、文化程度、病程和发作类型癫患者EPQ各因子分值比较,差异不显著(P>0.05)。癫组TAS总分、F2、F3因子与内外向(E)因子呈非常显著负相关(P<0.01),TAS总分及各因子与N因子呈显著或非常显著正相关(P<0.05,P<0.01);家属组TAS总分及F2因子与E因子呈显著负相关(P<0.05),TAS总分及F1、F2因子与N因子呈显著或非常显著正相关(P<0.05,P<0.01)。癫组TAS总分及F1因子与病程呈显著或非常显著正相关(P<0.05,P<0.01),与文化程度呈非常显著负相关(P<0.01);EPQ中L因子与文化程度呈非常显著负相关(P<0.01)。结论:癫患者及家属均存在一定程度的述情障碍,且与病程、文化程度及内向、情绪不稳显著相关。
Objective: To investigate the relationship between the affective disorder and personality in patients with epilepsy and their family members. Methods: A total of 145 epilepsy patients diagnosed as epilepsy were selected as epilepsy group, 89 relatives were selected as family members, and 48 healthy volunteers were selected as control group. TAS-20 and EPQ were used to evaluate their affective disorder and personality traits, and their correlations were analyzed. Results: The scores of TAS-20 and scores of each factor in epilepsy group and their family members were significantly or very significantly higher than those in control group (P <0.05, P <0.01) There was no significant difference between the scores (P> 0.05). The total score of TAS-20 and the index of hard-to-identify emotion (F1) in patients with epilepsy over 10 years were significantly or very significantly higher than those of epilepsy under 10 years (P <0.05, P <0.01) ), Extroversion (F3) factor scores, the difference was not significant (P> 0.05). The scores of TAS-20 and F3 in junior high school students with epilepsy were significantly higher than those in high school, college and above (P <0.01). There was no significant difference between F1 and F2 (P> 0.05). Total score of TAS-20 and score of each factor in patients with full-blown and epileptic seizures were not significantly different (P> 0.05). The neurotic (N) and psychotic (P) scores in epilepsy group were significantly higher than those in control group (P <0.01), and the scores of occult (L) factor in epilepsy group were significantly lower than those in control group (P <0.01) Factor scores were significantly lower than the control group (P <0.05), other factors scores, the difference was not significant (P> 0.05). There was no significant difference in the score of EPQ among different gender, education level, course of disease and seizure type epilepsy (P> 0.05). There were significant negative correlations between TAS score, F2, F3 and E factor in epilepsy group (P <0.01), and there was significant or very significant positive correlation between TAS score and N factor (P <0.05, P <0.01). There was a significant negative correlation between total score of TAS and factor F2 in family members and factor E (P <0.05), total score of TAS, F1 and factor F2 were significantly or very significantly positively correlated with factor N (P <0.05, P <0.01). The score of TAS and F1 in epilepsy group were significantly or very significantly positively correlated with the course of the disease (P <0.05, P <0.01), and significantly negatively correlated with the educational level (P <0.01). The L-factor and educational level of EPQ were significantly Significant negative correlation (P <0.01). Conclusion: Epilepsy patients and their families both have some degree of esophageal dysfunction, and are significantly associated with disease course, education level, introversion and emotional instability.