Table of Contents Table of Contents
Previous Page  456 / 812 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 456 / 812 Next Page
Page Background

S452

24th European Congress of Psychiatry / European Psychiatry 33S (2016) S349–S805

EV324

Personality Behavior Inventory (PBI):

An introduction, factors,

psychometric properties, comparison

with MMPI and PAI

L. Rollè

1 ,

, D.G. Lyrakos

2

, E. Gerino

1

, A.M. Caldarera

1

, P. Brustia

1

1

University of Torino, Psychology, Torino, Italy

2

Filistos Psychosocial Testing and Consulting, Psychology, Athens,

Greece

Corresponding author.

The Personality Behavior Inventory (PBI) is a multidimensional

tool for evaluating psychopathology, physical problems, behavioral

characteristics and typical features of a personality. It is the shortest

in the field with 197 questions and language level of. The language

level of the third grade of elementary school. That is for the Greek

as well as the English version. The PBI provides clinical diagnoses,

screening, and treatment planning for psychopathology, it also cov-

ers all the constructs most relevant to a broad-based assessment

of mental disorders. The validity of the PBI is established on the

basis of results from data from three samples; a normative census-

matched sample from 1478 community based adults who were

matched on the basis of race, gender, and age; a sample consist-

ing of 1472 psychiatric and psychological patients (inpatients and

outpatients), a sample from 982 forensic participants, who have

been accused and convicted for a variety of crimes and finally a

sample of 121 correctional and public safety employees. Accord-

ing to the reliability scores, the PBI scales reflect a greater level

of internal consistency. At the present study, we will present the

characteristics of the PBI, its usages on the clinical, occupational

and forensic setting as a description of its psychometric properties

and its advantages over the other MMPI-II and PAI.

Disclosure of interest

The authors have not supplied their decla-

ration of competing interest.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpsy.2016.01.1309

EV325

Olfactory reference syndrome

C. Sanahuja

1 ,

, A. Espinosa

2

1

Hospital Universitario de Fuenlabrada, Mental Health, Fuenlabrada,

Spain

2

Instituto Psiquiatrico Jose Germain, Mental health, Leganés, Spain

Corresponding author.

Introduction

The term “olfactory reference syndrome” (ORS),

introduced by Pryse-Phillips in 1971, is a persistent false belief and

preoccupation with body odor accompanied by significant distress

and functional impairment. Nowadays, it is not a distinct syndrome

and it is currently classified as a delusional or obsessive-compulsive

disorder.

Objectives and aims

Review the history of ORSs classification and

discuss why it should be considered as a separate diagnostic in the

current health care classification systems.

Methods

Description of a clinical case of a 36-year-old man and

review the published articles on ORS by using PubMed database

with the keywords: “olfactory reference syndrome”, “chronic

olfactory paranoid syndrome”, “hallucinations of smell”, “chronic

olfactory paranoid syndrome”, “delusions of bromosis” and “taijin

kyofusho”.

Results

The published literature on ORS spans more than a cen-

tury and provides consistent descriptions of its clinical features

but nowadays is not explicitly mentioned in current classification

systems as Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

(DSM) or International Statistical Classification of Diseases and

Related Health Problems (ICD). ORS is overlap with different diag-

nostics such as delusional disorder, body dysmorphic disorder,

obsessive-compulsive disorder, and hypochondriasis.

Conclusions

Right now, it is not clear how the ORSs should best be

classified so we consider interesting to include it as a separate diag-

nosis in our set classifications, sincewe understand that an adjusted

diagnosis is important in order to help patients and therapists to

work on a treatment and to establish a more accurate prognosis.

Disclosure of interest

The authors have not supplied their decla-

ration of competing interest.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpsy.2016.01.1310

EV326

Psychotic and affective disorders

diagnosis stability in a Portuguese

psychiatry inpatient unit – A

retrospective evaluation

M. Santos

, D. Mota , J. Perestrelo , N. Trovão , N. Couto , S. André ,

A. Venâncio , L. Monteiro , G. Lapa

CHVNG/E, Psychiatry, Gaia, Portugal

Corresponding author.

Introduction

Psychiatric diagnosis is based on clinical manifesta-

tions; those are the consequences of patient’s inner state, their life

situation, the evolution of the disease but also the response to our

clinical actions. To this day, there are few objective clinical data to

help establish a diagnosis, therefore, psychiatry diagnosis is mainly

based on diagnostic criteria like DSM and ICD-10. The DSM frames

entities by their diagnostic stability, however there are several

causes for variability categorized by Spritzer et al. (1987): sub-

ject variance (changing in patients), occasions variance (different

episodes), information variance (new information) and observation

variance (different interpretations).

Objectives

Themain objective is to determine the long termdiag-

nosis stability of patients with psychotic or affective disorders

among readmitted patients at our Psychiatric Unit.

Aims

To understand to what extent do our patients diagnosis

evolve and in what way.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of the diagnosis of patients with

affective or psychotic disorders who have readmissions to our unit.

We have a study sample of 210 patients that meet our criteria in a

30-month frame.

Results

Although data are still being analyzed, we are now aware

that our Inpatient Unit has a high rate of readmission of patients

with these diagnoses. It is clear that for many of these patients,

diagnosis must be seen as a guidance rather than a label.

Conclusions

Knowing our own data can make us aware that a

transversal look at patients can be insufficient and only time can

determine a closed diagnosis.

Disclosure of interest

The authors have not supplied their decla-

ration of competing interest.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpsy.2016.01.1311

EV327

Cycloid psychosis: From Kleist until

our days

A. Sousa

1 ,

, C. Solana

2

, J. Gomes

3

, P. Barata

4

, R. Serrano

4

,

M. Lages

4 , C. O

liveira

4 , J. C

hainho

3

1

Lisboa, Portugal

2

Centro Hospitalar Psiquiátrico de Lisboa, Psychiatry, Lisbon,

Portugal

3

Centro Hospitalar Barreiro-Montijo, E.P.E, Psychiatry, Barreiro,

Portugal

4

Hospital Prof. Doutor Fernando Fonseca, Psychiatry, Amadora,

Portugal

Corresponding author.

Introduction

After Emil Kraepelin’s division of psychoses into a

group of dementia praecox andmanic-depressive insanity, the clas-

sification of psychoses with atypical symptoms, which could not