Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36690611›Full record

ArticleTranslational psychiatry2023

Approximating defense mechanisms in a national study of adults: prevalence and correlates with functioning.

Carlos Blanco, Leonie Kampe, Melanie M Wall, Shang-Min Liu, Shuai Wang, Eve Caligor, Mark Olfson

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Translational psychiatry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
7.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Carlos BlancoNational Institute on Drug Abuse, Bethesda, MD, 20892, USA. carlos.blanco2@nih.gov.ORCID 0000-0001-6187-3057
Leonie KampePsychologische Hochschule Berlin, Am Köllnischen Park 2, 10179, Berlin, Germany.
Melanie M WallDepartment of Psychiatry, Columbia University/New York State Psychiatric Institute, 1051 Riverside Drive, Unit 69, New York, NY, 10032, USA.
Shang-Min LiuDepartment of Psychiatry, Columbia University/New York State Psychiatric Institute, 1051 Riverside Drive, Unit 69, New York, NY, 10032, USA.
Shuai WangDepartment of Psychiatry, Columbia University/New York State Psychiatric Institute, 1051 Riverside Drive, Unit 69, New York, NY, 10032, USA.
Eve CaligorDepartment of Psychiatry, Columbia University/New York State Psychiatric Institute, 1051 Riverside Drive, Unit 69, New York, NY, 10032, USA.
Mark OlfsonDepartment of Psychiatry, Columbia University/New York State Psychiatric Institute, 1051 Riverside Drive, Unit 69, New York, NY, 10032, USA.
New York Psychoanalytic Society and Institute · USKlinikum Itzehoe · DENational Institute on Drug Abuse · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite the clinical relevance of defense mechanisms, there are no published studies in nationally representative samples of their prevalence, correlates, and association with psychosocial functioning. We sought to estimate the prevalence and correlates of 12 defense mechanisms in the general adult population by approximating from items used to assess personality traits in the National Epidemiological Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC), a representative sample of US adults (N = 36,653). We examined the associations between sociodemographic characteristics and prevalence of 3 types of defenses mechanisms (pathological, immature, and neurotic). For each defense mechanism, we used the Short-Form 12 to compare psychosocial functioning among 3 groups: those who (1) endorsed the mechanism with self-recognized impairment, (2) endorsed the mechanism without self-recognized impairment, and (3) did not endorse the defense mechanism. The prevalence of defense mechanisms ranged from 13.2% (splitting) to 44.5% (obsessive/controlling behavior). Pathological defenses were more strongly associated with immature defenses (OR = 5.4, 95% CI = 5.2-5.6) than with neurotic defenses (OR = 2.0, 95% CI = 1.9-2.0), whereas the association between immature and neurotic defenses had an intermediate value between the other two (OR = 2.2, 95% CI = 2.1-2.2). Pathological and immature defenses were associated with younger age, having been never married, lower educational attainment, and lower income. After adjusting the crude results for age and sex, individuals who did not endorse a given defense generally had higher scores on the mental health component of the SF-12 than those who endorsed the defense without self-recognized impairment who, in turn, had on average higher scores than those with self-recognized impairment. These results suggest that neurotic, immature, and pathological defense mechanisms are prevalent in the general population and associated with psychosocial impairment. Recognizing defense mechanisms may be important in clinical practice regardless of treatment modality.

Indexed as

Defense MechanismsAdultHumansPrevalenceSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID36690611
PMCPMC9870881
OpenAlexW4317750113

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.