To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Technology-enabled approaches to conducting 24-h dietary recalls (24HR) may reduce dietary assessment bottlenecks in low-resource settings. However, few studies have assessed their performance relative to conventional pen-and-paper interview (PAPI) approaches and none have validated performance against a benchmark (e.g. weighed food record (WFR)) in a low- and middle-income country (LMIC). This study assessed relative accuracy and cost-effectiveness of INDDEX24, a technology-enabled approach to conducting 24HR, compared with a PAPI approach and against an observer WFR. Women aged 18–49 years from northern Viet Nam (n 234) were randomly assigned to be interviewed using INDDEX24 or PAPI 24HR following a WFR. The two one-sided t test approach assessed the equivalence of each recall modality to the benchmark. Difference-in-differences analysis compared the recall-benchmark results across modalities. Cost per percentage point of accuracy for INDDEX24 and PAPI was derived from accuracy results and the cost to conduct the 24HR. The PAPI and INDDEX24 24HR were statistically equivalent to the WFR for all nutrients except vitamin A. INDDEX24 diverged significantly less than PAPI from the WFR for Fe (0·9 v. −1·3 mg) and PAPI diverged less for protein (–3·7 v. 7·9 g). At the individual level, 26 % of PAPI and 32 % of INDDEX24 respondents had energy intakes within +/– 10 % of the WFR. INDDEX24 cost $111 004 and the PAPI cost $120 483 (USD 2019), making INDDEX24 more cost-effective across most indicators. INDDEX24 was an accurate and cost-effective method for assessing dietary intake in the study context and represents a preferred alternative to PAPI 24HR in Viet Nam and other LMIC.
There is a natural curiosity about why some people are healthier than others. One consistent theme is that dispositional variables or personality may predispose people to poor or good health. This idea can be traced back to the writings of ancient scholars such as Hippocrates and Galen who proposed that individual differences in the four humours could predict health outcomes. Galen, for example, warned that melancholic women compared with sanguine women had a higher risk for breast cancer (Van Heck, 1997).
This chapter addresses one of the most serious matters in the study of personality disorder that is in danger of permanently handicapping understanding and treatment. It could, in the end, sabotage research and keep the subject as an esoteric one where only a small number of zealots communicate amongst themselves. It is a concern that the two highly respected handbooks recently published on personality disorder (Livesley and Larstone, 2018; Lejuez and Gratz, 2020) have no chapters or discussion sections on the stigma of personality disorders, despite its importance.
Historical chapters in scientific books are generally dull even though they do not intend to be. There is an understandable need to record what happened in the past even though it may be quite irrelevant to what is going on today. We are frequently asked to remember George Santayana’s comment, made by many others, that ‘those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it’ (Santayana, 1905). But this is hardly relevant for a textbook on The Wheel. Those who concentrate on wheel technology are not going to be particularly interested, except in a voyeuristic sense, in how Neolithic people might have been able to move large blocks of stone to Stonehenge for hundreds of miles using primitive garden rollers. But with personality disorder it is different. Without some knowledge of the history of personality disorder current descriptions cannot be placed in any sort of context.
As we have already noted from the history of personality disorder, when very little was known apart from the humoral theory of disease, it was common to think of temperament (aka personality) as the main progenitor of illness, with all other psychological symptoms considered as secondary epiphenomena. For example, Robert Burton described dozens of symptoms linked to the melancholic temperament, rather too many in his view: ‘The tower of Babel never yielded such confusion of tongues as the chaos of melancholy doth variety of symptoms,’ (Burton, 1621; republished 1927).
The term ‘personality difficulty’ will be unfamiliar to most people except as a general concept, but it will be part of the ICD-11 diagnostic spectrum of personality disorder in January 2022. We know a fair deal about it, but it is not a diagnosis. It is listed in the section of the ICD-11 classification for ‘non-disease entities that constitute factors, influencing health status and encounters with health services, that may be of clinical importance’, called Q Factors. The important section for personality difficulty is QE50 (problems associated with relationships). The full QE50 list is shown in Table 3.1.
The two main reasons, we suspect, why most health professionals shy away from assessing personality status is that it is considered both too complicated and too risky. The risky aspect is discussed in Chapter 9 in dealing with stigma. In this chapter, the process of assessment is taken in stages in a form that everybody can appreciate without prior knowledge of the subject. Throughout the book we will be putting the main focus on the new ICD-11 classification of personality disorder, but the general principles of assessment apply to all ways of looking at personality disorder.
How common are personality problems? The honest, if unsatisfactory, answer is: it depends on your definition. Whether most of us have personality problems, or only relatively few of us, is determined by the context in which the problems are measured. In this chapter, we will attempt to be transparent about how personality problems are defined and measured, and the influence this may have on their frequency. But while acknowledging this, there is more consistency in the epidemiology of personality disorder than in many other aspects of the subject.
In this last chapter we are offering an optimistic way forward, which if followed by all, will lead to wider use of the concept of personality disorder, better clinical care and greater understanding. This is not empty Panglossian optimism. Here we are not over-simplifying the challenges of personality disorder but showing that it can be taken out of the shadows of rejection and criticism and given its proper place in psychiatric practice and in general dialogue. We have failed both in the past, when we had prejudiced and negative views about all aspects of the subject, and also in the present, despite making some progress, by having an impractical and unnecessarily complicated classification system, and by over-selling a limited range of goods. These errors, far from opening up the subject, have led to over-specialisation and esoteric arguments that have left other health professionals out in the cold. Yet it is these health professionals, and also those involved in any form of care, seeing people with personality problems every day in their lives, whom we need to educate and encourage.