PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

J Philipson

Publications and source records attributed to J Philipson.

8 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2001

Current attachment representations of incarcerated offenders varying in degree of psychopathy.

The present study sought to examine the current mental representations of early attachment relationships in 24 psychopathic criminal offenders, incarcerated in a forensic psychiatric hospital or a medium-security prison. The participants had been assessed on Hare's Psychopathy Checklist, Revised: Screening Version (PCL-R, sv, 1997) and scored either high or low. They were interviewed with the Main and Goldwyn Adult Attachment Interview (1998) and completed the EMBU, a Swedish self-report questionnaire tapping memories of the parent's rearing techniques. The results pointed to an extensive over-representation of individuals who were dismissing of attachment and attachment-related experiences (close to three times as many as in the normal population), no secure individuals, and with the remainder being either unclassifiable or unresolved with regard to severe early abuse/trauma. In addition, an examination of the EMBU data revealed an association between a higher psychopathy score and a family constellation of a rejecting father and an emotionally very warm (idealized) mother. The discussion will focus on the unique discourse of the dismissing individuals and on clinical implications.

Adult↗
PubMed2000

Expert approaches to communicating violence risk.

There has been virtually no empirical study of the way in which evaluating clinicians communicate their conclusions about the risk of violence toward others. Risk communication has become particularly important in recent years, serving as the link between empirical data from recent studies and the understanding and use of such data by evaluators and decision makers. The present study considered how psychologists and psychiatrists, identified as experts in violence risk assessment, responded to eight vignettes that systematically measured preferences for risk communication. The vignettes involved the presentation of the following factors in a 2 x 2 x 2 within-subjects design, counterbalanced for order: (1) risk model (prediction vs. management), (2) risk level (high vs. low risk of the individual being assessed), and (3) risk factors (the predominance of static vs. dynamic risk factors). A total of 71 individuals (41 psychologists, 2 sociologists, and 28 psychiatrists) responded to a survey mailed to 100 individuals, for a response rate of 71%. Participants were asked to rate the value of six forms of risk communication for each of the eight vignettes. There were few significant differences between the ratings assigned by psychologists and those assigned by psychiatrists. The most highly valued form of risk communication involved identifying risk factors applicable to the individual and specifying interventions to reduce risk. A repeated-measures multivariate analysis of variance yielded a main effect for risk level and an interaction between risk level and risk factors. The implications of these findings for research and practice are discussed.

Expert Testimony↗
PubMed1999

Risk communication: clinicians' reported approaches and perceived values.

Despite significant conceptual and empirical advances in research on the risk assessment of violence during the last decade, there has apparently been no empirical research in the related area of risk communication. After summarizing the major theoretical and practical justifications for studying risk communication, this article describes the results of two studies of clinicians' risk communication practices. In Study 1, practicing clinicians (psychiatrists and psychologists; n = 55) were surveyed. Only one clinician indicated that he employed numerical probability figures in communicating risk; a total of nine reasons for not using numerical probabilities were cited, in varying combinations, by participants. Risk communication practices that were reportedly employed included a total of 11 approaches, endorsed in varying combinations. In Study 2, a separate sample of clinicians (n = 59) rated (1) the importance of the Study 1 reasons against using numerical probability figures in risk communication and (2) the value of the different forms of risk communication derived in Study 1. These data apparently offer the first empirical description of how clinicians communicate the results of risk assessments of violence and their reasons for communicating in such ways.

Communication↗
PubMed1987

Effect of nitrendipine in a rat model of ischemic acute renal failure.

An increase in intracellular calcium has been identified as an etiologic factor in acute renal failure (ARF) and blockade of slow calcium channels has been successful in its amelioration. Diuretics may also prevent or mitigate the effects of renal ischemia. We examined the actions of a new calcium channel blocker, nitrendipine (NTR), given intravenously to rats prior to bilateral clamping of the renal pedicle for 45-60 min. Four groups of rats were studied. Group I: Rats given the vehicle only and subjected to sham surgery had a creatinine clearance (Ccr) of .93 +/- .05 ml/min (n = 20). Group II: Rats given NTR (1 or 3 mg/kg) and subjected to sham surgery had a Ccr of .65 +/- .03 ml/min (n = 17). Group III: The infusion of the vehicle alone 10-15 min before clamping resulted in a Ccr of .12 +/- .02 ml/min (n = 23, p less than .001 vs. group I). Group IV: Rats given NTR and then clamped had a Ccr of .30 +/- .04 ml/min (n = 31, p less than .001 vs. group III, p less than .001 vs. group II). Higher doses of NTR did not improve the results. We concluded that NTR partially protects against ARF, but NTR lowered Ccr compared to control rats (p less than .001, group I vs. group II).

Acute Kidney Injury↗