[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The Internet has grown increasingly relevant in the practice of forensic psychiatry. To a psychiatrist conducting a forensic evaluation, the evaluee's Internet use can be relevant in nearly all aspects of the analysis. An evaluee's Internet presence may help to confirm, corroborate, refute, or elaborate on the psychiatrist's general impression of the person. Questions about the individual's choice of screen names, activities, images, and phrases can be valuable conversational tools to increase candor and self-disclosure, even among less cooperative evaluees. Difficulties in mood or affect regulation, problems with thought process or content, and impaired impulse control may be apparent in the evaluee's behavior in various Internet forums-for example, hostile or provocative behavior in social forums or excessive use of gaming or shopping websites. Discussions about the evaluee's behavior on the Internet can help the psychiatrist to assess for impaired insight and judgment. Perceptual disturbances, such as derealization and depersonalization, may be related to an evaluee's overidentification with the virtual world to the neglect of real-life needs and responsibilities. Furthermore, digital evidence can be especially useful in assessments of impairment, credibility, and dangerousness or risk, particularly when the evaluee is uncooperative or unreliable in the face-to-face psychiatric examination. This discussion will provide illustrative examples and suggestions for questions and topics the forensic psychiatrist may find helpful in conducting a thorough evaluation in this new age of the Internet.
The journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 01/2010; 38(1):15-26. · 0.93 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Morgellons disease is a controversial and poorly defined symptom cluster of skin lesions and somatic symptoms, most notably 'fibers' in the skin. Because of widespread coverage in the media and on the Internet, there are an increasing number of patients presenting to dermatologists. We present three patients who believed that they had fibers in their skin. We offer a discussion of delusions of parasitosis to demonstrate similarities between these conditions. It has been suggested by a limited number of healthcare providers that an unknown infectious agent underlies this symptom complex yet no available evidence supports this assertion. Laboratory values that would be reflective of an infectious process (e.g. elevated white blood cells, sedimentation rate, C reactive protein) are routinely normal and biopsies often reflect only nonspecific findings such as acute and chronic inflammation with erosion or ulceration. Patients with Morgellons disease generally lack insight into their disease and reject the need for psychiatric help. The goal is to build trust and refrain from minimizing what the patient experiences. Attentive examination of the patient's skin and fragments they present is necessary to rule out a true underlying pathologic process and to establish a trusting relationship. A supportive, non-confrontational approach is ideal. The patient is best treated by a team of practitioners of several specialties, including dermatologists, psychiatrists, and counselors.
American Journal of Clinical Dermatology 02/2011; 12(1):1-6. DOI:10.2165/11533150-000000000-00000 · 2.73 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Systematic studies of delusional infestation (DI), also known as delusional parasitosis, are scarce. They lack either dermatological or psychiatric detail. Little is known about the specimens that patients provide to prove their infestation. There is no study on the current presentation of DI in Europe.
To determine the number of true infestations, to assess with which pathogens patients believe themselves to be infested, and to gather details about the frequency and nature of the specimens and the containers used to store them, based on European study centres.
Retrospective study of consecutive cases with suspected DI from six centres (Dermatology, Psychiatry, Tropical Medicine) in four European countries (U.K., Germany, Italy, France).
In total, 148 consecutive cases of suspected DI were included, i.e. the largest cohort reported. None of the patients had evidence of a genuine infestation, as shown by examinations by dermatologists and/or infectious disease specialists. Only 35% believed themselves to be infested by parasites; the majority reported a large number of other living or inanimate (17%) pathogens. Seventy-one patients (48%) presented with what they believed was proof of their infestation. These specimens were mostly skin particles or hair, and rarely insects (only very few of which were human pathogenic or anthropophilic, and none of these could be correlated with the clinical presentation), and only 4% were stored in matchboxes (three of 71).
This first multicentre study of DI in Europe confirms that the term 'delusional infestation' better reflects current and future variations of this entity than 'delusional parasitosis'. The presentation of proofs of infestation, commonly referred to as 'the matchbox sign', is typical but not obligatory in DI and might better be called 'the specimen sign'.
British Journal of Dermatology 05/2012; 167(2):247-51. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2133.2012.10995.x · 4.28 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.