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 no-reply@cambridge.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.
While prior studies have analyzed Skin Picking Disorder as a unitary condition, little research has been done examining clinical and neurocognitive characteristics of specific subtypes. The objective of this study is to analyze differences in impulsivity, emotional regulation, symptom severity, cognitive performance, and the presence of comorbid psychiatric conditions between focused and automatic subtypes of Skin Picking Disorder.
Methods
83 adults aged 18–65 with skin picking disorder were enrolled at the University of Chicago and separated into 4 skin picking subtype groups based on high or low levels of focused and automatic picking scores on the Milwaukee Inventory for the Dimension of Adult Skin Picking. The 4 subtype groups were separated using K-means clustering. Each group completed the same clinical and neurocognitive assessments. ANOVA or Chi-Squared tests were used to analyze differences in assessment outcomes.
Results
Higher focused picking scores were significantly associated with greater symptom severity and impairment. Differences in levels of automatic/focused picking were not associated with impulsivity, emotional/behavior regulations, or neurocognitive outcomes.
Conclusions
The findings suggest that focused skin pickers are likely to have more impairment due to their behavior compared to automatic or mixed pickers; however, overall, the groups did not differ in clinical or neurocognitive measures. Thus, it is unclear whether focused and automatic picking are particularly useful clinically in subtyping skin picking disorder.
From the 1960s on there had been a bifurcation in the welfare states’ approaches to social protection. Many (continental) European countries had chosen high taxes, high public spending, and universal programs. The United States and some others, especially, Anglo-Saxon countries, had used tax burdens reduced, by “tax expenditures,” for some groups. These groups benefited from the reduction in their tax burdens in the same way as the citizens in continental European countries were helped by higher public spending. The tax expenditure tended to be more beneficial to richer individuals while the focused spending programs became progressively less focused, because of political pressures and corrupt practices to expand accessibility to the programs. Tax expenditures also reduced the tax burden on corporations, creating corporate welfare programs. There was a tendency to see social spending as welfare but not tax expenditures.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.