Manipulation and control in couple relationships. A study of young women

The term gaslighting refers to a typology of psychological abuse that is expressed through acts of manipulation, which tend to control a partner’s mental and affective state. The aim of the present study was to assess the presence of gaslighting behaviour as sustained by a group of young women in their relational experiences as a couple. Moreover, the associations between frequency of gaslighting behaviour and specific maladaptive personality traits, were evaluated. One hundred women, aged from 19 to 30 years (M=22,5; ds=3,14) participated in this research study. Manipulation and/or control behaviour were evaluated by administrating 25 descriptions of three typologies of gaslighter (glamour, good-guy and intimidator) and 20 descriptions of victim’s reactions to manipulation and/or control attempts (Stern, 2007). In order to measure personality traits the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5; Fossati, Borroni, 2015) was administrated, in brief form for participants and informant form for their partners. Results show that the three forms of gaslighting and the reactions to the controlling behaviour sustained are connected to dysfunctional domains of personality. In particular, it was possible to highlight the presence of an association between glamour gaslighting and the domains of negative affect, antagonism, disinhibition and psychoticism, whereas it seems there is no association between glamour gaslighting and the domain of detachment. Furthermore, it is possible to highlight an association between the victim’s reaction to control and dysfunctional domains of personality. Preventive interventions of Intimate Partner Violence should, therefore, take into consideration the variable in personality traits both in abuser and victim

MEDICAL SCIENCE. GISSI-2: A factorial randomised trial of alteplase versus streptokinase and heparin versus no heparin among 12 490 patients with acute myocardial infarction

A multicentre, randomised, open trial with a 2 x 2 factorial design was conducted to compare the benefits and risks of two thrombolytic agents, streptokinase (SK, 1\ub75 MU infused intravenously over 30-60 min) and alteplase (tPA, 100 mg infused intravenously over 3 h) in patients with acute myocardial infarction admitted to coronary care units within 6 h from onset of symptoms. The patients were also randomised to receive heparin (12 500 U subcutaneously twice daily until discharge from hospital, starting 12 h after beginning the tPA or SK infusion) or usual therapy. All patients without specific contraindications were given atenolol (5-10 mg iv) and aspirin (300-325 mg a day). The end-point of the study was the combined estimate of death plus severe left ventricular damage. 12 490 patients were randomised to four treatment groups (SK alone, SK plus heparin, tPA alone, tPA plus heparin). No specific differences between the two thrombolytic agents were detected as regards the combined end-point (tPA 23\ub71%; SK 22\ub75%; relative risk 1\ub704, 95% Cl 0\ub795-1\ub713), nor after the addition of heparin to the aspirin treatment (hep 22\ub77%, no hep 22\ub79%; RR 0\ub799, 95% Cl 0\ub791-1\ub708). The outcome of patients allocated to the four treatment groups was similar with respect to baseline risk factors such as age, Killip class, hours from onset of symptoms, and site and type of infarct. The rates of major in-hospital cardiac complications (reinfarction, post-infarction angina) were also similar. The incidence of major bleeds was significantly higher in SK and heparin treated patients (respectively, tPA 0\ub75%, SK 1\ub70%, RR 0\ub757, 95% Cl 0\ub738-0\ub785; hep 1\ub70%, no hep 0\ub76%, RR 1\ub764, 95% Cl 1\ub709-2\ub745), whereas the overall incidence of stroke was similar in all groups. SK and tPA appear equally effective and safe for use in routine conditions of care, in all infarct patients who have no contraindications, with or without post-thrombolytic heparin treatment. The 8\ub78% hospital mortality of the study population (compared with approximately 13% in the control cohort of the GISSI-1 trial) indicates the beneficial impact of the proven acute treatments for AMI. \ua9 1990