Isaiah Kletenik1,2, Stefan H Sillau1, Sanaz Attaripour Isfahani3, Kathrin LaFaver4,5, Mark Hallett3, Brian D Berman1,6. 1. Department of Neurology University of Colorado School of Medicine Aurora Colorado USA. 2. Behavioral Neurology Section University of Colorado School of Medicine Aurora Colorado USA. 3. Human Motor Control Section, Medical Neurology Branch, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke National Institutes of Health Bethesda Maryland USA. 4. Department of Neurology, Movement Disorder Division University of Louisville Louisville Kentucky USA. 5. Department of Neurology Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine Chicago Illinois USA. 6. Movement Disorders Center University of Colorado School of Medicine Aurora Colorado USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prevalence of functional movement disorders is 2 to 3 times higher in women than in men. Trauma and adverse life events are important risk factors for developing functional movement disorders. On a population level, rates of sexual abuse against women are higher when compared with the rates against men. OBJECTIVES: To determine gender differences in rates of sexual abuse in functional movement disorders compared with other neurologic disorders and evaluate if the gender prevalence is influenced by higher rates of sexual abuse against women. METHODS: We performed a case-control series including 199 patients with functional movement disorders (149 women) and 95 controls (60 women). We employed chi-squared test to assess gender and sexual abuse associations and Bayes formula to condition on sexual abuse. RESULTS: Our analysis showed an association between sexual abuse and functional movement disorders in women (odds ratio, 4.821; 95% confidence interval, 2.089-12.070; P < 0.0001), but not men. Bayesian analysis found the functional movement disorder prevalence ratio between women and men conditional on sexual abuse to be 4.87 times the unconditioned ratio. CONCLUSIONS: There is a statistically significant association between sexual abuse and functional movement disorders in women and a greater likelihood that women who are sexually abused will develop functional movement disorders than men who are sexually abused. Our findings suggest that the increased prevalence of functional movement disorders in women is associated, at least in part, with sexual abuse and its sequelae; however, further research is needed to explore the role of other traumatic and nontraumatic factors.
BACKGROUND: The prevalence of functional movement disorders is 2 to 3 times higher in women than in men. Trauma and adverse life events are important risk factors for developing functional movement disorders. On a population level, rates of sexual abuse against women are higher when compared with the rates against men. OBJECTIVES: To determine gender differences in rates of sexual abuse in functional movement disorders compared with other neurologic disorders and evaluate if the gender prevalence is influenced by higher rates of sexual abuse against women. METHODS: We performed a case-control series including 199 patients with functional movement disorders (149 women) and 95 controls (60 women). We employed chi-squared test to assess gender and sexual abuse associations and Bayes formula to condition on sexual abuse. RESULTS: Our analysis showed an association between sexual abuse and functional movement disorders in women (odds ratio, 4.821; 95% confidence interval, 2.089-12.070; P < 0.0001), but not men. Bayesian analysis found the functional movement disorder prevalence ratio between women and men conditional on sexual abuse to be 4.87 times the unconditioned ratio. CONCLUSIONS: There is a statistically significant association between sexual abuse and functional movement disorders in women and a greater likelihood that women who are sexually abused will develop functional movement disorders than men who are sexually abused. Our findings suggest that the increased prevalence of functional movement disorders in women is associated, at least in part, with sexual abuse and its sequelae; however, further research is needed to explore the role of other traumatic and nontraumatic factors.
Authors: Jon Stone; A Carson; R Duncan; R Coleman; R Roberts; C Warlow; C Hibberd; G Murray; R Cull; A Pelosi; J Cavanagh; K Matthews; R Goldbeck; R Smyth; J Walker; A D Macmahon; M Sharpe Journal: Brain Date: 2009-09-08 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Steven A Epstein; Carine W Maurer; Kathrin LaFaver; Rezvan Ameli; Stephen Sinclair; Mark Hallett Journal: Psychosomatics Date: 2016-04-29 Impact factor: 2.386
Authors: Alberto J Espay; Selma Aybek; Alan Carson; Mark J Edwards; Laura H Goldstein; Mark Hallett; Kathrin LaFaver; W Curt LaFrance; Anthony E Lang; Tim Nicholson; Glenn Nielsen; Markus Reuber; Valerie Voon; Jon Stone; Francesca Morgante Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: David L Perez; Timothy R Nicholson; Susannah Pick; Laura H Goldstein Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2018-11-19 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: Daniela Rabellino; Dalila Burin; Sherain Harricharan; Chantelle Lloyd; Paul A Frewen; Margaret C McKinnon; Ruth A Lanius Journal: Front Hum Neurosci Date: 2018-05-01 Impact factor: 3.169
Authors: Mark Hallett; Selma Aybek; Barbara A Dworetzky; Laura McWhirter; Jeffrey P Staab; Jon Stone Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2022-04-14 Impact factor: 59.935