Do we need a novel framework for classifying psychopathology? A discussion paper

Q2 Psychology Clinical Psychology in Europe Pub Date : 2023-12-22 DOI:10.32872/cpe.11699
Winfried Rief, Stefan G. Hofmann, Max Berg, M. Forbes, D. Pizzagalli, Johannes Zimmermann, Eiko I. Fried, Geoffrey M. Reed
{"title":"Do we need a novel framework for classifying psychopathology? A discussion paper","authors":"Winfried Rief, Stefan G. Hofmann, Max Berg, M. Forbes, D. Pizzagalli, Johannes Zimmermann, Eiko I. Fried, Geoffrey M. Reed","doi":"10.32872/cpe.11699","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Introduction\n The ICD-11 and DSM-5 are the leading systems for the classification of mental disorders, and their relevance for clinical work and research, as well as their impact for policy making and legal questions, has increased considerably. In recent years, other frameworks have been proposed to supplement or even replace the ICD and the DSM, raising many questions regarding clinical utility, scientific relevance, and, at the core, how best to conceptualize mental disorders.\n \n \n Method\n As examples of the new approaches that have emerged, here we introduce the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP), the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC), systems and network approaches, process-based approaches, as well as a new approach to the classification of personality disorders.\n \n \n Results and Discussion\n We highlight main distinctions between these classification frameworks, largely related to different priorities and goals, and discuss areas of overlap and potential compatibility. Synergies among these systems may provide promising new avenues for research and clinical practice.\n","PeriodicalId":34029,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Psychology in Europe","volume":"89 20","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Psychology in Europe","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.11699","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Psychology","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Introduction The ICD-11 and DSM-5 are the leading systems for the classification of mental disorders, and their relevance for clinical work and research, as well as their impact for policy making and legal questions, has increased considerably. In recent years, other frameworks have been proposed to supplement or even replace the ICD and the DSM, raising many questions regarding clinical utility, scientific relevance, and, at the core, how best to conceptualize mental disorders. Method As examples of the new approaches that have emerged, here we introduce the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP), the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC), systems and network approaches, process-based approaches, as well as a new approach to the classification of personality disorders. Results and Discussion We highlight main distinctions between these classification frameworks, largely related to different priorities and goals, and discuss areas of overlap and potential compatibility. Synergies among these systems may provide promising new avenues for research and clinical practice.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
我们需要一个新的精神病理学分类框架吗?讨论文件
导言:ICD-11 和 DSM-5 是精神障碍分类的主要系统,它们对临床工作和研究的相关性,以及对政策制定和法律问题的影响已经大大增加。近年来,人们提出了其他框架来补充甚至取代 ICD 和 DSM,这引发了许多关于临床实用性和科学相关性的问题,其核心是如何最好地将精神障碍概念化。 方法 作为已出现的新方法的例子,我们在此介绍精神病理学层次分类法(HiTOP)、研究领域标准(RDoC)、系统和网络方法、基于过程的方法以及人格障碍分类的新方法。 结果与讨论 我们强调了这些分类框架之间的主要区别(主要与不同的优先事项和目标有关),并讨论了重叠领域和潜在的兼容性。这些系统之间的协同作用可为研究和临床实践提供前景广阔的新途径。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Psychology in Europe
Clinical Psychology in Europe Psychology-Clinical Psychology
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Does Practice Make Perfect? The Effects of an Eight-Week Manualized Deliberate Practice Course With Peer Feedback on Patient-Rated Working Alliance in Adults: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial. Impulsive Buying and Deferment of Gratification Among Adults With ADHD. Learning a Practical Psychotherapeutic Skill in Higher Education in Sweden: A Conceptual Paper Concerning the Importance of Constructive Alignment When Teaching Therapeutic Alliance. Longitudinal Associations of Experiential and Reflective Dimensions of Meaning in Life With Psychopathological Symptoms. The Effects of Mindfulness-Focused Internet-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy on Elevated Levels of Stress and Symptoms of Exhaustion Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1