Renaming schizophrenia: why, how, and what next?

Abstract

Purpose of review: The debate over renaming schizophrenia has gained international momentum, driven by concerns about stigma and scientific accuracy. This review examines the arguments for and against renaming schizophrenia, highlighting research data from the US and international efforts.

Recent findings: Proponents argue that the current term perpetuates stigma, is scientifically outdated, and that stakeholders, including those with lived experience, favor a name change. Opponents, however, caution that renaming might not reduce stigma and could complicate access to care. Stigma associated with schizophrenia leads to significant discrimination in healthcare, employment, and social interactions. Moreover, the term inaccurately suggests a 'split' in the brain, contributing to public misconceptions. Survey data from various countries reveal substantial support for renaming, with some evidence suggesting that new terms can reduce stigma and improve treatment engagement. Historical precedents, such as the renaming of multiple personality disorder to dissociative identity disorder, show that such changes can occur without disrupting care.

Summary: The review concludes that while renaming schizophrenia could align the term with contemporary science and reduce stigma, a systematic, consensus-building approach involving diverse stakeholders is essential. Future steps should focus on finding an appropriate name that reflects the illness's core aspects and ensures optimal care.