Main Debates on the Management of Mental Illness: 1990-2020. A Narrative Review

IF 0.6 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL European Journal of Mental Health Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI:10.5708/ejmh/17.2022.1.9
P. Grech, R. Grech
{"title":"Main Debates on the Management of Mental Illness: 1990-2020. A Narrative Review","authors":"P. Grech, R. Grech","doi":"10.5708/ejmh/17.2022.1.9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Since the introduction of newer psychiatric treatment methods during the 20th century, debates about the effectiveness and appropriateness of such treatment have featured. Advocates among those who promote the sociological, biological, psychological and spiritual understandings of mental illness and its treatment have created tangible tensions with those supporting each position commonly indulging in fierce attacks on the others. Aims: The aim of this paper is to explore some of the principal treatment viewpoints that characterized the late 20th century (1990 onwards) and early 21st century (up till 2020). Ultimately, these debates guided contemporary practice towards a biopsychosocial-spiritual view of mental illness in a move towards holistic person-centered care, which nowadays is the advocated model in many health systems. Methods: The authors undertook a literature search in order to locate published debates on psychiatric treatment during the late 20th century (1990 onwards) and the early 21st century (up till 2020). Results: Debates emerging from 36 articles were identified and synthesized in a narrative review. Conclusions: Exploring the various debates that have characterized mental health care serves as a crucial reflective exercise on what needs to be considered when claiming that contemporary care is based on a holistic and person-centered approach. In this view, critical evaluation is needed so as to avoid repeating the coercive and inhumane mistakes of the past.","PeriodicalId":42949,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Mental Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Mental Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5708/ejmh/17.2022.1.9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Since the introduction of newer psychiatric treatment methods during the 20th century, debates about the effectiveness and appropriateness of such treatment have featured. Advocates among those who promote the sociological, biological, psychological and spiritual understandings of mental illness and its treatment have created tangible tensions with those supporting each position commonly indulging in fierce attacks on the others. Aims: The aim of this paper is to explore some of the principal treatment viewpoints that characterized the late 20th century (1990 onwards) and early 21st century (up till 2020). Ultimately, these debates guided contemporary practice towards a biopsychosocial-spiritual view of mental illness in a move towards holistic person-centered care, which nowadays is the advocated model in many health systems. Methods: The authors undertook a literature search in order to locate published debates on psychiatric treatment during the late 20th century (1990 onwards) and the early 21st century (up till 2020). Results: Debates emerging from 36 articles were identified and synthesized in a narrative review. Conclusions: Exploring the various debates that have characterized mental health care serves as a crucial reflective exercise on what needs to be considered when claiming that contemporary care is based on a holistic and person-centered approach. In this view, critical evaluation is needed so as to avoid repeating the coercive and inhumane mistakes of the past.
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
精神疾病管理的主要争论:1990-2020。叙述性回顾
导言:自从20世纪新的精神病学治疗方法被引入以来,关于这种治疗的有效性和适当性的争论一直很突出。在那些提倡对精神疾病及其治疗进行社会学、生物学、心理学和精神理解的人当中,支持者之间产生了切实的紧张关系,支持双方立场的人通常都沉溺于对对方的猛烈攻击。目的:本文的目的是探讨20世纪末(1990年起)和21世纪初(直到2020年)的一些主要治疗观点。最终,这些辩论引导当代实践朝着以人为中心的整体护理的方向发展,以生物心理社会精神观点来看待精神疾病,这是当今许多卫生系统所提倡的模式。方法:作者进行了文献检索,以确定20世纪末(1990年起)和21世纪初(到2020年)关于精神病学治疗的公开辩论。结果:在一篇叙述性综述中,对36篇文章中的争论进行了识别和综合。结论:探索具有精神卫生保健特点的各种辩论,作为一个重要的反思练习,当声称当代护理是基于整体和以人为本的方法时,需要考虑什么。这种观点认为,需要进行批判性评价,以避免重复过去的强制性和不人道的错误。
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
European Journal of Mental Health
European Journal of Mental Health PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
14.30%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Mental Health, an open-access, peer reviewed, interdisciplinary, professional journal concerned with mental health, personal well-being and its supporting ecosystems that acknowledge the importance of people’s interactions with their environments, established in 2006, is published on 280 pages per volume in English and German by the Semmelweis University Institute of Mental Health. The journal’s professional oversight is provided by the Editor-in-Chief and an international Editorial Board, assisted by an Advisory Board. The semiannual journal, with issues appearing in June and December, is published in Budapest. The journal aims at the dissemination of the latest scientific research on mental health and well-being in Europe. It seeks novel, integrative and comprehensive, applied as well as theoretical articles that are inspiring for professionals and practitioners with different fields of interest: social and natural sciences, humanities and different segments of mental health research and practice. The primary thematic focus of EJMH is the social-ecological antecedents of mental health and foundations of human well-being. Most specifically, the journal welcomes contributions that present high-quality, original research findings on well-being and mental health across the lifespan and in historical perspective.
期刊最新文献
Factor Structure of the Shortened Six-Item Version of the de Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale (DJGLS-6) : A Systematic Review and Testing Factor Models in a Nationally Representative Sample The Impacts of Alexithymia and Sexual Distress on Sexual Functioning Among Portuguese Women The Psychological Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Frontline Healthcare Workers : A Systematic Review and a Meta-Analysis Adolescents’ Perceptions About Non-Suicidal Self-Injury, Suicidal Ideation and Suicide Attempts Candidate Biomarkers to Evaluate the Association Between Psychosocial Stressors and Cardiovascular Diseases : A Short Review
×
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