{"title":"文化因素、社会结构和健康的社会决定因素:评估精神病理学需要明确。","authors":"Neil Krishan Aggarwal","doi":"10.1097/HRP.0000000000000407","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>Over the past decade, researchers translating anthropological theories for clinical use have debated how practitioners should assess cultural factors, social structures, and social determinants of health with patients. Advocates of structural competency have suggested that clinical cultural competency programs demonstrate limited effects on health outcomes because of the static understanding of culture employed. They recommend that cultural factors be reformulated with an emphasis on social structures. In response, researchers in cultural psychiatry specializing in cultural assessments have developed three models-sociocultural formulation (SCF), the cultural-ecosocial view, and the contextual developmental assessment-to integrate cultural and structural factors. Their methods for integration, however, differ, resulting in various understandings of psychopathology mechanisms. This paper analyzes arguments from all four positions in this debate. It reveals a lack of consensus about interrelationships among these constructs, their definitions, and methods for assessment. The article concludes with recommendations, such as developing consensus definitions with broad stakeholder involvement; adopting a data-driven approach to clarify how specific cultural, social, or structural factors interact; and identifying how extant assessments capture clinically relevant factors across constructs to develop additional assessment tools.</p>","PeriodicalId":12915,"journal":{"name":"Harvard Review of Psychiatry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cultural Factors, Social Structures, and Social Determinants of Health: The Need for Clarity in Assessing Psychopathology.\",\"authors\":\"Neil Krishan Aggarwal\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/HRP.0000000000000407\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>Over the past decade, researchers translating anthropological theories for clinical use have debated how practitioners should assess cultural factors, social structures, and social determinants of health with patients. Advocates of structural competency have suggested that clinical cultural competency programs demonstrate limited effects on health outcomes because of the static understanding of culture employed. They recommend that cultural factors be reformulated with an emphasis on social structures. In response, researchers in cultural psychiatry specializing in cultural assessments have developed three models-sociocultural formulation (SCF), the cultural-ecosocial view, and the contextual developmental assessment-to integrate cultural and structural factors. Their methods for integration, however, differ, resulting in various understandings of psychopathology mechanisms. This paper analyzes arguments from all four positions in this debate. It reveals a lack of consensus about interrelationships among these constructs, their definitions, and methods for assessment. The article concludes with recommendations, such as developing consensus definitions with broad stakeholder involvement; adopting a data-driven approach to clarify how specific cultural, social, or structural factors interact; and identifying how extant assessments capture clinically relevant factors across constructs to develop additional assessment tools.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12915,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Harvard Review of Psychiatry\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Harvard Review of Psychiatry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/HRP.0000000000000407\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Harvard Review of Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/HRP.0000000000000407","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
摘要:在过去的十年中,将人类学理论转化为临床应用的研究人员一直在争论实践者应该如何评估患者健康的文化因素、社会结构和社会决定因素。结构能力的倡导者认为,临床文化能力项目对健康结果的影响有限,因为对所采用文化的静态理解。他们建议重新制定文化因素,强调社会结构。为此,文化精神病学研究人员提出了社会文化提法(SCF)、文化-生态社会观(cultural-eco - social view)和情境发展评价(contextual developmental assessment)三种模式来整合文化和结构因素。然而,他们整合的方法不同,导致对精神病理机制的不同理解。本文分析了这场辩论中所有四个立场的论点。它揭示了对这些结构、它们的定义和评估方法之间的相互关系缺乏共识。文章最后提出了建议,例如在广泛利益相关者参与的情况下制定共识定义;采用数据驱动的方法来阐明具体的文化、社会或结构因素如何相互作用;并确定现有评估如何跨结构捕获临床相关因素,以开发额外的评估工具。
Cultural Factors, Social Structures, and Social Determinants of Health: The Need for Clarity in Assessing Psychopathology.
Abstract: Over the past decade, researchers translating anthropological theories for clinical use have debated how practitioners should assess cultural factors, social structures, and social determinants of health with patients. Advocates of structural competency have suggested that clinical cultural competency programs demonstrate limited effects on health outcomes because of the static understanding of culture employed. They recommend that cultural factors be reformulated with an emphasis on social structures. In response, researchers in cultural psychiatry specializing in cultural assessments have developed three models-sociocultural formulation (SCF), the cultural-ecosocial view, and the contextual developmental assessment-to integrate cultural and structural factors. Their methods for integration, however, differ, resulting in various understandings of psychopathology mechanisms. This paper analyzes arguments from all four positions in this debate. It reveals a lack of consensus about interrelationships among these constructs, their definitions, and methods for assessment. The article concludes with recommendations, such as developing consensus definitions with broad stakeholder involvement; adopting a data-driven approach to clarify how specific cultural, social, or structural factors interact; and identifying how extant assessments capture clinically relevant factors across constructs to develop additional assessment tools.
期刊介绍:
The Harvard Review of Psychiatry is the authoritative source for scholarly reviews and perspectives on important topics in psychiatry. Founded by the Harvard Medical School''s Department of Psychiatry, the Harvard Review of Psychiatry features review papers that summarize and synthesize the key literature in a scholarly and clinically relevant manner. Topics covered include: Schizophrenia and related disorders; Mood disorders; Personality disorders; Substance use disorders; Anxiety; Neuroscience; Psychosocial aspects of psychiatry; Ethics; Psychiatric education; and much more.
In addition, a Clinical Challenges section presents a case with discussion from a panel of experts. Brief reviews are presented in topic-specific columns that include Cross-Cultural Psychiatry, History of Psychiatry, Ethics, and others.