理解和分类精神障碍的三种方法:ICD-11, DSM-5和国家精神卫生研究所的研究领域标准(RDoC)。

Lee Anna Clark, Bruce Cuthbert, Roberto Lewis-Fernández, William E Narrow, Geoffrey M Reed
{"title":"理解和分类精神障碍的三种方法:ICD-11, DSM-5和国家精神卫生研究所的研究领域标准(RDoC)。","authors":"Lee Anna Clark,&nbsp;Bruce Cuthbert,&nbsp;Roberto Lewis-Fernández,&nbsp;William E Narrow,&nbsp;Geoffrey M Reed","doi":"10.1177/1529100617727266","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The diagnosis of mental disorder initially appears relatively straightforward: Patients present with symptoms or visible signs of illness; health professionals make diagnoses based primarily on these symptoms and signs; and they prescribe medication, psychotherapy, or both, accordingly. However, despite a dramatic expansion of knowledge about mental disorders during the past half century, understanding of their components and processes remains rudimentary. We provide histories and descriptions of three systems with different purposes relevant to understanding and classifying mental disorder. Two major diagnostic manuals-the International Classification of Diseases and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-provide classification systems relevant to public health, clinical diagnosis, service provision, and specific research applications, the former internationally and the latter primarily for the United States. In contrast, the National Institute of Mental Health's Research Domain Criteria provides a framework that emphasizes integration of basic behavioral and neuroscience research to deepen the understanding of mental disorder. We identify four key issues that present challenges to understanding and classifying mental disorder: etiology, including the multiple causality of mental disorder; whether the relevant phenomena are discrete categories or dimensions; thresholds, which set the boundaries between disorder and nondisorder; and comorbidity, the fact that individuals with mental illness often meet diagnostic requirements for multiple conditions. We discuss how the three systems' approaches to these key issues correspond or diverge as a result of their different histories, purposes, and constituencies. Although the systems have varying degrees of overlap and distinguishing features, they share the goal of reducing the burden of suffering due to mental disorder.</p>","PeriodicalId":37882,"journal":{"name":"Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society","volume":"18 2","pages":"72-145"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1529100617727266","citationCount":"423","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Three Approaches to Understanding and Classifying Mental Disorder: ICD-11, DSM-5, and the National Institute of Mental Health's Research Domain Criteria (RDoC).\",\"authors\":\"Lee Anna Clark,&nbsp;Bruce Cuthbert,&nbsp;Roberto Lewis-Fernández,&nbsp;William E Narrow,&nbsp;Geoffrey M Reed\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1529100617727266\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The diagnosis of mental disorder initially appears relatively straightforward: Patients present with symptoms or visible signs of illness; health professionals make diagnoses based primarily on these symptoms and signs; and they prescribe medication, psychotherapy, or both, accordingly. However, despite a dramatic expansion of knowledge about mental disorders during the past half century, understanding of their components and processes remains rudimentary. We provide histories and descriptions of three systems with different purposes relevant to understanding and classifying mental disorder. Two major diagnostic manuals-the International Classification of Diseases and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-provide classification systems relevant to public health, clinical diagnosis, service provision, and specific research applications, the former internationally and the latter primarily for the United States. In contrast, the National Institute of Mental Health's Research Domain Criteria provides a framework that emphasizes integration of basic behavioral and neuroscience research to deepen the understanding of mental disorder. We identify four key issues that present challenges to understanding and classifying mental disorder: etiology, including the multiple causality of mental disorder; whether the relevant phenomena are discrete categories or dimensions; thresholds, which set the boundaries between disorder and nondisorder; and comorbidity, the fact that individuals with mental illness often meet diagnostic requirements for multiple conditions. We discuss how the three systems' approaches to these key issues correspond or diverge as a result of their different histories, purposes, and constituencies. Although the systems have varying degrees of overlap and distinguishing features, they share the goal of reducing the burden of suffering due to mental disorder.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":37882,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society\",\"volume\":\"18 2\",\"pages\":\"72-145\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1529100617727266\",\"citationCount\":\"423\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100617727266\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Psychology\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100617727266","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Psychology","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 423

摘要

精神障碍的诊断最初似乎相对简单:患者出现症状或明显的疾病迹象;卫生专业人员主要根据这些症状和体征进行诊断;他们会相应地开一些药物,心理治疗,或者两者兼而有之。然而,尽管在过去的半个世纪里,关于精神障碍的知识有了戏剧性的扩展,但对其组成部分和过程的理解仍然是初级的。我们提供了三个系统的历史和描述,它们具有不同的目的,与理解和分类精神障碍有关。两本主要的诊断手册——《国际疾病分类》和《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》——提供了与公共卫生、临床诊断、服务提供和特定研究应用相关的分类系统,前者是国际分类,后者主要针对美国。相比之下,国家心理健康研究所的研究领域标准提供了一个框架,强调基本行为和神经科学研究的整合,以加深对精神障碍的理解。我们确定了对理解和分类精神障碍提出挑战的四个关键问题:病因学,包括精神障碍的多重因果关系;相关现象是离散的类别还是维度;阈值,设定无序和非无序之间的界限;还有共病,精神疾病患者通常符合多种疾病的诊断要求。我们将讨论这三种体系处理这些关键问题的方法是如何由于它们不同的历史、目的和选区而对应或分歧的。虽然这些系统有不同程度的重叠和不同的特点,但它们都有一个共同的目标,即减轻精神障碍造成的痛苦负担。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Three Approaches to Understanding and Classifying Mental Disorder: ICD-11, DSM-5, and the National Institute of Mental Health's Research Domain Criteria (RDoC).

The diagnosis of mental disorder initially appears relatively straightforward: Patients present with symptoms or visible signs of illness; health professionals make diagnoses based primarily on these symptoms and signs; and they prescribe medication, psychotherapy, or both, accordingly. However, despite a dramatic expansion of knowledge about mental disorders during the past half century, understanding of their components and processes remains rudimentary. We provide histories and descriptions of three systems with different purposes relevant to understanding and classifying mental disorder. Two major diagnostic manuals-the International Classification of Diseases and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-provide classification systems relevant to public health, clinical diagnosis, service provision, and specific research applications, the former internationally and the latter primarily for the United States. In contrast, the National Institute of Mental Health's Research Domain Criteria provides a framework that emphasizes integration of basic behavioral and neuroscience research to deepen the understanding of mental disorder. We identify four key issues that present challenges to understanding and classifying mental disorder: etiology, including the multiple causality of mental disorder; whether the relevant phenomena are discrete categories or dimensions; thresholds, which set the boundaries between disorder and nondisorder; and comorbidity, the fact that individuals with mental illness often meet diagnostic requirements for multiple conditions. We discuss how the three systems' approaches to these key issues correspond or diverge as a result of their different histories, purposes, and constituencies. Although the systems have varying degrees of overlap and distinguishing features, they share the goal of reducing the burden of suffering due to mental disorder.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
68.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Psychological Science in the Public Interest (PSPI) is a unique journal featuring comprehensive and compelling reviews of issues that are of direct relevance to the general public. These reviews are written by blue ribbon teams of specialists representing a range of viewpoints, and are intended to assess the current state-of-the-science with regard to the topic. Among other things, PSPI reports have challenged the validity of the Rorschach and other projective tests; have explored how to keep the aging brain sharp; and have documented problems with the current state of clinical psychology. PSPI reports are regularly featured in Scientific American Mind and are typically covered in a variety of other major media outlets.
期刊最新文献
About the Authors. Addiction: Where Framing Can Be a Matter of Life and Death: Response to Flusberg et al. (2024). How Frames Can Promote Agency: Response to Flusberg et al. (2024). The Psychology of Framing: How Everyday Language Shapes the Way We Think, Feel, and Act. About the Authors.
×
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