First Michael B
Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University, and New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY 10032, USA.
J Abnorm Psychol. 2005 Nov;114(4):560-4. doi: 10.1037/0021-843X.114.4.560.
A potential obstacle to implementing dimensional representations in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is lack of data about clinical utility and user acceptability. Adopting a dimensional approach would likely complicate medical record keeping, create administrative and clinical barriers between mental disorders and medical conditions, require a massive retreating effort, disrupt research efforts (e.g., meta-analyses), and complicate clinicians' efforts to integrate prior clinical research using DSM categories into clinical practice. Efforts to empirically demonstrate the clinical utility of dimensional alternatives should be a prerequisite for their future implementation in order to establish that their advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Approaches to promote user acceptability and the development of an empirical database include dimensionalizing existing DSM categories and including research dimensions in the DSM appendix.
在《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》(DSM)中实施维度化表述的一个潜在障碍是缺乏关于临床实用性和用户可接受性的数据。采用维度化方法可能会使病历记录变得复杂,在精神障碍和躯体疾病之间造成行政和临床障碍,需要大规模的重新调整工作,扰乱研究工作(如荟萃分析),并使临床医生将先前使用DSM类别进行的临床研究整合到临床实践中的努力变得复杂。为了证明维度化替代方案的优势大于劣势,通过实证证明其临床实用性的努力应该是其未来实施的先决条件。提高用户可接受性和建立实证数据库的方法包括将现有的DSM类别维度化,并在DSM附录中纳入研究维度。