Suppr超能文献

人格障碍与《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第五版:维持现状的科学与非科学因素

Personality disorders and the DSM-5: Scientific and extra-scientific factors in the maintenance of the status quo.

作者信息

Gøtzsche-Astrup Oluf, Moskowitz Andrew

机构信息

Department of Psychology and Language Sciences, University College London, London, UK

Department of Psychology and Behavioural Sciences, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.

出版信息

Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2016 Feb;50(2):119-27. doi: 10.1177/0004867415595872. Epub 2015 Jul 24.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to review and discuss the evidence for dimensional classification of personality disorders and the historical and sociological bases of psychiatric nosology and research.

METHOD

Categorical and dimensional conceptualisations of personality disorder are reviewed, with a focus on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-system's categorisation and the Five-Factor Model of personality. This frames the events leading up to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition, personality disorder debacle, where the implementation of a hybrid model was blocked in a last-minute intervention by the American Psychiatric Association Board of Trustees. Explanations for these events are discussed, including the existence of invisible colleges of researchers and the fear of risking a 'scientific revolution' in psychiatry.

RESULTS

A failure to recognise extra-scientific factors at work in classification of mental illness can have a profound and long-lasting influence on psychiatric nosology. In the end it was not scientific factors that led to the failure of the hybrid model of personality disorders, but opposing forces within the mental health community in general and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition, Task Force in particular.

CONCLUSION

Substantial evidence has accrued over the past decades in support of a dimensional model of personality disorders. The events surrounding the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition, Personality and Personality Disorders Work Group show the difficulties in reconciling two different worldviews with a hybrid model. They also indicate the future of a psychiatric nosology that will be increasingly concerned with dimensional classification of mental illness. As such, the road is paved for more substantial changes to personality disorder classification in the International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision, in 2017.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在回顾和讨论人格障碍维度分类的证据以及精神疾病分类学和研究的历史与社会学基础。

方法

回顾了人格障碍的类别和维度概念化,重点关注《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》系统的分类以及人格五因素模型。这构成了导致《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第5版人格障碍惨败事件的框架,在该事件中,混合模型的实施在最后一刻被美国精神病学协会理事会干预而受阻。讨论了这些事件的解释,包括存在无形的研究团体以及对精神病学中“科学革命”风险的担忧。

结果

在精神疾病分类中未能认识到起作用的超科学因素会对精神疾病分类学产生深远而持久的影响。最终,导致人格障碍混合模型失败的不是科学因素,而是整个心理健康界,特别是《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第5版工作组内部的反对力量。

结论

在过去几十年中积累了大量证据支持人格障碍的维度模型。围绕《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第5版人格与人格障碍工作组的事件表明,用混合模型调和两种不同世界观存在困难。它们还预示着精神疾病分类学的未来将越来越关注精神疾病的维度分类。因此,为2017年《国际疾病分类》第11次修订版中人格障碍分类的更实质性变化铺平了道路。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验