关于康复和心理健康的实证证据。

Empirical evidence about recovery and mental health.

作者信息

Slade Mike, Longden Eleanor

机构信息

King's College London, Health Service and Population Research Department (Box P029), Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, Denmark Hill, London, SE5 8AF, UK.

Institute of Psychology, Health and Society, University of Liverpool, Block B, 2nd Floor, Waterhouse Building, Liverpool, L69 3GL, UK.

出版信息

BMC Psychiatry. 2015 Nov 14;15:285. doi: 10.1186/s12888-015-0678-4.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Two discourses exist in mental health research and practice. The first focuses on the limitations associated with disability arising from mental disorder. The second focuses on the possibilities for living well with mental health problems.

DISCUSSION

This article was prompted by a review to inform disability policy. We identify seven findings from this review: recovery is best judged by experts or using standardised assessment; few people with mental health problems recover; if a person no longer meets criteria for a mental illness, they are in remission; diagnosis is a robust basis for characterising groups and predicting need; treatment and other supports are important factors for improving outcome; the barriers to receiving effective treatment are availability, financing and client awareness; and the impact of mental illness, in particular schizophrenia, is entirely negative. We selectively review a wider range of evidence which challenge these findings, including the changing understanding of recovery, national mental health policies, systematic review methodology and undertainty, epidemiological evidence about recovery rates, reasoning biased due to assumptions about mental illness being an illness like any other, the contested nature of schizophrenia, the social construction of diagnoses, alternative explanations for psychosis experiences including the role of trauma, diagnostic over-shadowing, stigma, the technological paradigm, the treatment gap, social determinants of mental ill-health, the prevalence of voice-hearing in the general population, and the sometimes positive impact of psychosis experience in relation to perspective and purpose.

CONCLUSION

We propose an alternative seven messages which are both empirically defensible and more helpful to mental health stakeholders: Recovery is best judged by the person living with the experience; Many people with mental health problems recover; If a person no longer meets criteria for a mental illness, they are not ill; Diagnosis is not a robust foundation; Treatment is one route among many to recovery; Some people choose not to use mental health services; and the impact of mental health problems is mixed.

摘要

背景

心理健康研究与实践中存在两种论述。第一种聚焦于精神障碍导致的残疾相关局限性。第二种聚焦于心理健康问题患者过上美好生活的可能性。

讨论

本文源于一项为残疾政策提供信息的综述。我们从该综述中确定了七个发现:康复最好由专家判断或使用标准化评估;很少有心理健康问题患者康复;如果一个人不再符合精神疾病标准,他们处于缓解期;诊断是划分群体和预测需求的有力依据;治疗和其他支持是改善结果的重要因素;获得有效治疗的障碍包括可及性、资金和患者认知;精神疾病,尤其是精神分裂症的影响完全是负面的。我们有选择地回顾了更广泛的证据,这些证据对这些发现提出了挑战,包括对康复的不断变化的理解、国家心理健康政策、系统综述方法和不确定性、关于康复率的流行病学证据、由于认为精神疾病与其他任何疾病一样而产生的推理偏差、精神分裂症的争议性质、诊断的社会建构、对精神病体验的替代解释,包括创伤的作用、诊断遮蔽、污名、技术范式、治疗差距、精神健康不良的社会决定因素、普通人群中幻听的患病率,以及精神病体验有时在视角和目的方面的积极影响。

结论

我们提出了另外七条信息,这些信息在经验上是站得住脚的,并且对心理健康利益相关者更有帮助:康复最好由有相关经历的人来判断;许多有心理健康问题的人康复了;如果一个人不再符合精神疾病标准,他们就没有患病;诊断不是一个有力的基础;治疗是康复的众多途径之一;有些人选择不使用心理健康服务;心理健康问题的影响是复杂的。

引用本文的文献

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