Zimmerman Mark, Morgan Theresa A, Stanton Kasey
Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, Brown University School of Medicine, Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, RI, USA.
World Psychiatry. 2018 Oct;17(3):258-275. doi: 10.1002/wps.20569.
The issue of the severity of psychiatric disorders has great clinical importance. For example, severity influences decisions about level of care, and affects decisions to seek government assistance due to psychiatric disability. Controversy exists as to the efficacy of antidepressants across the spectrum of depression severity, and whether patients with severe depression should be preferentially treated with medication rather than psychotherapy. Measures of severity are used to evaluate outcome in treatment studies and may be used as meaningful endpoints in clinical practice. But, what does it mean to say that someone has a severe illness? Does severity refer to the number of symptoms a patient is experiencing? To the intensity of the symptoms? To symptom frequency or persistence? To the impact of symptoms on functioning or on quality of life? To the likelihood of the illness resulting in permanent disability or death? Putting aside the issue of how severity should be operationalized, another consideration is whether severity should be conceptualized similarly for all illnesses or be disorder specific. In this paper, we examine how severity is characterized in research and contemporary psychiatric diagnostic systems, with a special focus on depression and personality disorders. Our review shows that the DSM-5 has defined the severity of various disorders in different ways, and that researchers have adopted a myriad of ways of defining severity for both depression and personality disorders, although the severity of the former was predominantly defined according to scores on symptom rating scales, whereas the severity of the latter was often linked with impairments in functioning. Because the functional impact of symptom-defined disorders depends on factors extrinsic to those disorders, such as self-efficacy, resilience, coping ability, social support, cultural and social expectations, as well as the responsibilities related to one's primary role function and the availability of others to assume those responsibilities, we argue that the severity of such disorders should be defined independently from functional impairment.
精神疾病的严重程度问题具有重大的临床意义。例如,严重程度会影响护理水平的决策,并且会影响因精神残疾而寻求政府援助的决策。关于抗抑郁药在整个抑郁严重程度范围内的疗效,以及重度抑郁症患者是否应优先接受药物治疗而非心理治疗,存在争议。严重程度的衡量标准用于评估治疗研究的结果,并可在临床实践中用作有意义的终点指标。但是,说某人患有严重疾病意味着什么呢?严重程度是指患者正在经历的症状数量吗?是指症状的强度吗?是指症状的频率或持续时间吗?是指症状对功能或生活质量的影响吗?是指疾病导致永久性残疾或死亡的可能性吗?暂且不谈严重程度应如何操作化的问题,另一个需要考虑的是,严重程度对于所有疾病是否应进行类似的概念化,还是应针对特定疾病。在本文中,我们研究了在研究和当代精神科诊断系统中严重程度是如何被描述的,特别关注抑郁症和人格障碍。我们的综述表明,《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第五版(DSM - 5)以不同方式定义了各种疾病的严重程度,并且研究人员针对抑郁症和人格障碍采用了多种定义严重程度的方法,尽管前者的严重程度主要根据症状评定量表的得分来定义,而后者的严重程度通常与功能损害相关。由于症状定义的疾病的功能影响取决于这些疾病之外的因素,如自我效能感、心理韧性、应对能力、社会支持、文化和社会期望,以及与一个人的主要角色功能相关的责任和他人承担这些责任的可能性,我们认为此类疾病的严重程度应独立于功能损害来定义。