California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, California Medical Facility, 1600 California Dr., Vacaville, CA, 95696, USA.
Psychiatr Q. 2020 Sep;91(3):729-733. doi: 10.1007/s11126-020-09728-3.
The text of DSM-5 includes a new heading-Suicide Risk-meant to educate users about the suicide risk posed by specific mental disorders. But, how well do the Suicide Risk sections fulfill their didactic intent? A review of the sections shows that topical coverage is uneven, noteworthy disorders are omitted, and there are inaccurate statements. In addition, the text frequently uses pejorative terms for suicidal behavior and self-injury. Although the DSM-5 Task Force should be lauded for giving concentrated attention to psychiatry's most lethal outcome, DSM-5 has limited utility for educating students about the suicide risk posed by mental disorders. I make four recommendations to improve the manual's focus on suicide risk and redress the use of stigmatizing terminology.
DSM-5 文本中包含一个新标题——自杀风险，旨在使用户了解特定精神障碍所带来的自杀风险。但是，自杀风险部分在多大程度上实现了其教学意图？对这些部分的审查表明，主题涵盖内容不均衡，重要的疾病被遗漏，而且存在不准确的陈述。此外，文本经常使用贬义词来描述自杀行为和自残。尽管 DSM-5 工作组应该因其集中关注精神病学最致命的后果而受到称赞，但 DSM-5 在教育学生了解精神障碍所带来的自杀风险方面的实用性有限。我提出四项建议，以改进手册对自杀风险的关注，并纠正使用污名化术语的问题。
