Training Institute, Italian Psychoanalytic Society, Rome, Italy,
Centre for Behavioural Sciences and Mental Health, Italian National Institute of Health, Rome, Italy.
Psychopathology. 2020;53(5-6):282-290. doi: 10.1159/000509489. Epub 2020 Sep 3.
The clinical encounter is still at the core of the psychiatric evaluation. Since the diagnostic process remains basically clinical in nature, several authors have addressed the complexity of the clinical reasoning process and highlighted the role played by intersubjective phenomena and clinician's feelings. Some recent studies have supported the view of a significant link between the clinician's subjective experience during the assessment and the diagnosis made. In a globalized world, this issue requires a careful reflection, since cultural differences may affect the intersubjective atmosphere of the encounter, which may indirectly influence the clinician's thinking.
We used a previously validated instrument, named Assessment of Clinician's Subjective Experience (ACSE), to compare the clinician's subjective experience during the evaluation of Italian patients with the subjective experience of the same clinician during the assessment of foreign patients. The 2 patient groups (n = 42 each) were individually matched for known potential confounders (age, sex, categorical diagnosis, and clinical severity).
We found no significant differences in mean scores on all ACSE dimensions (tension, difficulty in attune-ment, engagement, disconfirmation, and impotence), which suggests that cultural diversity did not substantially affect the clinician's subjective experience. However, the lack of information about the native country and linguistic proficiency of about a quarter of foreign patients may have limited the possibility to detect subtle or specific differences, especially with regard to the clinician's empathic attunement.
Although further investigation is needed, our preliminary findings may have significant implications for the reflection upon the clinician's empathic experience as well as pragmatic consequences for the act of psychiatric diagnosis in the cross-cultural encounter.
临床接触仍然是精神科评估的核心。由于诊断过程在本质上仍然是临床性质的,因此有几位作者探讨了临床推理过程的复杂性,并强调了主体间现象和临床医生的感受所起的作用。一些最近的研究支持了这样一种观点,即临床医生在评估过程中的主观体验与做出的诊断之间存在显著联系。在全球化的世界中,这个问题需要仔细思考,因为文化差异可能会影响接触的主体间氛围,从而间接地影响临床医生的思维。
我们使用了一种先前经过验证的工具,称为临床医生主观体验评估(ACSE),来比较意大利患者评估过程中临床医生的主观体验与同一位临床医生评估外国患者时的主观体验。将两个患者组(每组 42 人)根据已知的潜在混杂因素(年龄、性别、类别诊断和临床严重程度)进行个体匹配。
我们发现在所有 ACSE 维度(紧张、协调困难、参与、不确认和无力)上的平均得分均无显著差异(t 检验),这表明文化多样性并没有实质性地影响临床医生的主观体验。然而,大约四分之一的外国患者的原籍国和语言熟练程度的信息缺失可能限制了检测细微或特定差异的可能性,特别是在临床医生的共情协调方面。
尽管需要进一步的研究,但我们的初步发现可能对临床医生共情体验的思考以及跨文化接触中的精神科诊断行为的实际后果产生重要影响。