de Jong J T V M
Tijdschr Psychiatr. 2022;64(8):529-534.
Background Psychiatry and psychology have struggled since their earliest development with the question whether psychopathology manifests itself identically around the world, and whether a disorder can be better understood from a biological or a socio-cultural perspective. Aim To describe the culture and psychopathology debate based on recent developments in ICD and DSM, illustrated with depression and PTSD. Method Clinical experience, previous publications in other languages, and a recent PubMed search on culture and psychopathology. Results There is some consensus in worldwide studies on the universal manifestation of these two disorders. On the other hand, there is broad criticism due to three forms of bias: poor construct validity, looping effects and category truncation. DSM has developed concepts and tools that can enhance cultural competence in practice and in research. Conclusion Researchers and practitioners should develop phenomenological skills to describe and incorporate the local expression of psychological problems into practice. And take into account the three forms of bias mentioned.
背景 自精神病学和心理学发展之初，它们就一直在努力应对这样的问题：精神病理学在世界各地的表现是否相同，以及从生物学角度还是社会文化角度能更好地理解一种疾病。目的 基于国际疾病分类（ICD）和精神疾病诊断与统计手册（DSM）的最新进展，描述文化与精神病理学的争论，并以抑郁症和创伤后应激障碍为例进行说明。方法 临床经验、其他语言的先前出版物，以及近期在PubMed上对文化与精神病理学的检索。结果 在关于这两种疾病普遍表现的全球研究中存在一些共识。另一方面，由于三种偏差形式而受到广泛批评：结构效度差、循环效应和类别截断。DSM已经开发出了能够在实践和研究中提高文化能力的概念和工具。结论 研究人员和从业者应培养现象学技能，以描述心理问题的局部表现并将其纳入实践。并考虑到所提到的三种偏差形式。
