Monaghan Conal, Bizumic Boris
Research School of Psychology, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Front Psychiatry. 2023 Mar 7;14:1098452. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1098452. eCollection 2023.
Categorical models of personality disorders have been beneficial throughout psychiatric history, providing a mechanism for organizing and communicating research and treatment. However, the view that individuals with personality disorders are qualitatively distinct from the general population is no longer tenable. This perspective has amassed steady criticism, ranging from inconsequential to irreconcilable. In response, stronger evidence has been accumulated in support of a dimensional perspective that unifies normal and pathological personality on underlying trait continua. Contemporary nosology has largely shifted toward this dimensional perspective, yet broader adoption within public lexicon and routine clinical practice appears slow. This review focuses on challenges and the related opportunities of moving toward dimensional models in personality disorder research and practice. First, we highlight the need for ongoing development of a broader array of measurement methods, ideally facilitating multimethod assessments that reduce biases associated with any single methodology. These efforts should also include measurement across both poles of each trait, intensive longitudinal studies, and more deeply considering social desirability. Second, wider communication and training in dimensional approaches is needed for individuals working in mental health. This will require clear demonstrations of incremental treatment efficacy and structured public health rebates. Third, we should embrace cultural and geographic diversity, and investigate how unifying humanity may reduce the stigma and shame currently generated by arbitrarily labeling an individual's personality as normal or abnormal. This review aims to organize ongoing research efforts toward broader and routine usage of dimensional perspectives within research and clinical spaces.
在整个精神病史中,人格障碍的分类模型一直发挥着有益作用,为组织和交流研究及治疗提供了一种机制。然而,认为人格障碍患者在本质上与普通人群不同的观点已不再站得住脚。这一观点不断遭到批评,从无关紧要到无法调和不等。作为回应,越来越多有力证据支持了一种维度视角,该视角在潜在特质连续体上统一了正常人格和病态人格。当代疾病分类学在很大程度上已转向这一维度视角,但在大众词汇和常规临床实践中更广泛的应用似乎进展缓慢。本综述聚焦于人格障碍研究与实践中向维度模型转变所面临的挑战及相关机遇。首先,我们强调需要持续开发更广泛的测量方法,理想情况下要促进多方法评估,以减少与任何单一方法相关的偏差。这些努力还应包括对每个特质的两个极端进行测量、深入的纵向研究,以及更深入地考虑社会期望性。其次,心理健康领域的工作人员需要更广泛地交流和接受维度方法的培训。这将需要清晰展示递增的治疗效果以及结构化的公共卫生补贴。第三,我们应该接受文化和地理多样性,并研究统一人性如何减少目前因随意将个体人格标记为正常或异常而产生的污名和羞耻感。本综述旨在组织正在进行的研究工作,以便在研究和临床领域更广泛、常规地使用维度视角。