McGorry P D
Department of Psychiatry, University of Melbourne, Royal Park Hospital, Parkville, Victoria.
Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 1995 Sep;29(3):385-93. doi: 10.3109/00048679509064945.
Three sets of clinical boundaries exist for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), as for all concepts of psychiatric disorder. The first involves the border with normal psychology in general, and with the normal psychology of stress response in particular. This boundary can be surveyed from a number of vantage points and the maps which result will not necessarily correspond. The second boundary issue involves internal boundaries between psychiatric disorders, specifically between PTSD and other concepts of disorder. The high level of comorbidity documented in PTSD has ensured that this aspect of boundary setting is particularly contentious. The third set of boundaries is concerned with subtyping within the global construct of PTSD. The validity and extent of subtyping would be based on the degree to which phenomenological differences exist in relation to PTSD syndromes occurring in the wake of certain types of traumatic events. Such clinical subtyping might however need to be buttressed by external validity indicators such as differential treatment responses or outcome. A final boundary issue of major significance to therapists involves the need to place oneself unambiguously on the side of the trauma survivor in the struggle to resolve the traumatic experiences. The pivotal position of PTSD in the psychopathological arena is discussed.
与所有精神疾病概念一样,创伤后应激障碍(PTSD)存在三组临床界限。第一组界限总体上涉及与正常心理的边界,尤其涉及与应激反应正常心理的边界。可以从多个有利视角审视这一边界,得出的结果不一定相符。第二组界限问题涉及精神疾病之间的内部界限,特别是PTSD与其他疾病概念之间的界限。PTSD中记录的高共病率使得界限设定的这一方面特别具有争议性。第三组界限涉及PTSD整体概念中的亚型划分。亚型划分的有效性和范围将基于在某些类型创伤事件后出现的PTSD综合征中现象学差异的程度。然而,这种临床亚型划分可能需要由外部有效性指标(如不同的治疗反应或结果)来支持。对治疗师具有重大意义的最后一个界限问题涉及在解决创伤经历的斗争中明确站在创伤幸存者一边的必要性。文中讨论了PTSD在精神病理学领域的关键地位。