`In the past, I worked in such a research setting, where if a person was found to meet criteria for opiate dependence they received treatment, however if even slightly short of DSM-IV criteria for the disorder they would have to look elsewhere. This was a continual concern for me, as the person who met criteria was not always the person with the most distress, and alternative treatments were not easy for people to find. Largely from this experience, I find the current categorical approach to classifying persons with psychopathology to be an imperfect system at best, with the primary advantage of being convenience when communicating with other professionals. I question whether this convenience comes at a severe cost to accuracy, the result of which is an artificial limit to the range of presentations that occur in psychopathology. As the example above illustrates, the particular aspect that I find most problematic is the use of cutoffs for specific symptoms, for instance the length symptoms must have been present for it to be classified as a disorder, or even the number of symptoms that need to be present. I think it is unlikely that a person who “almost” meets criteria for a disorder would be significantly different from a person with similar symptoms who just barely meets criteria. In private practice these two cases would likely be treated similarly, but in a setting where diagnosis serves as a screening tool the client who met criteria may get treatment while the other does not. In this case I feel that less specific guidelines, lacking specific numerical limits would alleviate many of the problems. A separate, but related problem is in the accuracy of the diagnosis in identifying a discrete pattern of pathology. I... ... middle of paper ... ...uld be used in therapy. The obvious limitation to this lies in the ease of transmission of information to other professionals. I feel that limitation is not a serious problem, however, as the usefulness of information given by a diagnosis is questionable. I do, however, concede an serious advantage to the categorical diagnosis in training and research on treatment. It would be impossible to train students in the entire range of presentations that can occur, and having a limited range of diagnoses provides a good foundation for conceptual groupings. Being able to use these groupings for research also fosters better training. This is the one area in which I feel that categorical diagnosis is a requirement. In conclusion, I would find the ideal system to be training using a categorical system, but within the context of actual application a more descriptive system.
Many different mental disorders can be under the umbrella of the co-occurring disorder as well as many different forms of substance use, that being said, the term helps to unify the condition and provides a person center diagnosis.
P3 – Describe the investigations that are carried out to enable the diagnosis of these physiological disorders
...s that the DSM can also falsely determine ones specific mental health, showing the struggle between diagnosing someone with genuine disorders and excessively diagnosing individuals.
In order to evaluate the proposed changes the DSM-5, researchers conducted semisturctured diagnostic interviews on 2,150 psychiatric outpatients. The prevalence of personality disorders was approximately 614 individuals, 28.6% when all 10 of the DSM-IV personality disorders were included. When removing the proposed personality disorders 555 individuals, 25.8% were diagnosed with atleast one of the remaining personality disorders. Removal of the pro...
Diagnosing a patient with a personality disorders where often evaluations done by a clinician. The clinician would listen to the importance of interpersonal experiences and observing the patients behavior in a consulting room (Westen, 2001). This was normally done in one session, if the patient informed the clinician of harming himself. The clinician would diagnose the patient as a borderline personality disorders.
Schildkrout, Barbara. “Unmasking Psychological Symptoms: How Therapists Can Learn To Recognize The Psychological Presentation Of Medical Disorders”. n.p.: Hoboken, N.J. : John Wiley & Sons, c2011., 2011. USMAI Catalog. Web. 12 Nov. 2013.
Being able to determine the difference between normal and abnormal behavior is crucial in psychology, but how can someone judge someone’s sanity? It is difficult to put boundaries on such a “soft” area, but there are certain criteria to help in diagnosis. One factor is Bizarreness of the Behavior, which depends greatly on the context in which the behavior occurs. Another is Persistence of Behavior. People can show abnormal behavior without having a mental health problem. However when that abnormal behavior is exhibited on a regular basis, a mental health problem may be present. Another criterion is Subjective Distress, when people are aware of their own psychological difficulties and the distress it brings them. Psychological Handicap is the term used when the subject finds it impossible to be content with life because of their psychological troubles. These are all guidelines to help depict normal and abnormal behavior in psychology.
Personality disorders entails a class of mental disorders that are characterized by permanent maladaptive rhythm of behavior, cognition, and inner experience. The latter have been defined in many circumstances and are markedly deviated from social culture. These behaviors occurs at early age, they are rigid and also associated to distress or disability. However, the definition may alter in accordance to other factors. There are several criteria for overcoming personality disorders from American Psychiatric Association and World Health Organization. When the fifth edition, the DSM-5, was compiled, it was determined that there was no scientific basis for dividing the disorders, so the multi-axial system was done away with. Instead, the new non-axial diagnosis combines the former Axes 1, II and III and include separate notations for the type of information which would have previously fallen into Axes IV and V.
Mental Illness Fellowship Victoria. (2008) Understanding dual diagnosis: mental illness and substance use. Retrieved from http://www.mifellowship.org/sites/default/files/styles/Fact%20Sheets/Understanding%20Dual%20Diagnosis.pdf
...e of the person. Also on the abnormalities in behaviour and this is informed by family members or friends. As well by GP, social worker, clinical assessment by a psychiatrist, clinical psychologist and other mental health professional. However, the Doctors are the ones need to make assessment on the foundation of identical list of externally evident symptoms, not on the improper of interior psychological processes.
Problem solving research was initially aimed at describing reasoning by physicians to improve instuctions and as a process of testing hypotheses. Solutions to difficult diagnostic problems were found in hypothesis early in the diagnostic process ad use them for further collection of data (Elstein & Schwarz, 2002). Problem solving consists of four strategies; hypothesis testing,pattern recognition, specific instances, and general prototypes. The choice of strategy for diagnostic problem solving depends on the perceived difficulty of the case and on knowledge of content as well as strategy (Elstein & Schwarz, 2002). Decision making involves many information typically perceived and evaluated in order to produce the best single choice (Wickens et al., 2013). Availability is when people tend to overestimate the frequency of vivid or easily recalled events and to underestimate the frequency of events that are either very ordinary or difficult to recall as it refers to the ease which instances or occurrences can be brought to mind (Wickens et al., 2013). Representativeness refers to estimating the probability of disease by judging how similar a case is to a diagnostic category or prototype (Elstein & Schwarz, 2002). Bias, of course plays a role as well, confirmation bias describes a tendency for people to see
Classification refers to the procedure in which ideas or objects are recognized, distinguished and understood. Currently, two leading systems are used for grouping of mental disorder namely International Classification of Disease (ICD) by World Health Organization (WHO) and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental disorders (DSM) by the American Psychiatric Association (APA). Other classifications include Chinese classification of mental disorder, psycho-dynamic diagnostic manual, Latin American guide for psychiatric diagnosis etc. A survey of 205 psychiatrists, from 66 different countries across all continents, found that ICD-10 was more customarily used and more valued in clinical practice, while the DSM-IV was more valued for research [1].
Adequate recognition and treatment also helps to prevent frequent secondary disorders such as depression and the abuse of alcohol and psychoactive substances. Delaying the search and getting diagnosis and treatment can be attributed to a variety of factors, such as: stigma (embarrassment, lying), lack of human resources, knowledge or financial reasons. In addition, physicians do not always recognize the pattern in the symptoms of one person that would lead them to the right diagnosis. Often, symptoms are not taken seriously and a person with anxiety disorder is labeled "emotionally unstable". An overview of anxiety disorders suggests that effective treatment would include drug therapy (antidepressants, anxiolytics), and cognitive-behavioral therapy that helps people to transform their thoughts about anything that overwhelms them into more rational ideas. Support groups for individuals and families can also help to create tools for reducing symptoms and dealing with
This model, along with its “key therapist technique” is one of the only institutionally applied ways that discusses this topic, as most of society is weary, uncomfortable, or uneducated of how to approach it. While one of its weaknesses is that its research support is merely moderate, this is simply because testing this model is more difficult than testing the success of other models. This is because this model does not believe in turning humans into test subjects, and thus ridding them of their humanity, which is enlightening and can justify this low research support. The fact that the “consumer designation” is client based is also a strength of the model because referring to those seeking advice or guidance as “patients,” medicalizes these individuals, and thus may impose them with a permanent, stigmatized, and inaccurate label because of this term. This is also true with certain models like the biological model that searches for perhaps natural or inherent and inescapable internal causes to abnormality, which negatively accredits certain individuals as biologically abnormal and dysfunctional. This trend was a prominent approach in historical dynamics as well. For example, this occurred when certain
Sharing certain aspects of practice with other disciplines of pathology like clinical pathology, anatomic pathology, biochemistry, and molecular biology, molecular pathology seeks to understand and diagnose, at a molecular level, the mechanisms and origins of diseases (Harris and McCormick 2010). Through patient samples tests are carried out to measure