Diagnostic Classification Systems

Author(s):  
Jeremy D. Jewell ◽  
Stephen D. A. Hupp ◽  
Andrew M. Pomerantz
1981 ◽  
Vol 139 (5) ◽  
pp. 397-399 ◽  
Author(s):  
Norman D. Macaskill ◽  
Ann Macaskill

SummaryOne hundred and sixty Scottish psychiatrists complete a questionnaire eliciting the extent of their use of the term ‘borderline patient’ and the factors affecting this. The term was used by 27.5 per cent, the majority of whom felt that it ought to be included in current diagnostic classification systems. There was, however, general dissatisfaction with the vagueness of current definitions of the term and a confusing use of numerous diagnostic labels.Use of the term was not related to status, geographical location, or familiarity with American psychiatric literature. The practice of psychodynamically-oriented psychotherapy and extended working contact with psychiatry in North America were found significantly to increase its use.


1999 ◽  
Vol 175 (3) ◽  
pp. 205-209 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael B. First ◽  
Harold Alan Pincus

The editorial by Andrews et al (1999) usefully calls attention to issues of compatibility between diagnostic classification systems but we believe that the editorial greatly overstates the compatibility problem as well as its implications. The article begins with the suggestion that the DSM–IV authors' position is to downplay the differences between DSM–IV and ICD–10. After stating that the American Psychiatric Association “felt sufficiently confident to publish a DSM–IV International Version in which the DSM–IV criteria are listed against the ICD–10 codes”, the authors go on to report concordances between the classifications for the main mental disorders as ranging from a low of 33% (for substance harmful use or abuse) to 87% (for dysthymia), with an overall concordance of only 68%. The authors conclude that if this “unnecessary dissonance between the classification systems continues, patients, researchers and clinicians will be all the poorer”. Although we acknowledge that there are a number of differences between the two systems, the authors fail to assess fully the sources, significance and solutions for this compatibility problem.


2012 ◽  
Vol 81 (6) ◽  
pp. 394-395 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas Joos ◽  
Barbara Saum ◽  
Armin Hartmann ◽  
Oliver Tüscher ◽  
Ludger Tebartz van Elst ◽  
...  

Psychiatry ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 7 (6) ◽  
pp. 231-234
Author(s):  
Richard Harrington

2010 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 140-147 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diana Rose ◽  
Graham Thornicroft

SummaryAim – to provide a conceptual and practical analysis of the impacts of mental health diagnoses on consumers and to consider how service users might contribute to the new psychiatric classifications currently being drawn up. Methods – A search was carried out revealing a very sparse literature on this topic. Consultations with service users were conducted and the views of experts sought. Results – Diagnosis is important as it marks the formal status of psychiatric patient being conferred. Consumers react differently, and often, negatively to this. Stigma can follow from a diagnosis. The process of giving a diagnosis can range from one of negotiation and taking the person's strengths into account to the blunt allocation of an unwanted label. Consumers can be reduced to their diagnosis so it becomes their whole personhood and this can have an effect on their sense of self. However, consumers are not passive victims and have their own strategies for dealing with these issues. Conclusion – Consumers can use these experiences to make contributions to the new diagnostic classification systems and to future research.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document