Should Autism Be Classified as a Mental Illness/Disability? Evidence from Empirical Work

Author(s):  
Michelle O’Reilly ◽  
Khalid Karim ◽  
Jessica Nina Lester
Author(s):  
Paul P. Christopher ◽  
Laura B. Dunn

The nature of neuropsychiatric disorders raises questions and concerns that must be addressed for research on these disorders to proceed ethically. This chapter discusses the rationale for both conceptual and empirical ethics work related to psychiatric research, focusing in particular on informed consent, decision-making capacity, and voluntarism. The extant literature regarding the abilities of people with mental illness to provide informed consent to research is reviewed. Also discussed are the ethical implications of co-occurring problems frequently faced by people with mental illness. Finally, the types of conceptual and empirical work that are needed to move psychiatric research ethics forward are discussed.


2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-57 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cassidy Blair Haigh ◽  
Anne Li Kringen ◽  
Jonathan Allen Kringen

As police departments in the United States strive to improve their capacity to effectively engage individuals with mental illness (IMI), Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) training has become increasingly common. Limited empirical work has studied the effectiveness of CIT, and available studies demonstrate split evidence on the effectiveness of the approach. Variation in previous findings may indicate that CIT inadequately addresses key factors that create challenges for officers when engaging IMI, such as mental illness stigma. Survey data collected from 185 officers were analyzed to assess whether mental illness stigma affects officers’ perceptions of preparedness for engaging IMI beyond CIT training itself. Findings suggest that although there are few differences in perceptions of preparedness between officers who have completed CIT training and those who have not completed CIT training, variation in levels of mental illness stigma explain differences in officers’ perceptions of preparedness to engage IMI. Policy recommendations are discussed.


2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua Breslau ◽  
Beth Dana ◽  
Harold Pincus ◽  
Marcela Horvitz-Lennon ◽  
Luke Matthews

Abstract Background Policies target networks of providers who treat people with mental illnesses, but little is known about the empirical structures of these networks and related variation in patient care. The goal of this paper is to describe networks of providers who treat adults with mental illness in a multi-payer database based medical claims data in a U.S. state. Methods Provider networks were identified and characterized using paid inpatient, outpatient and pharmacy claims related to care for people with a mental health diagnosis from an all-payer claims dataset that covers both public and private payers. Results Three nested levels of network structures were identified: an overall network, which included 21% of providers (N = 8256) and 97% of patients (N = 476,802), five communities and 24 sub-communities. Sub-communities were characterized by size, provider composition, continuity-of-care (CoC), and network structure measures including mean number of connections per provider (degree) and average number of connections who were connected to each other (transitivity). Sub-community size was positively associated with number of connections (r = .37) and the proportion of psychiatrists (r = .41) and uncorrelated with network transitivity (r = −.02) and continuity of care (r = .00). Network transitivity was not associated with CoC after adjustment for provider type, number of patients, and average connection CoC (p = .85). Conclusions These exploratory analyses suggest that network analysis can provide information about the networks of providers that treat people with mental illness that is not captured in traditional measures and may be useful in designing, implementing, and studying interventions to improve systems of care. Though initial results are promising, additional empirical work is needed to develop network-based measures and tools for policymakers.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua Breslau ◽  
Beth Dana ◽  
Harold Pincus ◽  
Marcela Horvitz-Lennon ◽  
Luke Matthews

Abstract Background Policies target networks of providers who treat people with mental illnesses, but little is known about the empirical structures of these networks and related variation in patient care. The goal of this paper is to describe networks of providers who treat adults with a mental illness in a multi-payer database based medical claims data in a U.S. state. Methods Provider networks were identified and characterized using paid inpatient, outpatient and pharmacy claims related to care for people with a mental health diagnosis from an all-payer claims dataset that covers both public and private payers. Results Three nested levels of network structures were identified, an overall network, which included 21% of providers (N = 8,256) and 97% of patients (N = 476,802), five communities and 24 sub-communities. Sub-communities were characterized by size, provider composition, continuity-of-care (CoC), and network structure measures including mean number of connections per provider (degree) and average number of connections who were connected to each other (transitivity). Sub-community size was positively associated with number of connections (r = .37) and the proportion of psychiatrists (r = .41) and uncorrelated with network transitivity (r=-.02) and continuity of care (r = .00). Network transitivity was not associated with CoC after adjustment for provider type, number of patients, and average connection CoC (p = .85). Conclusions These exploratory analyses suggest that network analysis can provide information about the networks of providers that treat people with mental illness that is not captured in traditional measures and may be useful in designing, implementing, and studying interventions to improve quality of care. Though initial results are promising, additional empirical work is needed to develop network-based measures and tools for policymakers.


2003 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 489-524
Author(s):  
Brent Pollitt

Mental illness is a serious problem in the United States. Based on “current epidemiological estimates, at least one in five people has a diagnosable mental disorder during the course of a year.” Fortunately, many of these disorders respond positively to psychotropic medications. While psychiatrists write some of the prescriptions for psychotropic medications, primary care physicians write more of them. State legislatures, seeking to expand patient access to pharmacological treatment, granted physician assistants and nurse practitioners prescriptive authority for psychotropic medications. Over the past decade other groups have gained some form of prescriptive authority. Currently, psychologists comprise the primary group seeking prescriptive authority for psychotropic medications.The American Society for the Advancement of Pharmacotherapy (“ASAP”), a division of the American Psychological Association (“APA”), spearheads the drive for psychologists to gain prescriptive authority. The American Psychological Association offers five main reasons why legislatures should grant psychologists this privilege: 1) psychologists’ education and clinical training better qualify them to diagnose and treat mental illness in comparison with primary care physicians; 2) the Department of Defense Psychopharmacology Demonstration Project (“PDP”) demonstrated non-physician psychologists can prescribe psychotropic medications safely; 3) the recommended post-doctoral training requirements adequately prepare psychologists to prescribe safely psychotropic medications; 4) this privilege will increase availability of mental healthcare services, especially in rural areas; and 5) this privilege will result in an overall reduction in medical expenses, because patients will visit only one healthcare provider instead of two–one for psychotherapy and one for medication.


1996 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 274-275
Author(s):  
O. Lawrence ◽  
J.D. Gostin

In the summer of 1979, a group of experts on law, medicine, and ethics assembled in Siracusa, Sicily, under the auspices of the International Commission of Jurists and the International Institute of Higher Studies in Criminal Science, to draft guidelines on the rights of persons with mental illness. Sitting across the table from me was a quiet, proud man of distinctive intelligence, William J. Curran, Frances Glessner Lee Professor of Legal Medicine at Harvard University. Professor Curran was one of the principal drafters of those guidelines. Many years later in 1991, after several subsequent re-drafts by United Nations (U.N.) Rapporteur Erica-Irene Daes, the text was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly as the Principles for the Protection of Persons with Mental Illness and for the Improvement of Mental Health Care. This was the kind of remarkable achievement in the field of law and medicine that Professor Curran repeated throughout his distinguished career.


2008 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 8-8
Author(s):  
Richard T. Katz

Abstract The author, who is the editor of the Mental and Behavioral Disorders chapter of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Sixth Edition, comments on the previous article, Assessing Mental and Behavioral Disorder Impairment: Overview of Sixth Edition Approaches in this issue of The Guides Newsletter. The new Mental and Behavioral Disorders (M&BD) chapter, like others in the AMA Guides, is a consensus opinion of many authors and thus reflects diverse points of view. Psychiatrists and psychologists continue to struggle with diagnostic taxonomies within the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, but anxiety, depression, and psychosis are three unequivocal areas of mental illness for which the sixth edition of the AMA Guides provides M&BD impairment rating. Two particular challenges faced the authors of the chapter: how could M&BD disorders be rated (and yet avoid an onslaught of attorney requests for an M&BD rating in conjunction with every physical impairment), and what should be the maximal impairment rating for a mental illness. The sixth edition uses three scales—the Psychiatric Impairment Rating Scale, the Global Assessment of Function, and the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale—after careful review of a wide variety of indices. The AMA Guides remains a work in progress, but the authors of the M&BD chapter have taken an important step toward providing a reasonable method for estimating impairment.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document