Clinical psychology in Europe · 2023
Do We Need a Novel Framework for Classifying Psychopathology? A Discussion Paper.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Rief Winfried, Hofmann Stefan G, Berg Max, Forbes Miriam K, Pizzagalli Diego A, Zimmermann Johannes, Fried Eiko, Reed Geoffrey M
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The ICD-11 and DSM-5 are the leading systems for the classification of mental disorders, and their relevance for clinical work and research, as well as their impact for policy making and legal questions, has increased considerably. In recent years, other frameworks have been proposed to supplement or even replace the ICD and the DSM, raising many questions regarding clinical utility, scientific relevance, and, at the core, how best to conceptualize mental disorders.
METHOD: As examples of the new approaches that have emerged, here we introduce the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP), the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC), systems and network approaches, process-based approaches, as well as a new approach to the classification of personality disorders.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: We highlight main distinctions between these classification frameworks, largely related to different priorities and goals, and discuss areas of overlap and potential compatibility. Synergies among these systems may provide promising new avenues for research and clinical practice.
METHOD: As examples of the new approaches that have emerged, here we introduce the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP), the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC), systems and network approaches, process-based approaches, as well as a new approach to the classification of personality disorders.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: We highlight main distinctions between these classification frameworks, largely related to different priorities and goals, and discuss areas of overlap and potential compatibility. Synergies among these systems may provide promising new avenues for research and clinical practice.