ABSTRACT
Resumo Apresenta-se o "nominalismo dinâmico" de Hacking, aplicado à classificação psiquiátrica, como exemplo ilustrativo de síntese entre realismo e nominalismo. Expõem-se as perspectivas realistas inscritas tanto moderadamente na proposta híbrida do Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), quanto fortemente na proposta naturalista de seus concorrentes: Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) e Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP). Aponta-se o principal efeito do naturalismo aplicado à classificação psiquiátrica, que consiste no abandono do hibridismo entre realismo e nominalismo, em prol de uma cartografia do mental que, com recurso à matemática, reivindica-se estritamente realista, respondendo a demanda por maior precisão da bipsiquiatria.
Abstract Diabetes is a disease that cannot be cured, but managed, and its management is seen as a strategy to overcome its unpleasant consequences in various life situations. This study aims to understand how the diabetes mellitus 2 management process occurs by professionals and users affected by this condition. This is a qualitative research, with observational and explanatory design, which included the participation of health professionals and users they care for, all from primary health care. Information was collected through semi-structured interviews and interpreted using Discourse Analysis. For informants, food aspects are the most difficult to deal with. The professionals' discourse points to flexible eating practices, but users understand the guidelines as prohibitions. Feeding represents a great challenge for both professionals and users, as both need to consider management practices as part of care.
Subject(s)
Psychiatry , Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders , Precision Medicine , Mental Disorders/diagnosis , Mental HealthABSTRACT
Abstract Empirically supported interventions in psychological disorders should provide (1) evidence supporting the underlying psychological mechanisms of psychopathology to target in the intervention and (2) evidence supporting the efficacy of the intervention. However, research has been dedicated in a greater extent to efficacy than to the acquisition of empirical support for the theoretical basis of therapies. Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) emerges as a new framework to provide empirically based theories about psychological mechanisms that may be targeted in intervention and tested for its efficacy. The current review aims to demonstrate the possible applications of RDoC to design empirically supported interventions for psychological disorders. Two RDoC-inspired interventions are reviewed, and the RDoC framework is broadly explored in terms of its contributions and limitations. From preliminary evidence, RDoC offers many avenues for improving evidence-based interventions in psychology, but some limitations must be anticipated to increase the RDoC applicability to naturalistic settings. (AU)
Subject(s)
Psychopathology , Evidence-Based Practice/methods , Mental Disorders/therapyABSTRACT
Abstract Background: Although widely used in clinical practice and research, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) diagnoses have low validity: patients with different mental disorders can share similar symptoms, while those with the same diagnosis might have different symptoms. In fact, the DSM diagnostic system has been considered one of the main obstacles for further development of psychiatric research. Recently, it has been proposed that psychiatry nosology should be reframed according to a biologically-based etiology. Objectives: To review present and past endeavors of establishing an etiology-based nosology. Methods: Comprehensive review of articles on the topic. Results: From Hippocrates onwards, multiple attempts have been undertaken aiming to move etiology and nosology closer. The most recent efforts are represented by Developmental Psychopathology (DP) and the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC), which presents an operational matrix recommended to be used in clinical research instead of the DSM diagnoses. Discussion: The DSM-based nosology is faulty. RDoC and DP might be interesting alternatives for an etiology-based nosology. However, while DP has already brought promising results, RDoC is a novel proposal, whose advantages and disadvantages should gradually be identified in the upcoming years.
ABSTRACT
O artigo explora os pressupostos epistemológicos do Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) - projeto de investigação empírica dos transtornos mentais, dentro de uma plataforma biológica - promovido pelo National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). Discute-se o ataque feito ao sistema DSM, pouco antes do lançamento de sua quinta versão, a partir da perspectiva neurocientífica adotada pelo RDoC. A aposta na patofisiologia, combinada com a exclusão da experiência descrita em primeira pessoa, aponta um cenário em que a pesquisa e a clínica se divorciam, com o risco do advento de uma estranha psiquiatria sem psique e sem pathos.
This article explores the epistemological underpinnings of the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC), launched by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) - USA. The project has the objective of empirically investigating mental disorders in a biological framework. We discuss the sharp criticism received by the DSM shortly before its fifth edition came out, based as it was on the neuroscientific approach adopted by the RDoC. The preference for pathophysiology, combined with the exclusion of first-person experience, points to a scenario where research and clinical work are irrevocably divorced, and runs the risk of fostering an odd psychiatry with neither psyche nor pathos.
Cet article examine les présupposés épistémologiques de l'initiative dénommée Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) proposée aux Etats-Unis par le National Institute of Mental Health (NIHM). Ce projet s'inscrit dans le cadre d'une approche des troubles mentaux ancrée dans une perspective essentielment biologique et empirique. Il faut remarquer que ce programme a été lancé à la veille de la presentation de la cinquième version du système DSM. On s'interroge si la mise en ouvre d'un tel projet, largement fondé sur l'axe de recherche neuroscientifique et physiopathologique - divorcée des toutes complexités de l'expérience vécue en première personne - ne donneront pas naissance à une étrange créature: la psychiatrie sans pathos et sans psyché.
El artículo examina los presupuestos epistemológicos del Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) - proyecto de investigación empírica de los transtornos mentales, dentro de una plataforma biológica - promovido pelo National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). Discute el ataque dirigido al sistema DSM, poco antes de la publicación de su quinta edición, desde una perspectiva neurocientífica adoptada pelo RDoC. La apuesta por la fisiopatología, combinada con la exclusión de la experiencia descrita en la primera persona, apunta para un escenario en el cual investigación y clínica se divorciam con el riesgo del adviento de una psiquiatría extraña, sin psiquis y sin pathos.
Subject(s)
Humans , Diagnosis , Mental Disorders , PsychiatryABSTRACT
The new edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) is published by the American Psychiatric Association. The diagnostic systems for mental disorders have come under criticism for relying on presenting signs and symptoms with the result that they do not adequately reflect relevant neurobiological and behavioral systems. Finally, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) in the United States has suggested the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) to develop a research classification system based upon dimensions of neurobiology and behavioral aspect. The present review introduces the RDoC as a new reaseach framework.