Perspectives in the study of neuroses in contemporary psychiatric practice.

Psychiatric developments Pub Date : 1986-01-01
A Sims
{"title":"Perspectives in the study of neuroses in contemporary psychiatric practice.","authors":"A Sims","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Although DSM III has removed the category of neurosis, the implied fragmentation of the generic concept has been regretted by some investigators. Since its introduction in 1769, when the term was used to denote conditions which had a hysterical and hypochondriacal character, the technical use of the term has undergone revisions and reinterpretations which at one extreme have been embedded in psychoanalytic theory, and at the other have resulted in the replacement of the single concept by a proliferation of operationally defined syndromes. The present paper discusses some of the nosological problems implicit in recent trends. Whereas depression appears in 10 ICD9 categories does the psychiatric/neurotic dichotomy in relation to depression still have meaning in the absence of the generic term 'neurotic'? The hierarchical principle is widely accepted as a basis for classification, and yet the hierarchically minor syndromes may be a source of major distress. The paper reviews epidemiological studies of prognosis and follow-up of neuroses, and shows a significant excess of mortality, which is both behavioural and organic in origin. One important difficulty with the loss of the generic term is the potential loss of generic research where, for example, evaluation of treatment of panic disorder is considered distinct from other types of anxiety and phobia. The paper argues for the practical and theoretical benefits of retaining an umbrella term such as 'neuroses'.</p>","PeriodicalId":77773,"journal":{"name":"Psychiatric developments","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1986-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychiatric developments","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Although DSM III has removed the category of neurosis, the implied fragmentation of the generic concept has been regretted by some investigators. Since its introduction in 1769, when the term was used to denote conditions which had a hysterical and hypochondriacal character, the technical use of the term has undergone revisions and reinterpretations which at one extreme have been embedded in psychoanalytic theory, and at the other have resulted in the replacement of the single concept by a proliferation of operationally defined syndromes. The present paper discusses some of the nosological problems implicit in recent trends. Whereas depression appears in 10 ICD9 categories does the psychiatric/neurotic dichotomy in relation to depression still have meaning in the absence of the generic term 'neurotic'? The hierarchical principle is widely accepted as a basis for classification, and yet the hierarchically minor syndromes may be a source of major distress. The paper reviews epidemiological studies of prognosis and follow-up of neuroses, and shows a significant excess of mortality, which is both behavioural and organic in origin. One important difficulty with the loss of the generic term is the potential loss of generic research where, for example, evaluation of treatment of panic disorder is considered distinct from other types of anxiety and phobia. The paper argues for the practical and theoretical benefits of retaining an umbrella term such as 'neuroses'.

当代精神病学实践中神经症研究的观点。
虽然DSM III已经删除了神经症的范畴,但一些研究者对这一通用概念的潜在分裂感到遗憾。自1769年引入以来,当这个术语被用来表示具有歇斯底里和疑病症特征的情况时,这个术语的技术使用经历了修订和重新解释,在一个极端已经嵌入精神分析理论中,在另一个极端,导致单一概念被大量的操作定义综合症所取代。本文讨论了最近趋势中隐含的一些病分学问题。虽然抑郁症出现在ICD9的10个类别中,但在没有“神经症”这个通用术语的情况下,与抑郁症相关的精神病学/神经症二分法仍然有意义吗?等级原则被广泛接受为分类的基础,然而等级轻微的综合征可能是主要痛苦的来源。本文回顾了有关神经症预后和随访的流行病学研究,并指出神经症的死亡率明显偏高,其原因既有行为性的,也有器质性的。失去通用术语的一个重要困难是可能失去通用研究,例如,恐慌症的治疗评估被认为与其他类型的焦虑和恐惧症不同。这篇论文论证了保留“神经症”这样一个总括性术语在实践和理论上的好处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信