Clusters, lines and webs-so does my patient have psychosis? reflections on the use of psychiatric conceptual frameworks from a clinical vantage point.

IF 1.9
Tibor Zoltan Kovacs, Reece William Hill, Stuart Watson, Douglas Turkington
{"title":"Clusters, lines and webs-so does my patient have psychosis? reflections on the use of psychiatric conceptual frameworks from a clinical vantage point.","authors":"Tibor Zoltan Kovacs,&nbsp;Reece William Hill,&nbsp;Stuart Watson,&nbsp;Douglas Turkington","doi":"10.1186/s13010-022-00118-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Mental health professionals working in hospitals or community clinics inevitably face the realisation that we possess imperfect conceptual means to understand mental disorders. In this paper the authors bring together ideas from the fields of Philosophy, Psychiatry, Cognitive Psychology and Linguistics to reflect on the ways we represent phenomena of high practical importance that we often take for granted, but are nevertheless difficult to define in ontological terms. The paper follows through the development of the concept of psychosis over the last two centuries in the interplay of three different conceptual orientations: the categorical, dimensional and network approaches. Each of these represent the available knowledge and dominant thinking styles of the era in which they emerged and take markedly different stances regarding the nature of mental phenomena. Without particular commitment to any ontological positions or models described, the authors invite the reader into a thinking process about the strengths and weaknesses of these models, and how they can be reconciled in multidisciplinary settings to benefit the process of patient care.</p>","PeriodicalId":520749,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy, ethics, and humanities in medicine : PEHM","volume":" ","pages":"6"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8842805/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy, ethics, and humanities in medicine : PEHM","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13010-022-00118-0","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

Mental health professionals working in hospitals or community clinics inevitably face the realisation that we possess imperfect conceptual means to understand mental disorders. In this paper the authors bring together ideas from the fields of Philosophy, Psychiatry, Cognitive Psychology and Linguistics to reflect on the ways we represent phenomena of high practical importance that we often take for granted, but are nevertheless difficult to define in ontological terms. The paper follows through the development of the concept of psychosis over the last two centuries in the interplay of three different conceptual orientations: the categorical, dimensional and network approaches. Each of these represent the available knowledge and dominant thinking styles of the era in which they emerged and take markedly different stances regarding the nature of mental phenomena. Without particular commitment to any ontological positions or models described, the authors invite the reader into a thinking process about the strengths and weaknesses of these models, and how they can be reconciled in multidisciplinary settings to benefit the process of patient care.

簇、线和网——那么我的病人有精神病吗?从临床角度思考精神病学概念框架的使用。
在医院或社区诊所工作的精神卫生专业人员不可避免地面临这样一个现实:我们对精神障碍的理解并不完善。在这篇论文中,作者汇集了来自哲学、精神病学、认知心理学和语言学等领域的观点,以反思我们表现具有高度实际重要性的现象的方式,这些现象我们经常认为是理所当然的,但很难用本体论的术语来定义。本文通过三个不同的概念取向的相互作用,在过去的两个世纪精神病概念的发展:分类,维度和网络方法。每一种都代表了他们出现的时代的可用知识和主导思维方式,并对心理现象的本质采取了明显不同的立场。没有特别的承诺,任何本体论的立场或模型所描述的,作者邀请读者进入一个思考过程关于这些模型的优点和缺点,以及他们如何能够在多学科的设置,以有利于病人护理的过程中进行协调。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书