消费者对个性诊断系统的看法:一种方式不适合所有人。

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q3 PSYCHIATRY
Kiana Cano, Carla Sharp
{"title":"消费者对个性诊断系统的看法:一种方式不适合所有人。","authors":"Kiana Cano,&nbsp;Carla Sharp","doi":"10.1521/pedi.2023.37.3.263","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Although providers and patients may largely agree on what is essential to clinically useful assessment and diagnosis, patients have a unique voice and contribute additional information to our conceptualization of clinical utility. The current study evaluated the clinical utility of three diagnostic models (Section II categorial, Section III hybrid, and the original <i>ICD-11</i> dimensional) from the consumer/user perspective. Participants included 703 undergraduate students and 154 family members or individuals with borderline personality disorder. Participants rated mock diagnostic reports on six indices of clinical utility. Results indicated that undergraduates favored categorical reports over the original <i>ICD-11</i> dimensional reports on three of six indices but rated categorical and hybrid reports as essentially equivalent. In the patient/family sample, participants favored the hybrid or categorical model on all indices. Our findings speak to the value of a clear diagnostic label and suggest that future iterations of the <i>DSM</i> adopting a hybrid or dimensional model should have a continued focus on simplicity in communication.</p>","PeriodicalId":48175,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Personality Disorders","volume":"37 3","pages":"263-284"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Consumer Perspective on Personality Diagnostic Systems: One Size Does Not Fit All.\",\"authors\":\"Kiana Cano,&nbsp;Carla Sharp\",\"doi\":\"10.1521/pedi.2023.37.3.263\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Although providers and patients may largely agree on what is essential to clinically useful assessment and diagnosis, patients have a unique voice and contribute additional information to our conceptualization of clinical utility. The current study evaluated the clinical utility of three diagnostic models (Section II categorial, Section III hybrid, and the original <i>ICD-11</i> dimensional) from the consumer/user perspective. Participants included 703 undergraduate students and 154 family members or individuals with borderline personality disorder. Participants rated mock diagnostic reports on six indices of clinical utility. Results indicated that undergraduates favored categorical reports over the original <i>ICD-11</i> dimensional reports on three of six indices but rated categorical and hybrid reports as essentially equivalent. In the patient/family sample, participants favored the hybrid or categorical model on all indices. Our findings speak to the value of a clear diagnostic label and suggest that future iterations of the <i>DSM</i> adopting a hybrid or dimensional model should have a continued focus on simplicity in communication.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48175,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Personality Disorders\",\"volume\":\"37 3\",\"pages\":\"263-284\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Personality Disorders\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2023.37.3.263\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Personality Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2023.37.3.263","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

虽然提供者和患者可能在很大程度上同意什么是临床有用的评估和诊断的必要条件,但患者有一个独特的声音,并为我们的临床效用概念化提供额外的信息。目前的研究从消费者/用户的角度评估了三种诊断模型(Section II分类、Section III混合和原始ICD-11维度)的临床效用。参与者包括703名本科生和154名边缘型人格障碍患者的家庭成员或个人。参与者评价模拟诊断报告的六个指标的临床效用。结果表明,在六个指标中的三个方面,本科生对分类报告的偏好超过了原始ICD-11维度报告,但对分类报告和混合报告的评价基本相同。在患者/家庭样本中,参与者在所有指标上都倾向于混合或分类模型。我们的研究结果说明了明确诊断标签的价值,并建议采用混合或维度模型的DSM的未来迭代应该继续关注沟通的简单性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Consumer Perspective on Personality Diagnostic Systems: One Size Does Not Fit All.

Although providers and patients may largely agree on what is essential to clinically useful assessment and diagnosis, patients have a unique voice and contribute additional information to our conceptualization of clinical utility. The current study evaluated the clinical utility of three diagnostic models (Section II categorial, Section III hybrid, and the original ICD-11 dimensional) from the consumer/user perspective. Participants included 703 undergraduate students and 154 family members or individuals with borderline personality disorder. Participants rated mock diagnostic reports on six indices of clinical utility. Results indicated that undergraduates favored categorical reports over the original ICD-11 dimensional reports on three of six indices but rated categorical and hybrid reports as essentially equivalent. In the patient/family sample, participants favored the hybrid or categorical model on all indices. Our findings speak to the value of a clear diagnostic label and suggest that future iterations of the DSM adopting a hybrid or dimensional model should have a continued focus on simplicity in communication.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: The Journal of Personality Disorders has long been the only forum devoted exclusively to the diagnosis and treatment of clinically significant personality disorders. The journal fosters dialogue among researchers and practitioners working from a variety of orientations and approaches. Its international impact is well established, with subscribers in over 30 countries. This multidisciplinary journal regularly features: - Research on normal and pathological personality and development - New methodologies for assessing personality - Etiologies and clinical classifications for personality disorders - Epidemiological studies and outcomes research on diagnostic criteria - Treatment techniques and innovations
×
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