如何测量抑郁症:回顾精神病学评估的制定

IF 2.6 0 PHILOSOPHY
Philippe Le Moigne
{"title":"如何测量抑郁症:回顾精神病学评估的制定","authors":"Philippe Le Moigne","doi":"10.1353/ppp.2023.a908275","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract: This article discusses the way how change in depressed patients included in clinical trials was both conceptualized and measured in the 1970s to decide on the efficacy of the first candidate drugs for the treatment of depression. Understanding how this issue was resolved is of major interest as the protocol designed to distinguish the diagnosis of the depressive syndrome from the measurement of its evolution over time built the contours of the methodological device to which the whole of standardized evaluation in psychiatry has since referred. This paper draws on the debates in nascent psychopharmacology in both the United States and Europe and examines the protocols and findings of the research programs on depression the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) has developed in the United States at the same time, as well as on the writings of the main authors of the standardized evaluation. This investigation suggests that measurement of patients’ improvement could not be characterized on the basis of psychiatric inventories that were not well-suited to quantification, nor on the basis of psychometric tests which were intended for the evaluation of psychological invariants. This is why the answer given to the characterization of change in depression under therapy rather reveals a syncretism both conceptual and technical, mixing classificatory and psychometric traditions, a syncretism that the distinction endorsed by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders , 3rd edition,between syndromes and personality disorders no longer allows us to perceive.","PeriodicalId":45397,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy Psychiatry & Psychology","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How to Measure Depression: Looking Back on the Making of Psychiatric Assessment\",\"authors\":\"Philippe Le Moigne\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/ppp.2023.a908275\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract: This article discusses the way how change in depressed patients included in clinical trials was both conceptualized and measured in the 1970s to decide on the efficacy of the first candidate drugs for the treatment of depression. Understanding how this issue was resolved is of major interest as the protocol designed to distinguish the diagnosis of the depressive syndrome from the measurement of its evolution over time built the contours of the methodological device to which the whole of standardized evaluation in psychiatry has since referred. This paper draws on the debates in nascent psychopharmacology in both the United States and Europe and examines the protocols and findings of the research programs on depression the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) has developed in the United States at the same time, as well as on the writings of the main authors of the standardized evaluation. This investigation suggests that measurement of patients’ improvement could not be characterized on the basis of psychiatric inventories that were not well-suited to quantification, nor on the basis of psychometric tests which were intended for the evaluation of psychological invariants. This is why the answer given to the characterization of change in depression under therapy rather reveals a syncretism both conceptual and technical, mixing classificatory and psychometric traditions, a syncretism that the distinction endorsed by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders , 3rd edition,between syndromes and personality disorders no longer allows us to perceive.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45397,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Philosophy Psychiatry & Psychology\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Philosophy Psychiatry & Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/ppp.2023.a908275\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy Psychiatry & Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/ppp.2023.a908275","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:本文讨论了20世纪70年代临床试验中抑郁症患者的变化是如何被概念化和测量的,以确定第一批治疗抑郁症的候选药物的疗效。理解这个问题是如何解决的是一个重要的兴趣,因为该协议旨在区分抑郁综合征的诊断与测量其随时间的演变,建立了方法学设备的轮廓,整个精神病学的标准化评估从此被提及。本文借鉴了美国和欧洲新兴精神药理学的争论,并考察了美国国家精神卫生研究所(NIMH)同时在美国开展的抑郁症研究项目的协议和发现,以及标准化评估主要作者的著作。这项调查表明,对患者改善的测量不能基于不适合量化的精神病学调查,也不能基于旨在评估心理不变量的心理测量测试。这就是为什么对治疗下抑郁症变化特征的回答揭示了一种概念和技术上的融合,混合了分类和心理测量传统,这种融合被第三版《精神疾病诊断和统计手册》所认可,综合症和人格障碍之间的区别不再允许我们感知。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How to Measure Depression: Looking Back on the Making of Psychiatric Assessment
Abstract: This article discusses the way how change in depressed patients included in clinical trials was both conceptualized and measured in the 1970s to decide on the efficacy of the first candidate drugs for the treatment of depression. Understanding how this issue was resolved is of major interest as the protocol designed to distinguish the diagnosis of the depressive syndrome from the measurement of its evolution over time built the contours of the methodological device to which the whole of standardized evaluation in psychiatry has since referred. This paper draws on the debates in nascent psychopharmacology in both the United States and Europe and examines the protocols and findings of the research programs on depression the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) has developed in the United States at the same time, as well as on the writings of the main authors of the standardized evaluation. This investigation suggests that measurement of patients’ improvement could not be characterized on the basis of psychiatric inventories that were not well-suited to quantification, nor on the basis of psychometric tests which were intended for the evaluation of psychological invariants. This is why the answer given to the characterization of change in depression under therapy rather reveals a syncretism both conceptual and technical, mixing classificatory and psychometric traditions, a syncretism that the distinction endorsed by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders , 3rd edition,between syndromes and personality disorders no longer allows us to perceive.
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
3.60
自引率
4.30%
发文量
40
×
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