不同人格病理学诊断模式下的耻辱感。

Katherine E Hein, Shakur J Dennis, Logan F Folger, Stephanie N Mullins-Sweatt
{"title":"不同人格病理学诊断模式下的耻辱感。","authors":"Katherine E Hein, Shakur J Dennis, Logan F Folger, Stephanie N Mullins-Sweatt","doi":"10.1037/per0000678","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Stigmatizing views surrounding mental illness are widespread. Personality disorders (PDs) are among the most stigmatized mental illnesses, as individuals with PDs are often described using pejorative terms, which might impact clinicians' a priori expectations and increase the likelihood of stigmatization, discrimination, or early termination from treatment. The degree to which the terms used in any diagnostic classification systems are stigmatizing has never been examined. The current study aims to explore the level of stigma perceived in diagnostic terms used and to compare which systems of classification (the <i>Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders</i>, fifth edition [<i>DSM-5</i>] Section II, <i>DSM-5</i> Alternative Model of Personality Disorder, and Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology [HiTOP]) are reported as less stigmatizing. The current study consisted of three samples. Individuals with lived experience of personality pathology (<i>n</i> = 218) completed an online survey examining the level of stigma perceived in diagnostic terms; mental health care providers (<i>n</i> = 75) and undergraduate psychology students (<i>n</i> = 732) also completed online surveys examining their perceptions of stigma within diagnostic terms. We examined differences in perceived stigma between the three classification systems across the three samples. Among mental health care providers, the HiTOP was rated as the least stigmatizing while <i>DSM-5</i> categorical labels were rated as the most stigmatizing. There were no significant differences found among individuals with lived experience or undergraduate students. Understanding the degree to which the terms used to describe personality pathology contributes to reducing stigma has potentially important repercussions for research and clinical practice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":74420,"journal":{"name":"Personality disorders","volume":"15 5","pages":"332-340"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Perception of stigma across diagnostic models of personality pathology.\",\"authors\":\"Katherine E Hein, Shakur J Dennis, Logan F Folger, Stephanie N Mullins-Sweatt\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/per0000678\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Stigmatizing views surrounding mental illness are widespread. Personality disorders (PDs) are among the most stigmatized mental illnesses, as individuals with PDs are often described using pejorative terms, which might impact clinicians' a priori expectations and increase the likelihood of stigmatization, discrimination, or early termination from treatment. The degree to which the terms used in any diagnostic classification systems are stigmatizing has never been examined. The current study aims to explore the level of stigma perceived in diagnostic terms used and to compare which systems of classification (the <i>Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders</i>, fifth edition [<i>DSM-5</i>] Section II, <i>DSM-5</i> Alternative Model of Personality Disorder, and Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology [HiTOP]) are reported as less stigmatizing. The current study consisted of three samples. Individuals with lived experience of personality pathology (<i>n</i> = 218) completed an online survey examining the level of stigma perceived in diagnostic terms; mental health care providers (<i>n</i> = 75) and undergraduate psychology students (<i>n</i> = 732) also completed online surveys examining their perceptions of stigma within diagnostic terms. We examined differences in perceived stigma between the three classification systems across the three samples. Among mental health care providers, the HiTOP was rated as the least stigmatizing while <i>DSM-5</i> categorical labels were rated as the most stigmatizing. There were no significant differences found among individuals with lived experience or undergraduate students. Understanding the degree to which the terms used to describe personality pathology contributes to reducing stigma has potentially important repercussions for research and clinical practice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74420,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Personality disorders\",\"volume\":\"15 5\",\"pages\":\"332-340\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Personality disorders\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000678\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Personality disorders","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000678","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

围绕精神疾病的污名化观点十分普遍。人格障碍(PDs)是最容易被污名化的精神疾病之一,因为人格障碍患者经常被用贬义词来描述,这可能会影响临床医生的先验预期,增加患者被污名化、歧视或提前终止治疗的可能性。任何诊断分类系统中使用的术语在多大程度上具有鄙视性还从未被研究过。本研究旨在探讨诊断用语的鄙视程度,并比较哪些分类系统(《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第五版 [DSM-5] 第二部分、《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第五版人格障碍替代模型和精神病理学层次分类法 [HiTOP])被报告为鄙视程度较低。目前的研究包括三个样本。有人格病理学生活经验的个人(n = 218)完成了一项在线调查,以检查他们对诊断术语的成见程度;心理健康护理提供者(n = 75)和心理学本科生(n = 732)也完成了一项在线调查,以检查他们对诊断术语成见的看法。我们研究了三个样本对三种分类系统的成见认知差异。在心理保健提供者中,HiTOP 被评为污名化程度最低的,而 DSM-5 分类标签被评为污名化程度最高的。在有生活经验的个人或本科生中没有发现明显的差异。了解用于描述人格病理学的术语在多大程度上有助于减少污名化,对研究和临床实践具有潜在的重要影响。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA,保留所有权利)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Perception of stigma across diagnostic models of personality pathology.

Stigmatizing views surrounding mental illness are widespread. Personality disorders (PDs) are among the most stigmatized mental illnesses, as individuals with PDs are often described using pejorative terms, which might impact clinicians' a priori expectations and increase the likelihood of stigmatization, discrimination, or early termination from treatment. The degree to which the terms used in any diagnostic classification systems are stigmatizing has never been examined. The current study aims to explore the level of stigma perceived in diagnostic terms used and to compare which systems of classification (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition [DSM-5] Section II, DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorder, and Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology [HiTOP]) are reported as less stigmatizing. The current study consisted of three samples. Individuals with lived experience of personality pathology (n = 218) completed an online survey examining the level of stigma perceived in diagnostic terms; mental health care providers (n = 75) and undergraduate psychology students (n = 732) also completed online surveys examining their perceptions of stigma within diagnostic terms. We examined differences in perceived stigma between the three classification systems across the three samples. Among mental health care providers, the HiTOP was rated as the least stigmatizing while DSM-5 categorical labels were rated as the most stigmatizing. There were no significant differences found among individuals with lived experience or undergraduate students. Understanding the degree to which the terms used to describe personality pathology contributes to reducing stigma has potentially important repercussions for research and clinical practice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

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
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