精神分裂症和抑郁症的治疗阻力是一种交互作用:通过元叙事回顾绘制分类发展图

IF 4.1 Q1 PSYCHIATRY
Leighton Schreyer , Csilla Kalocsai , Oshan Fernando , Melanie Anderson , Vanessa Lockwood , Sophie Soklaridis , Gary Remington , Araba Chintoh , Suze Berkhout
{"title":"精神分裂症和抑郁症的治疗阻力是一种交互作用:通过元叙事回顾绘制分类发展图","authors":"Leighton Schreyer ,&nbsp;Csilla Kalocsai ,&nbsp;Oshan Fernando ,&nbsp;Melanie Anderson ,&nbsp;Vanessa Lockwood ,&nbsp;Sophie Soklaridis ,&nbsp;Gary Remington ,&nbsp;Araba Chintoh ,&nbsp;Suze Berkhout","doi":"10.1016/j.ssmmh.2024.100350","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Despite ongoing attempts to delineate and name treatment resistance (TR) in psychiatry, the term is increasingly deployed across diagnostic categories. Still, what it is that constitutes TR remains unclear and in flux. Through a meta-narrative review, we construct a sociohistorical map of the concept of TR as it is employed in schizophrenia (TRS) and major depressive disorders (TRD). We track debates about TR, identify underlying assumptions and influencing factors that shape how the concept has evolved over time, and consider the intended and unintended consequences of its conceptualization. We develop our findings as three unique threads that, braided together, offer insight into TR as an interactive kind. Each thread analyzes and plays with the notion of <em>heterogeneity</em>, which arises in the literature as both a theme and a problem to be solved. Thread one looks at prevailing controversies surrounding the definition of TR. Here, heterogeneity arises in relation to how TR is delineated. We also consider the notion of “pseudoresistance,” a novel concept that functions to manage and contain heterogeneity, defining the boundaries of TR through its exclusions. Thread two explores the range of actors whose interests and practices are coordinated to shape TR as a concept: the pharmaceutical industry, academic psychiatry, clinicians, and health systems. Each group has its own interests and orientations: a heterogenous range of actors contributing to the <em>thing</em> that TR is. Thread three examines the intended and unintended consequences that attempts to conceptualize TR have yielded, including a reification of the biomedical paradigm and the personification of TR. This paper offers a systematic approach to thinking about similarities, differences, particularities and tensions embedded within TR to understand the politics and possibilities of the concept.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":74861,"journal":{"name":"SSM. Mental health","volume":"6 ","pages":"Article 100350"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Treatment resistance in schizophrenia and depression as an interactive kind: Mapping the development of a classification through Meta-Narrative review\",\"authors\":\"Leighton Schreyer ,&nbsp;Csilla Kalocsai ,&nbsp;Oshan Fernando ,&nbsp;Melanie Anderson ,&nbsp;Vanessa Lockwood ,&nbsp;Sophie Soklaridis ,&nbsp;Gary Remington ,&nbsp;Araba Chintoh ,&nbsp;Suze Berkhout\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ssmmh.2024.100350\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Despite ongoing attempts to delineate and name treatment resistance (TR) in psychiatry, the term is increasingly deployed across diagnostic categories. Still, what it is that constitutes TR remains unclear and in flux. Through a meta-narrative review, we construct a sociohistorical map of the concept of TR as it is employed in schizophrenia (TRS) and major depressive disorders (TRD). We track debates about TR, identify underlying assumptions and influencing factors that shape how the concept has evolved over time, and consider the intended and unintended consequences of its conceptualization. We develop our findings as three unique threads that, braided together, offer insight into TR as an interactive kind. Each thread analyzes and plays with the notion of <em>heterogeneity</em>, which arises in the literature as both a theme and a problem to be solved. Thread one looks at prevailing controversies surrounding the definition of TR. Here, heterogeneity arises in relation to how TR is delineated. We also consider the notion of “pseudoresistance,” a novel concept that functions to manage and contain heterogeneity, defining the boundaries of TR through its exclusions. Thread two explores the range of actors whose interests and practices are coordinated to shape TR as a concept: the pharmaceutical industry, academic psychiatry, clinicians, and health systems. Each group has its own interests and orientations: a heterogenous range of actors contributing to the <em>thing</em> that TR is. Thread three examines the intended and unintended consequences that attempts to conceptualize TR have yielded, including a reification of the biomedical paradigm and the personification of TR. This paper offers a systematic approach to thinking about similarities, differences, particularities and tensions embedded within TR to understand the politics and possibilities of the concept.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74861,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"SSM. Mental health\",\"volume\":\"6 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100350\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"SSM. Mental health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666560324000550\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SSM. Mental health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666560324000550","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

尽管精神病学界一直在尝试对治疗抵抗(TR)进行界定和命名,但这一术语越来越多地被用于各种诊断类别。然而,TR 的构成要素仍不明确,且不断变化。通过元叙事回顾,我们构建了精神分裂症(TRS)和重度抑郁障碍(TRD)中使用的 TR 概念的社会历史地图。我们追踪了有关 TR 的争论,确定了影响这一概念随时间演变的基本假设和影响因素,并考虑了其概念化的预期和非预期后果。我们的研究结果分为三条独特的主线,三条主线交织在一起,让人们深入了解作为一种互动类型的精神障碍。每条线索都对异质性概念进行了分析和探讨,在文献中,异质性既是一个主题,也是一个有待解决的问题。第一条主线探讨了围绕 "TR "定义的普遍争议。在这里,异质性与如何界定 TR 有关。我们还考虑了 "伪抵抗 "的概念,这是一个新颖的概念,其作用是管理和遏制异质性,通过排除异质性来界定 TR 的边界。主题二探讨了一系列参与者,他们的利益和实践相互协调,共同塑造了 "TR "这一概念:制药业、精神病学学术界、临床医生和医疗系统。每个群体都有自己的利益和取向:一系列不同的参与者对 TR 的形成做出了贡献。第三部分探讨了试图将 TR 概念化所产生的预期和非预期后果,包括生物医学范式的重构和 TR 的人格化。本文提供了一种系统的方法来思考 TR 的相似性、差异性、特殊性和紧张性,从而理解这一概念的政治性和可能性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Treatment resistance in schizophrenia and depression as an interactive kind: Mapping the development of a classification through Meta-Narrative review
Despite ongoing attempts to delineate and name treatment resistance (TR) in psychiatry, the term is increasingly deployed across diagnostic categories. Still, what it is that constitutes TR remains unclear and in flux. Through a meta-narrative review, we construct a sociohistorical map of the concept of TR as it is employed in schizophrenia (TRS) and major depressive disorders (TRD). We track debates about TR, identify underlying assumptions and influencing factors that shape how the concept has evolved over time, and consider the intended and unintended consequences of its conceptualization. We develop our findings as three unique threads that, braided together, offer insight into TR as an interactive kind. Each thread analyzes and plays with the notion of heterogeneity, which arises in the literature as both a theme and a problem to be solved. Thread one looks at prevailing controversies surrounding the definition of TR. Here, heterogeneity arises in relation to how TR is delineated. We also consider the notion of “pseudoresistance,” a novel concept that functions to manage and contain heterogeneity, defining the boundaries of TR through its exclusions. Thread two explores the range of actors whose interests and practices are coordinated to shape TR as a concept: the pharmaceutical industry, academic psychiatry, clinicians, and health systems. Each group has its own interests and orientations: a heterogenous range of actors contributing to the thing that TR is. Thread three examines the intended and unintended consequences that attempts to conceptualize TR have yielded, including a reification of the biomedical paradigm and the personification of TR. This paper offers a systematic approach to thinking about similarities, differences, particularities and tensions embedded within TR to understand the politics and possibilities of the concept.
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
SSM. Mental health
SSM. Mental health Social Psychology, Health
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
118 days
×
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