HiTOP must meet the use requirements of the ICD before it can aspire to replace it

Reconceptualizing mental health in cancer survivorship

Mental health for cancer survivors in both research and clinical applications has strongly adopted a traditional nosological approach, involving the classification of psychopathology into discrete disorders. However, this approach has recently faced considerable criticism due to issues such as high comorbidity and within-disorder symptom heterogeneity across populations. Moreover, there are additional specific issues impacting the validity of traditional approaches in cancer survivorship populations, including the physiological effects of cancer and its treatments. In response, we provide the case for the hierarchical dimensional approach within psycho-oncology, in particular the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP). We discuss not only the potential utility of HiTOP to research and clinical applications within psycho-oncology, but also its limitations, and what is required to apply this approach within cancer survivorship.

[Introduction to the hierarchical taxonomy of psychopathology]

INTRODUCTION

In clinical practice, the usefulness of diagnosis based on the Diagnostic or Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or the International Classification of Diseases, 11th edition, appears essential from a clinical, research, epidemiological, administrative, economic and political level. However, such diagnostic systems have shortcomings in terms of validity, little consideration of comorbidities and strong intra-class heterogeneity. On a structural level, the operationalization of its criteria is based on a reliability which has been defined a posteriori and which does not lead to improving the validity of the diagnosis but rather to the reification of the diagnostic categories.

METHODS

First published in its current form in 2017, the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP) constitutes a nosological alternative based on statistics. It conceptualizes psychopathology as a set of hierarchical dimensions, i.e. in "transdiagnostic" continua. The HiTOP is structured according to super-spectra, spectra, sub-factors, syndromes, components and symptoms. This comes from the current dimensional psychology and quantitative nosology. This article describes the basic principles of the HiTOP project and its potential to integrate into clinical and psychiatric research based on its advantages and limitations.

RESULTS

Unlike the DSM, which is descriptive and categorical, the HiTOP is first a dimensional classification. This dimensionality describes psychiatric phenomena on continua, each dimension providing a diagnostic continuum to situate a clinical patient. This dimensionality avoids the reification of categories and it limits the dichotomy between normal and pathological. In addition, HiTOP shows a hierarchical structure: vertical refinement of dimensions allows to circumvent the problem of comorbidities, proposes a new conception of etiopathogenic mechanisms, and improves management of care.

DISCUSSION

Thus, we provide an illustration of the applications of a dimensional and hierarchical classification in current clinical practice and scientific research, compared to traditional nosology. The challenges of the HiTOP arise in terms of validity, i.e. in the relation of dimensions with physiopathological mechanisms, in clinical terms, i.e. in the potential contribution of dimensions in relation to categories. Moreover, methodological challenges will be important given the inherent limitations of the HiTOP.

CONCLUSION

The HiTOP allows to examine the conceptualization of psychiatric disorders, the search for explanatory mechanisms, and treatment from another perspective for psychiatry.

A new conception and subsequent taxonomy of clinical psychological problems

BACKGROUND

A taxonomy of the objects of study, theory, assessment, and intervention is critical to the development of all clinical sciences. Clinical psychology has been conceptually and administratively dominated by the taxonomy of an adjacent discipline - psychiatry's Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM). Many have called for a 'paradigm shift' away from a medical nosology of diseases toward clinical psychology's own taxonomy of clinical psychological problems (CPPs), without being able to specify what is to be listed and classified.

MAIN TEXT

An examination of DSM's problems for clinical psychology, especially its lack of clinical utility, and a search for the essence of CPPs in what clinical psychologists actually do, leads to the proposal that: The critical psychological-level phenomenon underlying CPPs is the occurrence of 'problem-maintaining circles' (PMCs) of causally related cognitions, emotions, behaviours, and/or stimuli. This concept provides an empirically-derived, theory-based, treatment-relevant, categorical, essentialist, parsimonious, and nonstigmatizing definition of CPPs. It distinguishes psychological problems in which PMCs have not (yet?) formed, and which may respond to 'counseling', clinical psychological problems in which active PMCs require clinical intervention, and psychopathological problems which are unlikely to be 'cured' by PMC-breaking alone.

CONCLUSION

A subsequent classification and coding system of PMCs is proposed, and expected benefits to research, communication, and the quality of case formulation in clinical psychology are described, reliant upon a development effort of some meaningful fraction of that which has been devoted to the DSM.

Transdiagnostic psychiatry: a systematic review

The usefulness of current psychiatric classification, which is based on ICD/DSM categorical diagnoses, remains questionable. A promising alternative has been put forward as the "transdiagnostic" approach. This is expected to cut across existing categorical diagnoses and go beyond them, to improve the way we classify and treat mental disorders. This systematic review explores whether self-defining transdiagnostic research meets such high expectations. A multi-step Web of Science literature search was performed according to an a priori protocol, to identify all studies that used the word "transdiagnostic" in their title, up to May 5, 2018. Empirical variables which indexed core characteristics were extracted, complemented by a bibliometric and conceptual analysis. A total of 111 studies were included. Most studies were investigating interventions, followed by cognition and psychological processes, and neuroscientific topics. Their samples ranged from 15 to 91,199 (median 148) participants, with a mean age from 10 to more than 60 (median 33) years. There were several methodological inconsistencies relating to the definition of the gold standard (DSM/ICD diagnoses), of the outcome measures and of the transdiagnostic approach. The quality of the studies was generally low and only a few findings were externally replicated. The majority of studies tested transdiagnostic features cutting across different diagnoses, and only a few tested new classification systems beyond the existing diagnoses. About one fifth of the studies were not transdiagnostic at all, because they investigated symptoms and not disorders, a single disorder, or because there was no diagnostic information. The bibliometric analysis revealed that transdiagnostic research largely restricted its focus to anxiety and depressive disorders. The conceptual analysis showed that transdiagnostic research is grounded more on rediscoveries than on true innovations, and that it is affected by some conceptual biases. To date, transdiagnostic approaches have not delivered a credible paradigm shift that can impact classification and clinical care. Practical "TRANSD"iagnostic recommendations are proposed here to guide future research in this field.