Is psychiatry only neurology? Or only abnormal psychology? Déjà vu after 100 years

Reflections on US Psychiatry: How the Baton Was Passed From European Psychiatry and the Contributions of US Psychiatry

ABSTRACT

The medical model in psychiatry and descriptive psychopathology were established in Germany by Krapelin's textbook and Jaspers' General Psychopathology. In the United Kingdom, Mayer-Gross' textbook synthesized both books, influencing US psychiatry. US psychiatrists from the World War II generation defeated the US academic psychoanalytic establishment by building three pillars: biological psychiatry (brought by Wortis), the psychopharmacology revolution, and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 3rd Edition (DSM-III). The psychopharmacology revolution included immigrants (e.g., Gershon), Cole's marketing, and textbooks by Klein and Fink. The "neo-Kraepelinians" introduced the medical model in US psychiatry and defined 15 valid psychiatric disorders. Spitzer supervised DSM-III's development. Its 1980 publication started the world dominance of US psychiatry and the multiplication of diagnoses. Major contributions by US psychiatrists include a) McHugh's update of the Jaspersian approach, b) Fink's inclusion of catatonia as a syndrome in DSM-5 (following Abrams and Taylor's studies), and c) DSM-III's departure from the Jaspersian hierarchy of schizophrenia and affective symptoms.

Can psychopathology and neuroscience coexist in psychiatric classifications?

A crisis of confidence was triggered by the disappointment that diagnostic validity, an important goal, was not achieved with the publication of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). The Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) project, which provides a framework for neuroscientific research, was initially conceptualized as an alternative to DSM. However, RDoC and DSM are complementary rather than mutually exclusive. From a historical perspective, this article argues that the debate opposing psychology and brain in psychiatric classification is not new and has an air of déjà vu. We go back to the first classifications based on a scientific taxonomy in the late 18th century with Boissier de Sauvages, which were supposed to describe diseases as they really existed in nature. Emil Kraepelin successfully associated psychopathology and brain research, prefiguring the interaction between DSM and RDoC. DSM symptoms remain valuable because they are the only data that are immediately and directly observable. Computational science is a promising instrument to interconnect psychopathological and neuroscientific data in the future.

[Psychiatry of the future: an overview of foreign scientists opinions of the position of psychiatry in the modern world]

First part of this review (Chapter 1) demonstrates an ambiguous attitude toward psychiatry among professionals and in society in recent decades. The articles of supporters and opponents of psychiatry are also quoted. The authors describe the dynamics of the reflection of psychopathology in the main widely accepted classifications and manuals. Critical and negative opinions regarding the DSM-5, due to its role in the 'medicalization' processes, for the movement 'World Mental Health', are mentioned. The history of antipsychiatry movement and its results for psychiatry and society are analyzed as well. An analysis of the articles on the scientific basis of psychiatry and its intersections with other sciences is presented. Several examples of studies on brain networks in correlation with clinical data, which may have possible implications for the future, are quoted. The authors call for the 'cure for dichotomy' between mind and brain before treatment of the patient. According to the analysis of available data, this problem seems too hard to be solved, as it requires theological knowledge, of which we probably have not enough knowledge.

The Art of Pharmacotherapy: Reflections on Pharmacophobia

PURPOSE/BACKGROUND

This commentary deals with the neglected issue of the art of psychopharmacology by recounting the authors' journeys.

METHODS/PROCEDURES

First, a model of medical science situated within the history of medicine is described including (1) a limitation of the mathematical model of science, (2) the distinction between mechanistic science and mathematical science, (3) how this distinction is applied to medicine, and (4) how this distinction is applied to explain pharmacology to psychiatrists. Second, the neglected art of psychopharmacology is addressed by explaining (1) where the art of psychopharmacotherapy was hiding in the first author's psychopharmacology research, (2) how the Health Belief Model was applied to the art of medicine, (3) how the second author became interested in the Health Belief Model, and (4) his studies introducing the Health Belief Model in psychopharmacology. The authors' collaboration led to: (1) study of the effect of pharmacophobia on poor adherence and (2) reflection on the limits of the art of psychopharmacology.

FINDINGS/RESULTS

Low adherence was found in 45% (116/258) of psychiatric patients with pharmacophobia versus 22% (149/682) in those with no pharmacophobia, providing an odds ratio of 2.9 (95% confidence interval, 2.2-4.0) and an adjusted odds ratio of 2.5 (95% confidence interval, 1.8-3.5) after adjusting for other variables contributing to poor adherence.

IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS

Different cognitive patterns in different patients may contribute to poor adherence. Specific interventions targeting these varying cognitive styles may be needed in different patients to improve drug adherence.

Phenomenological psychopathology in contemporary psychiatry: interfaces and perspectives

Due to growing skepticism about the current psychiatric model, psychopathology has once again aroused interest in the psychiatric field. This article intends to examine the current perspectives of the phenomenological approach of psychopathology in the context of psychiatry. To this end, we will situate phenomenology along the historical course of psychopathology, presenting the particularities of its understanding of the psychiatric object, and finally, we will defend, in general terms, the affinity of the phenomenological approach with the aspirations and practical needs of the field of psychiatry.

Medicalization in psychiatry: the medical model, descriptive diagnosis, and lost knowledge

Medicalization was the theme of the 29th European Conference on Philosophy of Medicine and Health Care that included a panel session on the DSM and mental health. Philosophical critiques of the medical model in psychiatry suffer from endemic assumptions that fail to acknowledge the real world challenges of psychiatric nosology. The descriptive model of classification of the DSM 3-5 serves a valid purpose in the absence of known etiologies for the majority of psychiatric conditions. However, a consequence of the "atheoretical" approach of the DSM is rampant epistemological confusion, a shortcoming that can be ameliorated by importing perspectives from the work of Jaspers and McHugh. Finally, contemporary psychiatry's over-reliance on neuroscience and pharmacotherapy has led to a reductionist agenda that is antagonistic to the inherently pluralistic nature of psychiatry.  As a result,  the field has suffered a loss of knowledge that may be difficult to recover.