The six most essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis: A pluralogue part 2: Issues of conservatism and pragmatism in psychiatric diagnosis

In face of the multiple controversies surrounding the DSM process in general and the development of DSM-5 in particular, we have organized a discussion around what we consider six essential questions in further work on the DSM. The six questions involve: 1) the nature of a mental disorder; 2) the definition of mental disorder; 3) the issue of whether, in the current state of psychiatric science, DSM-5 should assume a cautious, conservative posture or an assertive, transformative posture; 4) the role of pragmatic considerations in the construction of DSM-5; 5) the issue of utility of the DSM – whether DSM-III and IV have been designed more for clinicians or researchers, and how this conflict should be dealt with in the new manual; and 6) the possibility and advisability, given all the problems with DSM-III and IV, of designing a different diagnostic system. Part I of this article took up the first two questions. Part II will take up the second two questions. Question 3 deals with the question as to whether DSM-V should assume a conservative or assertive posture in making changes from DSM-IV. That question in turn breaks down into discussion of diagnoses that depend on, and aim toward, empirical, scientific validation, and diagnoses that are more value-laden and less amenable to scientific validation. Question 4 takes up the role of pragmatic consideration in a psychiatric nosology, whether the purely empirical considerations need to be tempered by considerations of practical consequence. As in Part 1 of this article, the general introduction, as well as the introductions and conclusions for the specific questions, are written by James Phillips, and the responses to commentaries are written by Allen Frances

The six most essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis: a pluralogue part 1: conceptual and definitional issues in psychiatric diagnosis

In face of the multiple controversies surrounding the DSM process in general and the development of DSM-5 in particular, we have organized a discussion around what we consider six essential questions in further work on the DSM. The six questions involve: 1) the nature of a mental disorder; 2) the definition of mental disorder; 3) the issue of whether, in the current state of psychiatric science, DSM-5 should assume a cautious, conservative posture or an assertive, transformative posture; 4) the role of pragmatic considerations in the construction of DSM-5; 5) the issue of utility of the DSM - whether DSM-III and IV have been designed more for clinicians or researchers, and how this conflict should be dealt with in the new manual; and 6) the possibility and advisability, given all the problems with DSM-III and IV, of designing a different diagnostic system. Part I of this article will take up the first two questions. With the first question, invited commentators express a range of opinion regarding the nature of psychiatric disorders, loosely divided into a realist position that the diagnostic categories represent real diseases that we can accurately name and know with our perceptual abilities, a middle, nominalist position that psychiatric disorders do exist in the real world but that our diagnostic categories are constructs that may or may not accurately represent the disorders out there, and finally a purely constructivist position that the diagnostic categories are simply constructs with no evidence of psychiatric disorders in the real world. The second question again offers a range of opinion as to how we should define a mental or psychiatric disorder, including the possibility that we should not try to formulate a definition. The general introduction, as well as the introductions and conclusions for the specific questions, are written by James Phillips, and the responses to commentaries are written by Allen Frances

Historical Research Approaches to the Analysis of Internationalisation

Historical research methods and approaches can improve understanding of the most appropriate techniques to confront data and test theories in internationalisation research. A critical analysis of all “texts” (sources), time series analyses, comparative methods across time periods and space, counterfactual analysis and the examination of outliers are shown to have the potential to improve research practices. Examples and applications are shown in these key areas of research with special reference to internationalisation processes. Examination of these methods allows us to see internationalisation processes as a sequenced set of decisions in time and space, path dependent to some extent but subject to managerial discretion. Internationalisation process research can benefit from the use of historical research methods in analysis of sources, production of time-lines, using comparative evidence across time and space and in the examination of feasible alternative choices

Barriers to Colorectal Cancer Screening and Surveillance in Homeless Patients: A Case Report and Policy Recommendations.

Patients experiencing homelessness face significant barriers to screening and treatment for colorectal cancer, leading to worse outcomes. In this perspective, we use an exemplar patient case to highlight potential policy solutions for reducing this health care disparity by increasing access to early detection and treatment in this population

Surgical Care of Patients Experiencing Homelessness: A Scoping Review Using a Phases of Care Conceptual Framework.

Homelessness is a growing concern across the world, particularly as individuals experiencing homelessness age and face an increasing burden of chronic health conditions. Although substantial research has focused on the medical and psychiatric care of patients experiencing homelessness, literature about the surgical care of these patients is sparse. Our objective was to review the literature to identify areas of concern unique to patients experiencing homelessness with surgical disease. A scoping review was conducted using a comprehensive database for studies from 1990 to September 1, 2020. Studies that included patients who were unhoused and discussed surgical care were included. The inclusion criteria were designed to identify evidence that directly affected surgical care, systems management, and policy making. Findings were organized within a Phases of Surgical Care framework: preoperative care, intraoperative care, postoperative care, and global use. Our search strategy yielded 553 unique studies, of which 23 met inclusion criteria. Most studies were performed at public and/or safety-net hospitals or via administrative datasets, and surgical specialties that were represented included orthopedic, cardiac, plastic surgery trauma, and vascular surgery. Using the Surgical Phases of Care framework, we identified studies that described the impact of housing status in pre- and postoperative phases as well as global use. There was limited identification of barriers to surgical and anesthetic best practices in the intraoperative phase. More than half of studies (52.2%) lacked a clear definition of homelessness. Thus, there is a marked gap in the surgical literature regarding the impact of housing status on optimal surgical care, with the largest area for improvement in the intraoperative phase of surgical and anesthetic decision making. Consistent use of clear definitions of homelessness is lacking. To promote improved care, a standardized approach to recording housing status is needed, and studies must explore vulnerabilities in surgical care unique to this population

"You don't want anyone who hasn't been through anything telling you what to do, because how do they know?": Qualitative analysis of case managers in a hospital-based violence intervention program.

Statement of purposeIntentional violent injury is a leading cause of disability and death among young adults in the United States. Hospital-based violence intervention programs (HVIPs), which strive to prevent re-injury through intensive case management, have emerged as a successful and cost-effective strategy to address this issue. Despite the importance of strong therapeutic relationships between clients and their case managers, specific case manager behaviors and attributes that drive the formation of these relationships have not been elucidated.MethodsA qualitative analysis with a modified grounded theory approach was conducted to gain insight into what clients perceive to be crucial to the formation of a strong client-case manager relationship. Twenty-four semi-structured interviews were conducted with prior clients of our hospital's HVIP. The interviews were analyzed using constant comparison method for recurrent themes.ResultsSeveral key themes emerged from the interviews. Clients emphasized that their case managers must: 1) understand and relate to their sociocultural contexts, 2) navigate the initial in-hospital meeting to successfully create connection, 3) exhibit true compassion and care, 4) serve as role models, 5) act as portals of opportunity, and 6) engender mutual respect and pride.ConclusionsThis study identifies key behaviors of case managers that facilitate the formation of strong therapeutic relationships at the different stages of client recovery. This study's findings emphasize the importance of case managers being culturally aligned with and embedded in their clients' communities. This work can provide a roadmap for case managers to form optimally effective relationships with clients