Classificação psiquiátrica: tensionamento atual entre realismo e nominalismo / Management of diabetes by professionals and users of Primary Health Care

Resumo Apresenta-se o "nominalismo dinâmico" de Hacking, aplicado à classificação psiquiátrica, como exemplo ilustrativo de síntese entre realismo e nominalismo. Expõem-se as perspectivas realistas inscritas tanto moderadamente na proposta híbrida do Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), quanto fortemente na proposta naturalista de seus concorrentes: Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) e Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP). Aponta-se o principal efeito do naturalismo aplicado à classificação psiquiátrica, que consiste no abandono do hibridismo entre realismo e nominalismo, em prol de uma cartografia do mental que, com recurso à matemática, reivindica-se estritamente realista, respondendo a demanda por maior precisão da bipsiquiatria.

Abstract Diabetes is a disease that cannot be cured, but managed, and its management is seen as a strategy to overcome its unpleasant consequences in various life situations. This study aims to understand how the diabetes mellitus 2 management process occurs by professionals and users affected by this condition. This is a qualitative research, with observational and explanatory design, which included the participation of health professionals and users they care for, all from primary health care. Information was collected through semi-structured interviews and interpreted using Discourse Analysis. For informants, food aspects are the most difficult to deal with. The professionals' discourse points to flexible eating practices, but users understand the guidelines as prohibitions. Feeding represents a great challenge for both professionals and users, as both need to consider management practices as part of care.

A transdiagnostic dimensional approach towards a neuropsychological assessment for addiction: an international Delphi consensus study.

BACKGROUND: The US National Institutes of Mental Health Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) seek to stimulate research into biologically validated neuropsychological dimensions across mental illness symptoms and diagnoses. The RDoC framework comprises 39 functional constructs designed to be revised and refined, with the overall goal of improving diagnostic validity and treatments. This study aimed to reach a consensus among experts in the addiction field on the 'primary' RDoC constructs most relevant to substance and behavioural addictions. METHODS: Forty-four addiction experts were recruited from Australia, Asia, Europe and the Americas. The Delphi technique was used to determine a consensus as to the degree of importance of each construct in understanding the essential dimensions underpinning addictive behaviours. Expert opinions were canvassed online over three rounds (97% completion rate), with each consecutive round offering feedback for experts to review their opinions. RESULTS: Seven constructs were endorsed by ≥ 80% of experts as 'primary' to the understanding of addictive behaviour: five from the Positive Valence System (reward valuation, expectancy, action selection, reward learning, habit); one from the Cognitive Control System (response selection/inhibition); and one expert-initiated construct (compulsivity). These constructs were rated to be related differentially to stages of the addiction cycle, with some linked more closely to addiction onset and others more to chronicity. Experts agreed that these neuropsychological dimensions apply across a range of addictions. CONCLUSIONS: The study offers a novel and neuropsychologically informed theoretical framework, as well as a cogent step forward to test transdiagnostic concepts in addiction research, with direct implications for assessment, diagnosis, staging of disorder, and treatment.

Empirically supported interventions in psychology: contributions of Research Domain Criteria.

Empirically supported interventions in psychological disorders should provide (1) evidence supporting the underlying psychological mechanisms of psychopathology to target in the intervention and (2) evidence supporting the efficacy of the intervention. However, research has been dedicated in a greater extent to efficacy than to the acquisition of empirical support for the theoretical basis of therapies. Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) emerges as a new framework to provide empirically based theories about psychological mechanisms that may be targeted in intervention and tested for its efficacy. The current review aims to demonstrate the possible applications of RDoC to design empirically supported interventions for psychological disorders. Two RDoC-inspired interventions are reviewed, and the RDoC framework is broadly explored in terms of its contributions and limitations. From preliminary evidence, RDoC offers many avenues for improving evidence-based interventions in psychology, but some limitations must be anticipated to increase the RDoC applicability to naturalistic settings.

Empirically supported interventions in psychology: contributions of Research Domain Criteria

Abstract Empirically supported interventions in psychological disorders should provide (1) evidence supporting the underlying psychological mechanisms of psychopathology to target in the intervention and (2) evidence supporting the efficacy of the intervention. However, research has been dedicated in a greater extent to efficacy than to the acquisition of empirical support for the theoretical basis of therapies. Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) emerges as a new framework to provide empirically based theories about psychological mechanisms that may be targeted in intervention and tested for its efficacy. The current review aims to demonstrate the possible applications of RDoC to design empirically supported interventions for psychological disorders. Two RDoC-inspired interventions are reviewed, and the RDoC framework is broadly explored in terms of its contributions and limitations. From preliminary evidence, RDoC offers many avenues for improving evidence-based interventions in psychology, but some limitations must be anticipated to increase the RDoC applicability to naturalistic settings. (AU)

Beyond the DSM: trends in psychiatry diagnoses

Abstract Background: Although widely used in clinical practice and research, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) diagnoses have low validity: patients with different mental disorders can share similar symptoms, while those with the same diagnosis might have different symptoms. In fact, the DSM diagnostic system has been considered one of the main obstacles for further development of psychiatric research. Recently, it has been proposed that psychiatry nosology should be reframed according to a biologically-based etiology. Objectives: To review present and past endeavors of establishing an etiology-based nosology. Methods: Comprehensive review of articles on the topic. Results: From Hippocrates onwards, multiple attempts have been undertaken aiming to move etiology and nosology closer. The most recent efforts are represented by Developmental Psychopathology (DP) and the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC), which presents an operational matrix recommended to be used in clinical research instead of the DSM diagnoses. Discussion: The DSM-based nosology is faulty. RDoC and DP might be interesting alternatives for an etiology-based nosology. However, while DP has already brought promising results, RDoC is a novel proposal, whose advantages and disadvantages should gradually be identified in the upcoming years.

Predictive modeling for classification of positive valence system symptom severity from initial psychiatric evaluation records.

In response to the challenges set forth by the CEGS N-GRID 2016 Shared Task in Clinical Natural Language Processing, we describe a framework to automatically classify initial psychiatric evaluation records to one of four positive valence system severities: absent, mild, moderate, or severe. We used a dataset provided by the event organizers to develop a framework comprised of natural language processing (NLP) modules and 3 predictive models (two decision tree models and one Bayesian network model) used in the competition. We also developed two additional predictive models for comparison purpose. To evaluate our framework, we employed a blind test dataset provided by the 2016 CEGS N-GRID. The predictive scores, measured by the macro averaged-inverse normalized mean absolute error score, from the two decision trees and Naïve Bayes models were 82.56%, 82.18%, and 80.56%, respectively. The proposed framework in this paper can potentially be applied to other predictive tasks for processing initial psychiatric evaluation records, such as predicting 30-day psychiatric readmissions.

RDoC and shift of reference.

OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to analyse in a philosophically informed way the recent National Institute of Mental Health proposal for the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) framework. CONCLUSION: Current classification systems have helped unify psychiatry and the conditions that it is most concerned with. However, by relying too much on syndromes and symptoms, they too often do not define stable constructs. As a result, inclusions and removals from the manuals are not always backed by sound reasons. The RDoC framework is an important move towards ameliorating matters. This paper argues that it improves the current situation by re-referencing constructs to physical properties (biomarkers for disorders, for example), by allowing theoretical levels within the framework, and by treating psychiatry as a special case of the cognitive sciences.

Attention-based classification pattern, a research domain criteria framework, in youths with bipolar disorder and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

OBJECTIVE: The National Institute of Mental Health has initiated the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) project. Instead of using disorder categories as the basis for grouping individuals, the RDoC suggests finding relevant dimensions that can cut across traditional disorders. Our aim was to use the RDoC's framework to study patterns of attention deficit based on results of Conners' Continuous Performance Test (CPT II) in youths diagnosed with bipolar disorder (BD), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), BD+ADHD and controls. METHOD: Eighteen healthy controls, 23 patients with ADHD, 10 with BD and 33 BD+ADHD aged 12-17 years old were assessed. Pattern recognition was used to partition subjects into clusters based simultaneously on their performance in all CPT II variables. A Fisher's linear discriminant analysis was used to build a classifier. RESULTS: Using cluster analysis, the entire sample set was best clustered into two new groups, A and B, independently of the original diagnoses. ADHD and BD+ADHD were divided almost 50% in each subgroup, and there was an agglomeration of controls and BD in group B. Group A presented a greater impairment with higher means in all CPT II variables and lower Children's Global Assessment Scale. We found a high cross-validated classification accuracy for groups A and B: 95.2%. Variability of response time was the strongest CPT II measure in the discriminative pattern between groups A and B. CONCLUSION: Our classificatory exercise supports the concept behind new approaches, such as the RDoC framework, for child and adolescent psychiatry. Our approach was able to define clinical subgroups that could be used in future pathophysiological and treatment studies.

O projeto Research Domain Criteria e o abandono da tradição psicopatológica / The Research Domain Criteria project and the abandonment of the tradition of psychopathology / Le projet Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) et le renoncement à la tradition psychopatologique / El proyecto Research Domain Criteria y el abandono de la tradición psicopatológica

O artigo explora os pressupostos epistemológicos do Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) - projeto de investigação empírica dos transtornos mentais, dentro de uma plataforma biológica - promovido pelo National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). Discute-se o ataque feito ao sistema DSM, pouco antes do lançamento de sua quinta versão, a partir da perspectiva neurocientífica adotada pelo RDoC. A aposta na patofisiologia, combinada com a exclusão da experiência descrita em primeira pessoa, aponta um cenário em que a pesquisa e a clínica se divorciam, com o risco do advento de uma estranha psiquiatria sem psique e sem pathos.(AU)

This article explores the epistemological underpinnings of the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC), launched by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) - USA. The project has the objective of empirically investigating mental disorders in a biological framework. We discuss the sharp criticism received by the DSM shortly before its fifth edition came out, based as it was on the neuroscientific approach adopted by the RDoC. The preference for pathophysiology, combined with the exclusion of first-person experience, points to a scenario where research and clinical work are irrevocably divorced, and runs the risk of fostering an odd psychiatry with neither psyche nor pathos.(AU)

Cet article examine les présupposés épistémologiques de l'initiative dénommée Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) proposée aux Etats-Unis par le National Institute of Mental Health (NIHM). Ce projet s'inscrit dans le cadre d'une approche des troubles mentaux ancrée dans une perspective essentielment biologique et empirique. Il faut remarquer que ce programme a été lancé à la veille de la presentation de la cinquième version du système DSM. On s'interroge si la mise en ouvre d'un tel projet, largement fondé sur l'axe de recherche neuroscientifique et physiopathologique - divorcée des toutes complexités de l'expérience vécue en première personne - ne donneront pas naissance à une étrange créature: la psychiatrie sans pathos et sans psyché.(AU)

El artículo examina los presupuestos epistemológicos del Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) - proyecto de investigación empírica de los transtornos mentales, dentro de una plataforma biológica - promovido pelo National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). Discute el ataque dirigido al sistema DSM, poco antes de la publicación de su quinta edición, desde una perspectiva neurocientífica adoptada pelo RDoC. La apuesta por la fisiopatología, combinada con la exclusión de la experiencia descrita en la primera persona, apunta para un escenario en el cual investigación y clínica se divorciam con el riesgo del adviento de una psiquiatría extraña, sin psiquis y sin pathos.(AU)

O projeto research domain criteria e o abandono da tradição psicopatológica / The research domain criteria project and the abandonment of the tradition of psychopathology / Le projet research domain criteria (RDoC) et le renoncement à la tradition psychopatologique / El proyecto research domain criteria y el abandono de la tradición psicopatológica

O artigo explora os pressupostos epistemológicos do Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) - projeto de investigação empírica dos transtornos mentais, dentro de uma plataforma biológica - promovido pelo National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). Discute-se o ataque feito ao sistema DSM, pouco antes do lançamento de sua quinta versão, a partir da perspectiva neurocientífica adotada pelo RDoC. A aposta na patofisiologia, combinada com a exclusão da experiência descrita em primeira pessoa, aponta um cenário em que a pesquisa e a clínica se divorciam, com o risco do advento de uma estranha psiquiatria sem psique e sem pathos.

This article explores the epistemological underpinnings of the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC), launched by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) - USA. The project has the objective of empirically investigating mental disorders in a biological framework. We discuss the sharp criticism received by the DSM shortly before its fifth edition came out, based as it was on the neuroscientific approach adopted by the RDoC. The preference for pathophysiology, combined with the exclusion of first-person experience, points to a scenario where research and clinical work are irrevocably divorced, and runs the risk of fostering an odd psychiatry with neither psyche nor pathos.

Cet article examine les présupposés épistémologiques de l'initiative dénommée Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) proposée aux Etats-Unis par le National Institute of Mental Health (NIHM). Ce projet s'inscrit dans le cadre d'une approche des troubles mentaux ancrée dans une perspective essentielment biologique et empirique. Il faut remarquer que ce programme a été lancé à la veille de la presentation de la cinquième version du système DSM. On s'interroge si la mise en ouvre d'un tel projet, largement fondé sur l'axe de recherche neuroscientifique et physiopathologique - divorcée des toutes complexités de l'expérience vécue en première personne - ne donneront pas naissance à une étrange créature: la psychiatrie sans pathos et sans psyché.

El artículo examina los presupuestos epistemológicos del Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) - proyecto de investigación empírica de los transtornos mentales, dentro de una plataforma biológica - promovido pelo National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). Discute el ataque dirigido al sistema DSM, poco antes de la publicación de su quinta edición, desde una perspectiva neurocientífica adoptada pelo RDoC. La apuesta por la fisiopatología, combinada con la exclusión de la experiencia descrita en la primera persona, apunta para un escenario en el cual investigación y clínica se divorciam con el riesgo del adviento de una psiquiatría extraña, sin psiquis y sin pathos.