The role of clinical experience, diagnosis, and theoretical orientation in the treatment of posttraumatic and dissociative disorders: A vignette and survey investigation.

Controversy exists regarding the merits of exposure-based treatments for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) versus a phased approach when prominent dissociative symptoms are present. The first aim of this study was to examine the degree to which diagnosing dissociation in two traumatized patients' vignettes influenced clinicians' preference for phase-oriented treatment and whether clinicians' treatment experience contributed to their treatment preference. The second aim was to assess the extent to which participants had observed traumatized patients worsen when treated with exposure therapy or phase-oriented therapy and whether the theoretical orientation and treatment experience of the clinician were related to the observed deterioration. In the tradition of expert and practitioner surveys, 263 clinicians completed a survey of their diagnoses and treatment preferences for two vignettes and their treatment experience, theoretical orientation, and observations of patients' deterioration. When a marked degree of dissociation was noted in the PTSD vignette, respondents favored phased approaches regardless of the diagnosis given. Reports of having observed patient deterioration during both exposure and phased therapy were predicted by years of experience. Psychodynamic therapists reported more observations of worsening during exposure therapy than cognitive behavior therapy therapists. Clinical experience treating PTSD may heighten awareness of negative therapeutic effects, potentially because experienced clinicians have a lower threshold for detecting such effects and because they are referred more challenging cases.

Dissociative identity disorder: An empirical overview.

OBJECTIVE: Despite its long and auspicious place in the history of psychiatry, dissociative identity disorder (DID) has been associated with controversy. This paper aims to examine the empirical data related to DID and outline the contextual challenges to its scientific investigation. METHODS: The overview is limited to DID-specific research in which one or more of the following conditions are met: (i) a sample of participants with DID was systematically investigated, (ii) psychometrically-sound measures were utilised, (iii) comparisons were made with other samples, (iv) DID was differentiated from other disorders, including other dissociative disorders, (v) extraneous variables were controlled or (vi) DID diagnosis was confirmed. Following an examination of challenges to research, data are organised around the validity and phenomenology of DID, its aetiology and epidemiology, the neurobiological and cognitive correlates of the disorder, and finally its treatment. RESULTS: DID was found to be a complex yet valid disorder across a range of markers. It can be accurately discriminated from other disorders, especially when structured diagnostic interviews assess identity alterations and amnesia. DID is aetiologically associated with a complex combination of developmental and cultural factors, including severe childhood relational trauma. The prevalence of DID appears highest in emergency psychiatric settings and affects approximately 1% of the general population. Psychobiological studies are beginning to identify clear correlates of DID associated with diverse brain areas and cognitive functions. They are also providing an understanding of the potential metacognitive origins of amnesia. Phase-oriented empirically-guided treatments are emerging for DID. CONCLUSIONS: The empirical literature on DID is accumulating, although some areas remain under-investigated. Existing data show DID as a complex, valid and not uncommon disorder, associated with developmental and cultural variables, that is amenable to psychotherapeutic intervention.

Separating Fact from Fiction: An Empirical Examination of Six Myths About Dissociative Identity Disorder.

Dissociative identity disorder (DID) is a complex, posttraumatic, developmental disorder for which we now, after four decades of research, have an authoritative research base, but a number of misconceptualizations and myths about the disorder remain, compromising both patient care and research. This article examines the empirical literature pertaining to recurrently expressed beliefs regarding DID: (1) belief that DID is a fad, (2) belief that DID is primarily diagnosed in North America by DID experts who overdiagnose the disorder, (3) belief that DID is rare, (4) belief that DID is an iatrogenic, rather than trauma-based, disorder, (5) belief that DID is the same entity as borderline personality disorder, and (6) belief that DID treatment is harmful to patients. The absence of research to substantiate these beliefs, as well as the existence of a body of research that refutes them, confirms their mythical status. Clinicians who accept these myths as facts are unlikely to carefully assess for dissociation. Accurate diagnoses are critical for appropriate treatment planning. If DID is not targeted in treatment, it does not appear to resolve. The myths we have highlighted may also impede research about DID. The cost of ignorance about DID is high not only for individual patients but for the whole support system in which they reside. Empirically derived knowledge about DID has replaced outdated myths. Vigorous dissemination of the knowledge base about this complex disorder is warranted.