Making a good mental health diagnosis: Science, art and ethics

9Citations
Citations of this article
23Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background There are limitations to psychiatric classification, which affects the utility of diagnosis in general practice. Objective The aim of this article is to explore the principles of science, art and ethics to create clinically useful psychiatric diagnoses in general practice. Discussion Psychiatric classification systems provide useful constructs for clinical practice and research. Evidence-based treatments are based on the classification of mental illnesses. However, while classification is necessary, it is not sufficient to provide a full understanding of ‘what is going on’. A good psychiatric diagnosis will also include a formulation, which provides an understanding of the psychosocial factors that provide a context for illness. Experiences such as trauma and marginalisation will change the illness experience but also provide other forms of evidence that shape therapy. Diagnoses also carry ethical implications, including stigma and changes in self舉concept. The science, art and ethics of diagnosis need to be integrated to provide a complete assessment.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Stone, L., Waldron, E., & Nowak, H. (2020). Making a good mental health diagnosis: Science, art and ethics. Australian Journal of General Practice, 49(12), 797–802. https://doi.org/10.31128/AJGP-08-20-5606

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free