| 查看: 1215 | 回复: 5 | |||
[交流]
【Original】Psychology vs. Psychiatry: What's the Difference, and Which Is Bette
|
 Psychologists and psychiatrists tend to hate each other. The reasons are historical: beginning even before Freud, psychologists held enormous power over the cultural imagination. The whole idea of psychiatry — an explicitly chemical rather than behavioral treatment of the mind — didn't start until the industrial age, and for a long time afterward, psychiatrists were held in disregard. Friday morning, psychiatrists take a bit of revenge. Even after years of symposia and papers designed to reconnect the two tendril branches of mental-health treatment, the American Psychiatric Association has released new guidelines for treatment of depression that still denigrate the cognitive and behavioral approaches of the American Psychological Association According to the new guidelines — which will govern treatment for the 200,000 in-patient psychiatric patients in the U.S., as well as the 20 million or so who get out-patient treatment — the No.-1 preferred approach is drugs. Just drugs. The guidelines don't mention psychological approaches like cognitive-behavioral therapy until No. 3, just after electroshock therapy. Ouch. The new guidelines underplay an enormous body of data from the past decade showing that even the best psychiatric drugs work better than sugar pills only when the drugs are used in conjunction with psychological therapies that help patients change how they behave and how they form their thoughts. Neither a strictly psychiatric approach (just drugs) nor a strictly psychological approach (just talk therapy) works much better than a placebo pill on its own. But when used in combination, the psychiatric and psychological treatments help a majority of people get better. So why can't A.P.A. and A.P.A. get along? One reason is a problem of data. The new American *Psychiatric* guidelines released today conflate several psychotherapy approaches equally because at least one or two randomized trials has shown them to be effective. But cognitive-behavioral therapy has a huge base of evidence compared to rather obscure approaches such as interpersonal therapy. In the context of national guidelines that will shape the treatment of millions, it borders on quackery to include cognitive-behavioral therapy in the same sentence that the A.P.A. (American *Psychiatric*, ugh) calls “problem-solving therapy.” |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
售SCI一区文章，我:8.O.55.1.O.54,科目齐全,可伽急
已经有6人回复
-
售SCI一区T0P文章，我:8O.55.1.O.54,科目全,可伽急
已经有6人回复
-
售SCI文章，我:8O5.5.1.O.54,科目齐全,可+急
已经有6人回复
-
这样的filecode谁见过
已经有7人回复
-
售SCI一区T0P文章，我:8.O.55.1.O54,科目全,可伽急
已经有5人回复
-
售SCI一区文章，我:8.O.55.1.O.54,科目齐全,可伽急
已经有4人回复
-
售SCI一区T0P文章，我:8O.55.1.O.5.4,科目齐全,可+急
已经有5人回复
-
售SCI-T0P文章，我:8O.5.5.1.O.54,科目齐全,可+急
已经有5人回复
-
售SCI一区文章，我:8.O.55.1.O.54,科目齐全,可伽急
已经有5人回复
-
国基金的申报应该改成非等额制，评价高的钱多评价低的钱少，但是增加资助率
已经有5人回复
★
小木虫(沙发+1，金币+0.5):恭喜抢个沙发，再给个红包
小木虫(沙发+1，金币+0.5):恭喜抢个沙发，再给个红包
 |
2楼2010-10-02 22:15:00
三更雨~
木虫 (文坛精英)
- ESEPI: 42
- 应助: 0 (幼儿园)
- 贵宾: 0.493
- 金币: 3701.9
- 散金: 4830
- 红花: 31
- 沙发: 69
- 帖子: 11421
- 在线: 1091.2小时
- 虫号: 863892
- 注册: 2009-10-06
- 性别: MM
- 专业: 光谱分析
3楼2010-10-02 22:23:45
三更雨~
木虫 (文坛精英)
- ESEPI: 42
- 应助: 0 (幼儿园)
- 贵宾: 0.493
- 金币: 3701.9
- 散金: 4830
- 红花: 31
- 沙发: 69
- 帖子: 11421
- 在线: 1091.2小时
- 虫号: 863892
- 注册: 2009-10-06
- 性别: MM
- 专业: 光谱分析
4楼2010-10-02 22:24:07
5楼2010-10-03 00:04:54
xia_chong
金虫 (文坛精英)
- ESEPI: 43
- 应助: 0 (幼儿园)
- 贵宾: 1.591
- 金币: 10270.8
- 散金: 2377
- 红花: 34
- 沙发: 160
- 帖子: 12455
- 在线: 1941.8小时
- 虫号: 804303
- 注册: 2009-07-06
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 粒子物理学和场论
- 管辖: English Cafe
6楼2010-10-03 11:03:53
100