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

Louise Stone, Elizabeth Waldron, Heather Nowak

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    6 Citations (Scopus)

    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.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)797-802
    Number of pages6
    JournalAustralian Journal of General Practice
    Volume49
    Issue number12
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - Dec 2020

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Making a good mental health diagnosis: Science, art and ethics'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this