Talk:Mental disorder

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mental disorder article.
Article policies
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
To-do list for Mental disorder: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Add citations to applicable (or all) sentences.
  • Move content from "Classification schemes" section to "Classification of mental illness" article and replace section with a summary of the Classification of mental illness article.
  • Add additional references to "Categories/dimensions of disorder".
  • Expand "Diagnosis" section.
  • Wikify and <expand the Treatment of mental illness article.
  • Expand, add sources to, and help the "Prognosis" section to represent a worldwide view.
  • Improve the Laws and policies section to represent a worldwide view.
  • Cleanup external links in "External links" section.
  • Expand, add sources to, and help the "Mental illness and society" section to represent a worldwide view.
  • Organize and reduce articles in "See also" section.
  • Rewrite/reformat "Categories/dimensions of disorder" for better flow.
  • Move content from "Causes and Links" section to "Causes of mental illness" article and replace section with a summary of the Causes of mental illness article.
Archive
Archives
About archives • Edit this box


Contents

[edit] Summarizing sub articles

The largest priority item right now is probably getting all of the sub articles summarized on this page, and moving most content to the sub article. Eversince, is it alright if I get to work on those articles you created? Chupper 02:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I've been away from W since I suggested waiting for more development of the article to get a better idea about this. I think I only created one of those subarticles btw and that wouldn't mean you needed to ask me specifically anyway of course. I'd just suggest that Wikipedia:Article size#Splitting an article and other pages say significant moves of content should be mentioned in advance so other editors can comment e.g. about which sections need cutting and by how much? What are you thinking roughly? One thing I'd like to suggest is that the causes section could benefit from a little bit more summary coverage than it now has, though it certainly did need a lot of filtering down? EverSince 10:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Having said that, maybe can just agree that the subarticle-ing and summarizing needs to be done and can just see how it goes...maybe leaving two or three paragraphs and key sources for each section. EverSince 13:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about the delay EverSince. Whenever I've written articles, with sub articles, I've often written a summary of the sub article in the appropriate section relating to the main article (Like DuSable Park in the Chicago Spire article). And keep in mind there are two different things at work here - what I've done, and what I'm hoping the article will become. What I'm hoping these sections become is probably right down the line of what you want, Eversince. While Wikipedia:Article size#Splitting an article states that its ok to leave a short summary in the section, I was hoping for something 2-3-4 paragraphs in length. As an example the "Classification schemes" section seems to be on target (maybe a little on the longer side) of what I would expect for a section with a sub article.
The main concern I have is are we adequately summarizing these sub articles. I would see the first priority to be at least getting the sub articles to a Start or B quality class (not that we need to wait for an assessment, I just mean estimates). Next I would think the summaries should be written or reformatted for this article.
Bottom line - we do, IMO, need more summary coverage on sections like "Causes" - a lot more in fact. I would think we could get right to work on this. Again, I really think my main concern is keeping the summary section relevant to the sub article - just so they aren't two totally different things. Chupper 13:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I see what you mean, sounds good. And will have to update the intro to reflect changes to the main body too, after that I guess. I'll personally start doing more again soon. EverSince 15:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I merged the definition & classification stuff while summarizing it, to cut down on the number of subsections - don't know if that seems to work or not. I'm thinking the Prevalence stuff is long & detailed enough to go to a subarticle, so I'll do that shortly (could come under Epidemiology I suppose but that seems a lot less user-friendly). EverSince 15:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Unless the issue of article naming needs to be revisited first... the prevalence studies describe themselves as being about mental disorder, rather than using the term mental illness, so it would seem strange to use the latter for the article name. EverSince 08:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mental disorder vs Mental illness

Some of the reasons that have cropped up suggesting this article and its subarticles might be better using the term "Mental disorder" rather than "Mental illness":

Although Mental illness may be the more common phrase in general usage, the ICD and DSM only use the term Mental disorder. The World Health Organization PDF reports that

"Most international clinical documents avoid use of the term “mental illness”, preferring to use the term “mental disorder” instead...The ICD-10 states that ‘the term “disorder” is used so as to avoid the even greater problems inherent in the use of terms such as “disease” and “illness”."

Scientific research, for example the international prevalence studies, also tends to use the term mental disorder. There seems to be more disagreement or vagueness about what conditions the term Mental illness refers to. In addition, the phrase Mental disorder appears to represent more of a neutral point of view, for example WordNet:

"Mental Disorder - (psychiatry) a psychological disorder of thought or emotion; a more neutral term than mental illness".

The WHO reports that: "A number of consumer organizations oppose use of the terms “mental illness” and “mental patient” on the grounds that these support the dominance of the medical model." I would say some also very much embrace the illness terms though, i.e. organizations committed to a biomedical understanding.

I don't know if anyone disagrees, or has other points. I gather there needs to be some sense of consensus before an admin would undertake a name change. EverSince 13:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay in response. For the reasons which you have clearly mentioned above, I also agree it, and all of its supporting pages be moved using "Mental disorder" as the title. I'll see if I can't get an admin to move the page or delete the redirect. We can move it at that time. Chupper 23:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
The page has been moved. Chupper 23:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

EverSince, you make a great point. The legal system (in Canada, anyway) uses the term "disorder," not "illness." This seems accurate because whether or not it turns out to be a disease, it will still be a disorder. 208.181.100.67 20:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that Psychological Disorder directs to Mental Disorder or Mental Illness. I find that in psychology textbooks ussaully refer to the same subject as Psychological Disorder, where as Psychiatric Textbooks will refer to it as Mental Disorder or Mental Illness. Instead of a redirect; should there not be a disimbiguation?--Recovery Psychology (talk) 04:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citations definitely needed

"Mental disorders have been found to be common, with over a third of people in most countries reporting sufficient criteria at some point in their life."

This is a very important point, but no citations are given to back it up. If anyone knows of any, please add. 84.9.75.24 (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Also:

"guideline criterion listed in the ICD, DSM and other manuals are widely accepted by mental health professionals" is contentious given the list of mental health professionals provided in the embedded link, and so this requires either a citation or removal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.189.108.119 (talk) 12:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introductory sentence couldn't be much worse

I know how I would rewrite it, but I hate to walk into an a new article and not start out on the talk page. Below, I copy the awkward, misleading/meaningless sentence. Why don't some of you guys look up some the definition at the Mayo Clinic (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/mental-illness/HQ01079) or some other professional authoritative source Spotted Owl (talk) 10:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

  • quoted sentence*
Mental disorder or mental illness are terms used to refer a psychological 
or physiological pattern that occurs in an individual and is usually associated 
with distress or disability that is not expected as part of normal development 
or culture.

[edit] Subtopic on 'Other' under Treatments

There are a wide variety of therapies in the past and present not currently mentioned here, from insulin shock and wet wraps as widely used in the past. Also, in at least one country, a reasonably successful result is found in centers where the afflicted person, accompanied for the stay by a family member, has not drug treatment, no psychotherapy or procedures. What is provided is a calm soothing environment, away from the home environment, with pleasant surroundings and encouragement to garden and be productively engaged.

This comes exceptionally close to the expensive private hospitals offered for many decades prior to the development of the much cheaper medications. They provided the patient a place of calm away from any triggering and aggravating, causative factors found in the home environment. Emphasis was on good nutrition, peaceful surroundings, structure of the day (keeping patients up out of bed and engaged), and supportive nurses and a chance to visit regularly with therapists.

I do wish I had the full citation on that last, but it has been some years since I encountered it. It was either in India or one of the countries to the east of India. The healing centers were provided as a service by the monks of some order. If I recall correctly, the length of the average stay did not exceed two months. Nurses were not needed as any care-taking, dressing, grooming, et al, was provided by the family member.

I think it would be valuable, too, to deal with the US de-institutional movement in the early 70's and how it led to most of this nation's homeless being mentally ill, on no medications, receiving no therapy, and unable to even get on disability and thus gain housing or food stamps - tho I realize this may already be the subject of another article. Please be sure to link that article to this sub-topic. Spotted Owl (talk) 11:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality: Inclusion of the view that mental illness does not exist

It is important that somewhere in this article it is pointed out that some parties maintain that there is no such thing as "mental illness", and that there cannot be any such thing as a "mental illness". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickyfann (talk • contribs) 16:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

//I completely agree. Every single person on earth has a brain with different composition and operation from another, just some people more than others. I guess it's part of society's hypocrisy "be yourself, but not too much" kind of thing.

Different, and your independant...too different, and you have a mental disorder. Some fucked-up shit. //

There used to be a whole section on this. Perhaps we should take a look in the edit history and consider re-adding it? Amillion (talk) 03:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see that the article still contains the following statement: "An antipsychiatry movement fundamentally challenges mainstream psychiatric theory and practice, including the reality or utility of psychiatric diagnoses of mental illnesses." Perhaps we just need to elaborate a bit on that?
I'd also like to add that mental illness is not just a matter of being "too different." In addition to being deviant from one's culture, it also must cause significant distress and dysfunction. In other words, it must actually be interfering with your ability to live the kind of life you want to live. Amillion (talk) 03:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The notion the mental illness does not exist is not a mainstream idea. It is neither majority or minority opinion and would probably fall under the classification of fringe theory. WP:FRINGE. As such, it should be treated that way.--scuro (talk) 10:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but it is not just the belief of isolated individuals. It is in fact a movement, and as I recall it has organizations, advocates, websites, etc. According to the Wikipedia policy on fringe theories, I believe it should be given a bit more coverage than a single sentence. It is not accepted by the scientific community, and we should state that, but as it says in the fringe theory policy page, "...ideas should not be excluded from the encyclopedia simply because they are widely held to be wrong.". Amillion (talk) 03:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, have a conversation with any individual who has the symptoms of severe depression, bipolar disorder or Schizophrenia and you will have no doubt that mental illness exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TallDudePaul (talk • contribs) 19:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
With all fringe theory attribution is important...who states what. More important are secondary sources that cover the topic. I have no doubt there are a multitude of websites that deny the existence of mental illness nor do I doubt that there are movements and even religions that deny it's existence. Still, is this a mainstream idea? Do any experts in the field believe this idea? Are there any government institutions in the world that believe this idea? does the media cover this viewpoint? If the answer is no to all of the questions, then I believe we have a fringe theory. If no secondary sources cover this viewpoint then one really has to question why it needs to be in the article no matter how much bandwidth a multitude of websites take up on the internet.--scuro (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
The fact that something is a fringe theory is not a reason to exclude it from this encyclopedia. Read WP:FRINGE. Amillion (talk) 06:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
As for whether or not there are enough third-party sources to prove notability, the antipsychiatry article was tagged for that very reason in 2007, but after a brief look at the reference section it does appear that they have several now. I should be especially easy to find third-party sources discussing the antipsychiatric beliefs of religious groups like Scientology, because they've gotten a lot of press. Amillion (talk) 07:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stigma as a barrier to mental illness treatment

A large proportion of individuals who suffer from the symptoms of a mental illness will avoid seeking treatment for their symptoms because of the social stigma[[1]] associated with having a mental illness. The US Surgeon General acknowledged this in 1999:

Powerful and pervasive, stigma prevents people from acknowledging their own mental health problems, much less disclosing them to others[1].

As a result people feel the need to keep their mental illness a secret, and will deny the symptoms that they are experiencing. Two thirds of the people who would benefit from treatment for a mental illness do not receive treatment[2]. As with many physical illnesses, the prognoses of a mental illness can worsen the longer that a mental illness remains untreated. The added anxiety of fearing a mental illness diagnoses can also be detrimental to an individual's mental health, this effect can greatly exacerbate an anxiety disorder or mood disorder. Efforts are being undertaken worldwide to eliminate the stigma of mental illness [3]. --19:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)TallDudePaul (talk)