↓ Skip to main content

Toward psychiatry as a ‘human’ science of mind. The case of depressive disorders in DSM-5

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
13 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Toward psychiatry as a ‘human’ science of mind. The case of depressive disorders in DSM-5
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01517
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marco Castiglioni, Federico Laudisa

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to argue that a strictly reductionist approach to psychiatry represents a theoretical and clinical obstacle to a fruitful synthesis between neurobiological and sociocultural aspects of the sciences of mind. We examine the theoretical and practical motivations underlying this approach, by analyzing the case of depressive disorders, as defined in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), and the related removal of the "bereavement exclusion clause." We first explore the claim that DSM is atheoretical, observing that, far from being atheoretical, DSM adopts an implicit, biologically inspired view of the mind; we show that such a view leads to a sort of circularity in the definition of depressive disorders, in which psychopharmacology seems to play a key role. We then turn to further problems deriving from this position, analyzing the issue of placebo effects in the treatment of depressive disorders and the philosophical question of normative preconditions for psychopathological diagnosis. Finally, we address the issue of subjectivity, which, together with the related aspect of the subject's relational context, appears to be crucial to any scientific theorizing about mental disorders, despite DSM's attempt to exclude it. Our defense of a non-reductionist view of mental disorders, however, does not imply that we endorse any sort of metaphysical dualism, or anti-diagnostic or anti-psychiatric positions. On the contrary, we argue that the adoption of a reductionist position actually undermines the theoretical and clinical accuracy in explaining depressive disorders.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 5%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 62 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Student > Postgraduate 6 9%
Other 5 8%
Other 17 26%
Unknown 13 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 26 39%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 14%
Social Sciences 8 12%
Neuroscience 4 6%
Philosophy 2 3%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 12 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 May 2022.
All research outputs
#1,233,050
of 25,320,147 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#2,548
of 34,200 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,329
of 364,920 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#52
of 389 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,320,147 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,200 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 364,920 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 389 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.