MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2418688785 · doi:10.1177/070674370705200305

Addiction is a Mental Disorder, Best Managed in a (Public) Mental Health Setting—But Our System is Failing Us

2007· article· en· W2418688785 sur OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Charl Els

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2007
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Alberta
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésAddictionMental healthPsychiatryPublic healthMental illnessContext (archaeology)PsychologyMedicineNursingHistory

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Charl Els, MBChB, FCPsych, MMedPsych1 (Can J Psychiatry 2007;52:167-169) For centuries, mental illness was viewed as an invasion by evil spirits that had to be exorcised. Later practices dictated sending the afflicted away to asylums, and eventually the custodial model gave way to a trend of deinstitutionalization. Despite its deficits, this translated into an increased potential for societal involvement and interaction that changed the mental health landscape. In the context of addiction, the last few decades have yielded a body of evidence confirming the formerly disavowed disease of addiction as a group of bona fide mental disorders. Although this disease concept is endorsed by most contemporary psychiatrists, many health care systems' models have not successfully escaped the moral management archetype holding addiction hostage. What does this mean, and how does this affect patient care? There are more questions than answers, and easy solutions are evasive, making the challenges at a systems level at least as intractable as the problem of addiction itself. Addictionology, or the study of addictions, has emerged as a distinct and useful subspecialty,1 and despite the multifaceted presentation of addictive disorders, it is described with remarkable similarity in major global mental health taxonomy systems.2 Additionally, although the diagnoses in this category have achieved sufficient construct validity and internal consistency of criteria on a systems level, addiction is often not recognized as such and is neglected when public health policy and fiscal priorities are determined. Could patients be falling through the cracks as a result of our health care system's failure to adequately endorse addiction as a chronic, relapsing mental disorder? Is it possible that some policy-makers' views of addiction as a personal choice (or a social phenomenon responsible for undesirable behavior, crime, and immorality) have not been replaced by a more enlightened stance? The prevailing policies separating addiction from mainstream psychiatry certainly do not speak to the contrary. Addiction may, at last, be coming out of the shadows, but it is certainly not in from the cold. Although addiction is a complex disease involving physiological, psychological, genetic, behavioural, and environmental factors, it is fundamentally a disease of the brain,3-5 and like many other chronic mental disorders, it is amenable to treatment. In what amounts to a historical anomaly, the mental health community was (and in many jurisdictions still is) disenfranchised as the primary and rightful custodian for the treatment of this disease. Would it be considered a leap of faith to suggest that the treatment of this chronic mental disorder could be best directed by the discipline dedicated to the study and treatment of other chronic disorders of the brain? Addiction is the most common psychiatric disorder and the most prevalent comorbid condition in individuals with other mental illnesses. It costs the Canadian economy an estimated $40 billion annually,6 which is greater than the economic impact of all other mental illnesses combined. Further, for several plausible reasons, the prevalence and costs of addiction are increasing and have possibly not yet reached a plateau. Nevertheless, despite the devastating economic impact of addictions, a dire need for solutions, and the confusing panoply of available (but not necessarily effective) treatment options, most addicted individuals remain untreated. In treatment-seeking cases, the health care system often finds itself ill-equipped, yet compelled to deal with complications arising from addictions. In a system where there is no universal expectation to meet evidence-based standards, many addicted individuals seeking treatment fail to find an appropriately matched modality. In this diluted and fragmented system, so-called addicts may find themselves stigmatized, disenfranchised, homeless, impoverished, destitute, or drifting in and out of psychiatric facilities, the criminal justice system, emergency departments, and faith-based settings. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,998
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,049

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,005
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0040,007
Communication savante0,0050,004
Science ouverte0,0010,004
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,005
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0150,003

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,017
Tête enseignante GPT0,275
Écart entre enseignants0,258 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations15
Publié2007
Routes d'admission3
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry→Même sujetSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes→Travaux en français237 207→