Analysis of Psychiatric Disorders

...

Notably, the American Psychiatric Association and the World Health Organization developed the two tools respectively. Currently, the most frequent and commonly used tool is the current revision of the American Psychologist Association manual referred to as DSM-IV-TR by several researchers. The device can classify, define, and describe over two hundred mental disorders inclusive of mental illness conditions. The system excludes such conditions in most of the national health care planning such as dementia, drug and alcohol disorders. For instance, the tool describes and diagnoses mental disorders with the aid of five axes.

Axis I contains most of the principal clinical disorders. It includes all disorders diagnosed during early childhood, except for mental retardation. Axis II lists mental retardation as well as personality disorders. Axis III incorporates information concerning general medical conditions such as diabetes that may be relevant to understanding, diagnosing and treating mental disorders by using Axes I or II disorders. Nonetheless, Axis IV and V provides supplemental information used when planning an individual’s treatment.

Nevertheless, Axis IV and V may also help in assessing the prognosis specifically during prediction for future changes in an individual client. Additionally, Axis IV evaluates environmental and psychosocial problems explaining the patients stress responses or their resources for coping with stress. Notably, a clinician assesses the global level of an individual function on Axis V. Lastly, a full diagnosis in the DSM-IV-TR system considers the five axes for developing the appropriate results.

Advantages and disadvantages of the DSM system

According to Plotnik and Kouyoumdjian (2013), the mental health professionals and psychiatric experts acknowledge three primary benefits of using the DSM-IV-TR uniform system in classifying mental disorders. First, mental health professionals use the classification system to communicate with one another and discuss their client’s problems. Second, researchers use the classification system to study and explain different types of mental disorders. Additionally, therapists use the DSM-IV-TR uniform system to design their treatment programs so as to fit best a particular client’s problem.

Plotnik and Kouyoumdjian (2013) chronicles that although using the DSM-IV-TR uniform system to diagnose mental problems has advantages, it also has some potential constraints. For example, mental health professionals do not always agree on whether a client fits or fails to meet a particular diagnosis. Moreover, there may arise social, political, and labeling problems. For instance, it is not uncommon to hear people using labels, such as “Jim is anxious”, “Mary Ann is Compulsive”, or “Vicki is Schizophrenic”.

Although the goal of the DSM-IV-TR system is to give mental disorders particular diagnostic labels, once psychiatrists level someone, the label itself has an impact on generating negative stereotype. In turn, the negative stereotype results in adverse social and political effects. The effects may range from biasing how others perceive to how they respond to labeled person.

Evaluation of Different Mental Disorders by the use of the Global Assessment of functioning

Evaluation of Different Mental Disorders by the use of the Global Assessment of Functioning

According to Sadock, Kaplan, Sadock, and Ruiz (2011) the Global Assessment of Functioning is a unique scale with more relation to Axes IV of the DSM-IV-TR uniform technique. The level involves assigning of numbers to different mental disorders in respect to the psychiatric diagnosis, classification, control treatment and prevention of various disorders. The scale ranges from 0-10 to 90-100 intervals. Normally, many psychiatric patients have more than one mental disorder.

The GAF scale puts into consideration the social, psychological, and the occupational functioning of a patient after assessing his or her mental status (Sadock, Kaplan, Sadock, and Ruiz, 2011). After- words the scale considers the assessment on a hypothetical continuum of mental health illnesses. However, the GAF scale does not include the impairments in functioning due to patients physical and environmental limitations.

Antisocial personality disorder

According to Sadock, Kaplan and Sadock (2007) the antisocial personality disorder falls under axes II of the GAF scale and the DSM-IV-TR uniform system of classification. Axes II comprises of disorders such as mental retardation and shows the habitual use of a particular defense mechanism (Rotgers and Maniacci (2006). Nonetheless, the DSM-IV-TR system ascertains that changes in antisocial personality disorder may be more predictive of recidivism in settings such as prisons where criminal acts are likely to be nonspecific. Specifically features such as lack of empathy, inflated lasted self-appraisal and superficial charm are common in prison settings.

Furthermore, Sperry (2013) ascertains that the history of conduct disorder in childhood is often present in adults diagnosed with the disease. Accordingly, efficient efforts targeting early identification of the disease during early developmental stages results in curbing it from progressing into adulthood. The overall prevalence of the illness is about 3 percent of men and 1 percent of women. However, the prevalence rate varies in clinical settings from 3 percent to 30 percent. Higher rates are more associated with prisons, forensic settings and substance abuse treatment programs.

Borderline intellectual functioning

Borderline intellectual functioning is a form of personality disorder that are pervasive and deeply ingrained patterns of behavior and inner experience that may result in impaired functioning. Such disorders typically develop by late adolescence or early adulthood, to become stable over time. Their characteristics include poor social skills, impulse control difficulties, and distress in most or all areas of life. Borderline intellectual functioning patients tend to engage in self-destructive behaviors, unstable relationships and exhibit low self-esteem.

In Acton (2012) chronicles that the Global Assessment of Functioning also referred to as Axis IV classifies borderline intellectual functioning under Axis II alongside mental retardation. The disorder has some characteristics such as nature of dramatic, emotional and erratic behaviors. The GAF scale puts Borderline Intellectual Functioning within a range of 71 to 84 Intelligence Quotient (IQ) level. It is, therefore,