Medicine and Health Sciences Commons^™

Should ‘Risk Syndrome Of Psychosis’ Be Included In Dsm V As A Diagnosis? A Road Towards Preventive Psychiatry”, Amresh Srivastava

Amresh Srivastava

Psychiatric diagnosis has acquired a position of a quasi-legal document for mental health services and agencies working with mental health. Its utility has gone far beyond ‘clinical diagnosis for treatment’.

The concept of risk syndrome for schizophrenia has been thoroughly researched in last ten years or so. Significant advancement has been made in phenomenology, diagnostic criteria, classification, & neurobiology. The research of prodromal or at-risk or Ultra high-risk psychosis has significantly contributed to the body of knowledge of aetio-pathogenesis of schizophrenia.

The science of risk syndrome has apparently matured and its proponents are ready for its inclusion in DSM V …

Outcome, Early Intervention & Dup: The Matrix Of Research In Early Psychosis, Amresh Srivastava, Megan Johnston

Amresh Srivastava

There has been little investigation of the relationship of DUP to other long-term outcomes such as negative symptoms and cognitive functioning neither have the possible confounds of DUP been widely investigated or controlled. It is important that there should be more thorough investigations of DUP, its correlates, and the extent to which it does mediate any advantages of earlier intervention. Shorter duration of untreated psychosis was associated with greater response to antipsychotic treatment, as measured by severity of global psychopathology, positive symptoms, negative symptoms, and functional outcomes. At the time of treatment initiation, duration of initially untreated psychosis was associated …

Integrating Social & Clinical Parameters In Outcome Measures Of Schizophrenia: Clinician’S Perspective., Amresh Srivastava, Nilesh Shah, Yves Bureau

Amresh Srivastava

Schizophrenia is a complex neurobehavioral disorder for which there are many promising new treatments. There is, however, a discrepancy in outcome measure reports when they are obtained from patients, relatives, caregivers, or professionals, thus making it difficult to determine the level of recovery. The reason for this lack of agreement may be due to the limitations of the measurement tools themselves, which are not comprehensive and may be measuring different aspects of outcome. Alternatively, it could be that the conceptual understanding of outcome and recovery require development. Unfortunately for one of the above reasons or both, patients assessed as “recovered” …