Discussion 1: Mental Health Versus Mental Illness Properly P ✓ Solved

Discussion 1: Mental Health versus Mental Illness Properly poised and magnificently coiffed, Michelle entertains the room. After taking one last spoonful of soup, she politely excuses herself from the dinner table and retreats to the bathroom. Uncovering a toothbrush concealed in her purse, she pushes the toothbrush down her throat and gags. With this behavior, Michelle conceals much more than a toothbrush. Patterns of mental illness might be concealed all too well by external variables, such as a successful lifestyle, a well-groomed appearance, or a dynamic personality.

In the field of psychology, mental health and mental illness are conceptualized through various frameworks that influence how clinicians assess, diagnose, and treat individuals. One common approach is the categorical model, which seeks to classify mental disorders based on specific criteria outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). This model emphasizes the presence or absence of discrete mental health conditions, such as depression or anxiety disorders. Conversely, the dimensional approach considers mental health and illness as points on a continuum, recognizing that symptoms can vary in severity and may not fit neatly into distinct categories (Paris, 2015).

Another perspective is the subjective, strength-based view that regards mental health not merely as the absence of illness but as a state of well-being, resilience, and functioning (Davydov et al., 2010). From this standpoint, mental health encompasses positive aspects such as life satisfaction, social connectedness, and emotional regulation, whereas mental illness involves disruptions in these areas. These diverse conceptualizations influence assessment strategies; for example, a clinician employing a categorical approach might focus on whether a patient meets criteria for a disorder, while a resilience-focused assessment might evaluate protective factors that promote well-being despite the presence of symptoms (Payton, 2009).

Implications for assessment and diagnosis

The way mental health and mental illness are conceptualized significantly impacts clinical judgment. First, adopting a categorical approach may lead clinicians to focus predominantly on whether criteria are met for specific diagnoses, potentially overlooking underlying strengths or contextual factors (Paris, 2015). For example, a patient exhibiting some traits of anxiety might be diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder if criteria are met, even if they function well socially and professionally. This approach can risk medicalizing normal variations in human experience (Pierre, 2012).

Alternatively, a dimensional or strength-based approach encourages assessments that consider symptom severity, resilience, and overall functioning. For instance, recognizing that an individual adapts effectively to stress despite exhibiting some symptoms could lead to a diagnosis that emphasizes the need for support rather than pathology. This broader perspective can inform interventions that bolster resilience and adaptive coping strategies, rather than solely targeting symptom reduction (Davydov et al., 2010). In the context of Michelle's case, her outward appearance and social comportment suggest she might conceal internal distress, which underscores the importance of comprehensive assessments that look beyond surface-level behaviors.

In conclusion, the conceptualization of mental health and mental illness in psychology is multifaceted and shapes clinical practice. Whether adopting a categorical, dimensional, or resilience-oriented perspective influences how clinicians assess and diagnose clients, ultimately affecting treatment outcomes. Recognizing the nuanced ways these concepts intersect allows for more accurate, empathetic, and holistic care tailored to individual needs.

References

• Paris, J. (2015). The intelligent clinician’s guide to the DSM-5 (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Davydov, D. M., Stewart, R., Ritchie, K., & Chaudieu, I. (2010). Resilience and mental health. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(5), 479–495.
• Payton, A. R. (2009). Mental health, mental illness, and psychological distress: Same continuum or distinct phenomena? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 50(2), 213–227.
• Pierre, J. M. (2012). Mental illness and mental health: Is the glass half empty or half full? Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 57(11), 651–658.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Understanding the conceptualization of mental health and mental illness is fundamental in psychological practice, influencing assessment methods, diagnostic criteria, and treatment approaches. Broadly, mental health can be viewed through different frameworks, each providing unique insights into human psychological functioning. The most prevalent models include the categorical approach, the dimensional perspective, and the resilience-based view.

The categorical model, primarily represented by the DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), classifies mental disorders into distinct categories based on specific criteria. This approach allows clinicians to identify and diagnose specific conditions such as depression, bipolar disorder, or schizophrenia. Its strength lies in providing clear diagnostic labels that facilitate communication among healthcare providers and guide treatment planning (Paris, 2015). However, it can also oversimplify human experiences by forcing complex and nuanced psychological states into predefined boxes, potentially leading to over-diagnosis or misdiagnosis.

On the other hand, the dimensional approach views mental health and illness as existing on a continuum, emphasizing the variability and overlap of symptoms rather than discrete categories. This perspective recognizes that individuals may experience varying degrees of psychological distress, and subclinical symptoms can significantly impact functioning without fulfilling diagnostic criteria (Davydov et al., 2010). For example, a person may display some anxiety symptoms but not meet criteria for an anxiety disorder, yet still experience impairment. A dimensional framework promotes a more personalized understanding of mental health, accommodating individual differences and emphasizing severity and impairment rather than just presence or absence of a disorder.

The resilience-based conceptualization offers a distinct perspective by focusing on strengths, protective factors, and capacity for growth despite adversity. Resilience refers to the ability to recover, adapt, and maintain well-being in the face of stress or trauma (Bonanno, 2004). From this standpoint, mental health is characterized by thriving and effective functioning, even amidst challenges. This approach shifts the focus from pathology to human strengths, highlighting factors like social support, coping skills, and emotional regulation that foster resilience. Recognizing these factors influences assessment procedures by incorporating evaluations of resilience and protective elements alongside symptom assessment (Davydov et al., 2010).

These varying conceptualizations substantially influence clinical assessment and diagnosis. For example, when using a categorical approach, a clinician might focus primarily on whether specified criteria are met for a disorder, potentially neglecting the individual's strengths or contextual factors. This approach may lead to labeling someone with a mental disorder based solely on their symptoms, even if they function well in daily life. Conversely, a resilience-oriented view encourages clinicians to evaluate positive attributes and coping mechanisms, which may buffer against diagnosis or guide strength-based interventions (Payton, 2009).

Furthermore, these conceptualizations impact treatment planning. A diagnosis driven solely by the categorical model might focus predominantly on symptom alleviation through medication or psychotherapy targeting specific symptoms. Alternatively, a resilience perspective could promote interventions aimed at enhancing protective factors, such as fostering social support or developing coping skills, contributing to overall well-being. In Michelle's case, her outward appearance and behavior suggest concealment of internal struggles; thus, a comprehensive assessment integrating these models can lead to more accurate and empathetic understanding, ultimately guiding effective treatment.

In conclusion, the conceptualization of mental health and mental illness in psychology is multifaceted, each with important implications for assessment and diagnosis. Recognizing the strengths and limitations of each model can enable clinicians to adopt a more nuanced, individualized approach, fostering better treatment outcomes and holistic care.