Implications of Diagnostic Labels in Clinical Psychology (Research Paper Sample)

Diagnosis Labels and Clinical Psychology
[Student’s Name]
[Institutional Affiliation]
Diagnosis Labels and Clinical Psychology
Introduction
Diagnostic labels refer to a simple method of classification where a conglomerate of behaviours as well as symptoms into discrete groups to facilitate communication professionals in the healthcare environment. Whenever complications occur, especially in children, psychiatrists, therapists and educators try as much as possible to attach designated labels that aid in the description of the difficulties that the patient or subject is experiencing (Miller-Spoto & Gombatto, 2014). Arguments and contentious debates among professional psychologists, lobbyists and even the scholars continue to occupy the most space in the media on the implications the diagnostic labels on clinical practice (Lerner & Lerner, 2007). From a superficial view the word diagnostic label may seem easy, it involves a whole lot of various steps that need mastery of the necessary skills. Diagnostic labels have received cognition among the clinicians on depression and anxiety disorders (Miller-Spoto & Gombatto, 2014). Even so, there are pros and cons when it comes to the application of diagnostic labels. Labelling is used both for treatment and research purposes in the healthcare settings (Lerner & Lerner, 2007). A practising clinical psychologist needs to be conversant with the implications of diagnostic labels on their practice and the potential problems that are likely to arise, they use them in clinical disorders such as depression and or anxiety.
Implications of Diagnostic Labels in Clinical Psychology
As earlier mentioned Diagnostic labels allow health professionals (researchers and clinicians) in making an assumption that all the members of a designated cohort have a homogenous illness (Garand, Lingler, Conner & Dew, 2009). The assumption arises despite the variability in the manner in which the symptoms present themselves as well as the circumstances around the onset of the condition (Garand, Lingler, Conner & Dew, 2009). These diagnostic labels distinguish the distinct patient groups through setting definite boundaries (Garand, Lingler, Conner & Dew, 2009). The first key objective of the labels is to provide the clinicians with a lump sum amount of information (Garand, Lingler, Conner & Dew, 2009). Through the use of labelling, clinicians can summarize and order their observations on a condition are making it easy to communicate with the third parties to the patients (Mash & Wolfe, 2010). Lastly, diagnostic labels also offer the clinicians a chance to have access to detailed information about undergoing research, epidemiology and interventions to specific disorders (Mash & Wolfe, 2010).
Problems when Assigning Clinical Labels to Clinical Disorders
Diagnostic labels also have their drawback in that they have some association with stereotyping and stigmatization (Garand, Lingler, Conner & Dew, 2009). Secondly, the labels are also a convenient means for the description of the patients through the presentation of the symptoms and may imply the expected direction the prognosis and course the condition would take (Garand, Lingler, Conner & Dew, 2009). Last but not least, diagnostic labels offer suggestions on the Etiology and may be a great point towards the determination of the best interventions that may ameliorate the outcomes of the condition in question (Garand, Lingler, Conner & Dew, 2009). When using diagnostic labels, the diagnosis rather than the individual surpasses the view of the professionals. In this sense, the diagnostic label may negatively define a patient by laying focus on an obvious problem and masking all the positive characteristics the individual in question may be portraying (Greenspan, 2015). Put simply, professionals and lay people tend to be selective in attending to information confirming a label while at the same time neglecting other information, however, useful it may be in the diagnosis. For example, when referring to children’s and adolescent’s parents as well as teachers only attend to the specific times when the child acts restlessly overlooking when the ADHD child is calm (Greenspan, 2015).
For learning behaviour, diagnostic labelling can be categorical in nature, thus exacerbating chances of firm diagnosis. In this case, an individual is precisely placed as having a given disorder based on the decisions on the criterion threshold that as a precise diagnosis holds (Greenspan, 2015). Such approach is ambiguous, especially when there is an overlap such that the problems run along a continuum such as varying degrees of severity (Greenspan, 2015). Diagnostic labels also have a direct link with self-fulfilling prophecies as well as stigmatization (Greenspan, 2015). A major debate within the professional and public domains seeks to clarify the connection there is between diagnostic labels and stigma in mentally ill patients. Diagnostic labels don't only change the perceptions of the society on a given mental condition, but also modify the reputation of those suffering from the disorder (Goldberg, 2010). For instance, a teacher may fail to challenge a student who has a learning disability making them unable to perform well in school and affirmation of diagnostic labelling (Greenspan, 2015). The individuals with diagnostic labelling always receive negative actions that make them feel stereotyped and thus stigmatized.
It is obvious that diagnostic labelling often misleads the experts in understanding the cause of the conditions. For example, some behaviours that profile one as ADHD or LD patient may come from other factors, not associated factors other than the ones guiding the process of labelling (Greenspan, 2015; Goldberg, 2010). Lastly, basing treatments on diagnostic labels may be lethal to the patient, especially where the prescription involves medications that have unpleasant side effects. For examples, the treatment of ADHD incorporates stimulants that may cause suppressed growth, insomnia and loss of appetite (Greenspan, 2015). To its worst the above move might lead to drug addiction and propelling the patients to fake symptoms to have access to the medications (Goldberg, 2010).
Anxiety Disorders and Problems with Diagnostic Labels
Anxiety disorder falls among the most clinically significant mental health conditions that despite being less visible than other mental disorders has a disabling capability (Simon & Zieve, 2013). Anxiety disorder involves the extreme state of arousal that that emanates from feelings of uncertainty, apprehension or some extent fear (Simon & Zieve, 2013). External danger or threats may trigger anxiety, thus paralyse an individual into withdrawal (Simon & Zieve, 2013). Beesdo, Knappe & Pine (2009) opine that anxiety disorders rate among the emerging conditions that closely associate to psychological, developmental, and psychopathological difficulties.
Research profiles anxiety disorders into different types such as generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) and Phobias (Goldberg, 2010). Others include Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PSTD) Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD) and panic disorder as well as separation anxiety disorder that is common in children (Simon & Zieve, 2013; Drotar, 2013; Simon & Zieve, 2013). GAD is the most common form of anxiety disorders that is characterized by gastrointestinal complications (Simon & Zieve, 2013; Garfinkle & Behar, 2012). GAD patients display too much worry about every encounter and feeling they have that something bad is likely to happen for a period not less than six months (Plotnik & Kouyoumdjian, 2011; Garfinkle & Behar, 2012). Panic disorder, on the other hand, is attributed to episodes of panic attacks that last quarter to half an hour and apnoea (Plotnik & Kouyoumdjian, 2011; Simon & Zieve, 2013). Phobic disorders, on the other hand, is manifested through irrational and overwhelming fear of particular situations.
Social anxiety disorder or social phobia manifests itself in the patient being too cautious and self-conscious about nearly every social situation that they engage in their lives (Bystritsky, Khalsa & Schiffman, 2013). The fear of being judged by others exacerbates social phobia. An example of phobias is agoraphobia that is the fear of open areas or open zones displayed through being shy of crowds (Bystritsky, Khalsa & Schiffman, 2013; Simon & Zieve, 2013). Situational factors play an integral role in eliciting specific phobias as the individual interacts with different scenarios at a given time in life. Obsessive-Compulsive disorder is also an anxiety disorder where obsessions that are unwarranted for are displayed alongside compulsions (Drotar, 2013). Obsessions are just mental pictures while compulsive behaviours or repetitive routines meant to present an obsession (Simon & Zieve, 2013). The symptoms of OCD are often mistaken in children, and it is comorbid with anorexia nervosa, hypochondriasis and body dysmorphic disorders among others (Bystritsky, Khalsa & Schiffman, 2013). Separation disorder is prevalent in children as a result of separation from their family members, siblings or home. Lastly, post-traumatic stress disorder is the most severe of the anxiety disorders and occurs as a persistent emotional reaction following a traumatic event that have impairing capabilities on an individual (Simon & Zieve, 2013). Such patients suffer avoidance and increased arousal. When PTSD is acute, it occurs 2-4 weeks after the event. It is noteworthy that genetics, psychology and the environment all have hand in anxiety disorders.
There are various interventions of anxiety disorders (Bystritsky, Khalsa & Schiffman, 2013). The interventions include prevention, treatment, and management st...