1,720,972 research outputs found

    Psychosomatic approach to patients with headache: alternative or integrated diagnoses?

    No full text
    Each person has an inseparable body-mind unity, with psychic factors that can also manifest themselves through changes in the functions of the body, and with changing somatic states that contribute to mental experience. This explains why somatic symptoms fall within psychiatry. When a patient complains about physical symptoms, it is essentially an integrated, multidisciplinary diagnosis which is used to identify the various factors (biological and psychological) which worsen the disorder, and a psychiatric dimensional approach is used to integrate the descriptive symptomatic diagnosis with the psychostructural diagnosis. The same symptoms, in fact, may underlie different psychological dynamics that direct the treatment and determine the prognosis, as explained in three clinical cases that we described. The literature on headaches reports a high rate of co-morbidity between migraines and psychiatric disorders, but doesn't take into account the fact that often the symptom of headache is part of the disorder, even when it presents on its own. In conclusion, a holistic approach is needed for the patient to be diagnosed as having a "psychiatric" form of headache. A medical examination of the illness leading to a diagnoses is essential, according to the criteria of the International Classification of Headache Disease (ICHD-II). In clinical practice, we have integrated the descriptive diagnosis (ICHD-II mini-Plus) with the psychological (Diagnostic Criteria of Psychosomatic Research - DCPR) and psycho-structural (Kenberg's interview, Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory - MMPI) diagnoses. The clarification of the dynamics underlying the definition of symptoms and the role played by psychological factors has influenced the identification of therapeutic objectives and in the identification of the most appropriate strategies

    Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis

    Full text link
    The present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
    corecore