This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is inaccurate to say that psychiatrists don't take into account enviromental or social aspects in understanding behavior problems in children and adolescents. It is also inaccurate to say that child/adol psychiatrists only use the medical approach. The criticism parragraph is inaccurate. The board certification process ensures that child psychiatrists use a bio-psycho-social approach to understanding and treating ALL of the child and adolsecent psychiatric diagnosis. In addition, the diagnostic criteria used is consistent with the DSM-IV-TR which unifies most views in order to do research. I completely disagree with the view expressed in that paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.59.81 ( talk) 00:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
It is censorship to remove text just because you don't agree with it without discussion.
In fact, the problemns of reliability and validity of psychiatric diagnosis are acknowledged within the profession and supported by research evidence - most of this focused on adults but the research with children shows that these problems are even greater.
I don't have time, over the next two weeks, to provide references, but I certainly will do this.
The position that paragraph takes is one supported by significant members of the psychiatric profession in Britain - Sami Timimi for example, also members of the academic community and the critical psychiatry adherents.
Please put the text back, cease your censorship, and engage in a proper discussion - I won't be able to do this, though, for the next two weeks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Birchmore ( talk • contribs) 06:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I have replaced the original text with the addition of references and links to web pages that substantiate these claims. I will provide brief summaries of these references as I go on. I intend to add more references and also links to other pages on the Wikipedia site.
Any further discussion of these issues must be limited to debate about the issues rather than censoring perspectives on this issue. It is well recognised that, within the psychiatric profession, there are legitimate disagreements about these issues - but there is no reason to censor one position or one voice. Please use the civilized method of discussion and debate - not censorship or removal of one perspective because it does not fit into your own world view. This is not legitimate.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Birchmore ( talk • contribs) 07:11, 29 September 2007
Birchmore - a few things.
Thanks. Chupper 16:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, thank you.
How do I directly link the information in the text with the references. So, for example "Elephants have four legs" with the reference "Meta-Analytic Study of the Locomotive Prospects of Bovine Species. J. Elephant Studies. 5, 124-243". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Birchmore ( talk • contribs) 20:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, I will investigate as I go on and add the appropriate tags.
Just one issue: you dispute the accuracy of the criticisms section - but I am not saying that the criticisms are true or valid - only that there have been increasing criticisms linked to the increased reliance on diagnostic systems over the years, the growth of diagnoses of ADHD, autism, etc. This statement is correct - there have been increasing criticisms and the publications cited and the weblinks are evidence of this. Could you, then, remove the questionable accuracy tag? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Birchmore ( talk • contribs) 07:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Chupper, I don't dispute that child psychiatrists take social histories but the point is how they are used - and in the UK the predominant trend has been one of increased medicalization of childhood emotional problems and a focus on the child as the locus of pathology rather than, as in systemic theory, viewing the "identified problem" as a node within a disturbed network. See Timimi and other for further information about the "medicalisation of childhood" over the past 20 years.
I think we are using different languages and suppositions but you are claiming that yours is dominant and superior and should drown out other perspectives.
You should know that I have written the whole of this article: every word, link, reference, both in line with the medical model and from another perspective. I have tried to be inclusive and to write about every perspective. Your intervention has caused me to add more material along one viewpoint. I intend to add more from the dominant medical model perspective. I would not want Wikipedia to priviledge either viewpoint.
In contrast, you have only criticised and censored. You have not added one word to this article or contributed in any positive way.
Someone, somewhere, said that it is the easiest thing in the world to criticise and destroy, the difficult task is to create and build.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Birchmore ( talk • contribs) 16:38, 14 October 2007
References
This article seems to need quite a lot of work. I would suggest the priorities are:
-- Anonymaus ( talk) 23:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
The references below have been moved here from the article, because they didnt link directly with the text or because they were incomplete. You are welcome to return references to the article but please use the inline referencing system (i.e. <ref>Insert footnote text here</ref>. You might find these templates useful:
You are also welcome to add useful references to this list, for future use.
Thanks -- Anonymaus ( talk) 22:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
References
Johnfos: The outcome of the story that you keep linking as an example of overprescription was that the parents were convicted of murder by intentionally administering an overdose of medications. They tried to claim it was accident, hence some initial reports about overprescription, but in the end, it was found to be murder. —PermStrump (talk) 21:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
I am hoping to add a section about psychosocial assessments in youth behavioural health. For instance, the digital Check Yourself assessment is being used in schools and clinics to help screen for mental health issues in youth and direct them to the counseling services they need. Such initiatives have been very successful. Check Yourself is also validated by research: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2733175. Can we publish this?
Child and adolescent psychiatry - Assessment
In order to identify at-risk youth and direct them to psychiatric services, many schools have implemented universal mental health screening for their students. For instance, schools in King County, Washington are using the Check Yourself digital screening tool, designed by Seattle Children’s Hospital, to measure, understand, and nurture individual students’ well-being. [1] This tool collects information about lifestyle, behaviour, and social determinants of health to identify at-risk youth so that school counselors can intervene and direct them to the services they need. [2] Following screening with Check Yourself, interventions may include referral to a child psychiatrist for further assessment.
Paprika 22:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
References
I propose that Child psychopathology be merged into Child and adolescent psychiatry. They literally refer to the exact same topic. CAP is my proposed destination because its the most widely used term for this field (I've heard the phrase childhood psychopathology and psychopathology in/of children, but never child psychopathology). -- Xurizuri ( talk) 08:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Medication of children and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 18#Medication of children until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. MB 06:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is inaccurate to say that psychiatrists don't take into account enviromental or social aspects in understanding behavior problems in children and adolescents. It is also inaccurate to say that child/adol psychiatrists only use the medical approach. The criticism parragraph is inaccurate. The board certification process ensures that child psychiatrists use a bio-psycho-social approach to understanding and treating ALL of the child and adolsecent psychiatric diagnosis. In addition, the diagnostic criteria used is consistent with the DSM-IV-TR which unifies most views in order to do research. I completely disagree with the view expressed in that paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.59.81 ( talk) 00:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
It is censorship to remove text just because you don't agree with it without discussion.
In fact, the problemns of reliability and validity of psychiatric diagnosis are acknowledged within the profession and supported by research evidence - most of this focused on adults but the research with children shows that these problems are even greater.
I don't have time, over the next two weeks, to provide references, but I certainly will do this.
The position that paragraph takes is one supported by significant members of the psychiatric profession in Britain - Sami Timimi for example, also members of the academic community and the critical psychiatry adherents.
Please put the text back, cease your censorship, and engage in a proper discussion - I won't be able to do this, though, for the next two weeks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Birchmore ( talk • contribs) 06:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I have replaced the original text with the addition of references and links to web pages that substantiate these claims. I will provide brief summaries of these references as I go on. I intend to add more references and also links to other pages on the Wikipedia site.
Any further discussion of these issues must be limited to debate about the issues rather than censoring perspectives on this issue. It is well recognised that, within the psychiatric profession, there are legitimate disagreements about these issues - but there is no reason to censor one position or one voice. Please use the civilized method of discussion and debate - not censorship or removal of one perspective because it does not fit into your own world view. This is not legitimate.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Birchmore ( talk • contribs) 07:11, 29 September 2007
Birchmore - a few things.
Thanks. Chupper 16:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, thank you.
How do I directly link the information in the text with the references. So, for example "Elephants have four legs" with the reference "Meta-Analytic Study of the Locomotive Prospects of Bovine Species. J. Elephant Studies. 5, 124-243". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Birchmore ( talk • contribs) 20:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, I will investigate as I go on and add the appropriate tags.
Just one issue: you dispute the accuracy of the criticisms section - but I am not saying that the criticisms are true or valid - only that there have been increasing criticisms linked to the increased reliance on diagnostic systems over the years, the growth of diagnoses of ADHD, autism, etc. This statement is correct - there have been increasing criticisms and the publications cited and the weblinks are evidence of this. Could you, then, remove the questionable accuracy tag? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Birchmore ( talk • contribs) 07:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Chupper, I don't dispute that child psychiatrists take social histories but the point is how they are used - and in the UK the predominant trend has been one of increased medicalization of childhood emotional problems and a focus on the child as the locus of pathology rather than, as in systemic theory, viewing the "identified problem" as a node within a disturbed network. See Timimi and other for further information about the "medicalisation of childhood" over the past 20 years.
I think we are using different languages and suppositions but you are claiming that yours is dominant and superior and should drown out other perspectives.
You should know that I have written the whole of this article: every word, link, reference, both in line with the medical model and from another perspective. I have tried to be inclusive and to write about every perspective. Your intervention has caused me to add more material along one viewpoint. I intend to add more from the dominant medical model perspective. I would not want Wikipedia to priviledge either viewpoint.
In contrast, you have only criticised and censored. You have not added one word to this article or contributed in any positive way.
Someone, somewhere, said that it is the easiest thing in the world to criticise and destroy, the difficult task is to create and build.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Birchmore ( talk • contribs) 16:38, 14 October 2007
References
This article seems to need quite a lot of work. I would suggest the priorities are:
-- Anonymaus ( talk) 23:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
The references below have been moved here from the article, because they didnt link directly with the text or because they were incomplete. You are welcome to return references to the article but please use the inline referencing system (i.e. <ref>Insert footnote text here</ref>. You might find these templates useful:
You are also welcome to add useful references to this list, for future use.
Thanks -- Anonymaus ( talk) 22:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
References
Johnfos: The outcome of the story that you keep linking as an example of overprescription was that the parents were convicted of murder by intentionally administering an overdose of medications. They tried to claim it was accident, hence some initial reports about overprescription, but in the end, it was found to be murder. —PermStrump (talk) 21:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
I am hoping to add a section about psychosocial assessments in youth behavioural health. For instance, the digital Check Yourself assessment is being used in schools and clinics to help screen for mental health issues in youth and direct them to the counseling services they need. Such initiatives have been very successful. Check Yourself is also validated by research: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2733175. Can we publish this?
Child and adolescent psychiatry - Assessment
In order to identify at-risk youth and direct them to psychiatric services, many schools have implemented universal mental health screening for their students. For instance, schools in King County, Washington are using the Check Yourself digital screening tool, designed by Seattle Children’s Hospital, to measure, understand, and nurture individual students’ well-being. [1] This tool collects information about lifestyle, behaviour, and social determinants of health to identify at-risk youth so that school counselors can intervene and direct them to the services they need. [2] Following screening with Check Yourself, interventions may include referral to a child psychiatrist for further assessment.
Paprika 22:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
References
I propose that Child psychopathology be merged into Child and adolescent psychiatry. They literally refer to the exact same topic. CAP is my proposed destination because its the most widely used term for this field (I've heard the phrase childhood psychopathology and psychopathology in/of children, but never child psychopathology). -- Xurizuri ( talk) 08:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Medication of children and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 18#Medication of children until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. MB 06:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)