Talk:Child and adolescent psychiatry

POV

 * I moved this comment that was posted to the main article. Chupper 03:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

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)
 * Considering its unreferenced, I've removed the criticisms section. Chupper 03:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Censorship
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)

Response
Birchmore - a few things. Thanks. Chupper 16:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) This isn't censorship - it's the fact that it is unreferenced.  Unreferenced information can be removed at any time.  That and the fact that Wikipedia frowns upon "criticism" sections are the reasons it was removed.  However I've thrown up tags instead of just removing the content again.  When working with editors, please assume good faith.  I'm not here to censor you and I'm not out here to get you ;).
 * 2) Please stop reinserting the comment made by the user with the IP "68.175.59.81". He/she was making a comment about the article, not improving the article.  As you should be able to see above, I've moved that comment here.
 * 3) Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by using " ~ ".
 * Oh, one more thing. Nearly 40% of this article's text is in the "Criticisms" section.  We have to keep the article NPOV by keeping it balanced.  Beyond adding references to the criticisms section, it would be helpful if you could add in information about the profession, why its a subspecialty of psychiatry, etc.  Chupper 17:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Response
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)


 * Hey, no problem - glad I could help. For references its real simple.  When you want a specific sentence referenced, just type --> (I was using APA style there).  Make sure you add the ref tags in after any punctuation.  If you are adding a controversial content, I'd recommend tagging every sentence.  It can also be good to use several references for one sentence, especially if its very controversial.  I've noticed for the general references you've included several works from the author "Sami Timimi".  I know when I try to write an article I try to use a wide variety of references.  If you can include any others, that would be great.


 * If you need more info on how to use inline cites/footnotes, visit Footnotes. I'll add in the reflist template so you can get right to work on it. Chupper 20:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * And I forgot to mention this - when you put the ref tag up at the sentence you are referencing - it will add a footnote style superscript number after the sentence. A live list can then be accessed via the bottom of the page, usually in a "Notes" section.  Take a look at Emergency psychiatry - that's an article I've written which uses ref tags. Chupper 20:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy
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)
 * Wow, lots of references! Very cool.
 * Alright, the dispute tag is up because both I & the editor above ("POV" section) don't agree with the the focus of the paragraph, the way it is right now. Take a look at this - :Traditional deficit and disease models of child psychiatry have been criticised as rooted in the medical model which conceptualises adjustment problems in terms of disease states. That is, they explicitly characterise problematic behavior as representing a disorder within the child or young person. It has become increasingly apparent, since the early 1990s, that the role of environmental influences on behaviour has become increasingly neglected, leading to a decrease in popularity of, for example, family therapy.
 * It implies that mental health professionals only use a medical model, or phrased in a better way, only see these problems as biological. This is wrong.
 * It has been increasingly apparent that social factors are ignored during a diagnosis? Who is that apparent to?  Where is this apparent?
 * Take a look at the sentence I just wrote for the psychiatry article I'm rewriting -
 * A psychiatric diagnosis utilizes a differential diagnosis procedure where mental status examinations and physical examinations are conducted, pathological, psychopathological and psychosocial histories obtained, neuroimages or other neurophysiological measurements are taken, and personality tests or cognitive tests may be administered.       In addition psychiatrists are beginning to utilize genetics during the diagnostic process.  Some endophenotypes being researched may predispose certain individuals to certain conditions.  
 * There are a wide variety of things looked at during a diagnosis, and psychosocial histories are one of them. I think the bottom line is both the other user and I don't agree with the implications of the paragraph.  Not to mention we still have nothing, beyond a history and criticism, written about the actual subspecialty.  Maybe it would be better if these points were brought up following a statement on when child psychs take psychosocial histories?  (Take a look - Words to avoid.  Good text though, it should be integrated into the article, whenever it gets written and whenever the incorrect stuff gets removed.  I can see how psychosocial considerations could be ignored, but we need to say this in an NPOV and factual way. Chupper 14:00, 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


 * Someone, somewhere, said that it is the easiest thing in the world to criticise and destroy, the difficult task is to create and build.
 * I guess all my other work on Wikipedia has been of no value.
 * you are claiming that yours is dominant and superior and should drown out other perspectives.
 * I don't remember saying that... Weren't we having a discussion about how to improve the article?
 * 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.
 * Great information! But the article is unbalanced!  That is all I'm saying.


 * Shes all yours, Chupper 23:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Work to be done
This article seems to need quite a lot of work. I would suggest the priorities are:

--Anonymaus (talk) 23:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fix the referencing - they need to be changed to in-line citations in the Vancouver style.
 * Find citations for much of the text (I've started putting in tags).
 * Expand the "Practice" section. This can include a description of the main interventions and therapeutic approaches.
 * Write something about the scope of child and adolescent psychiatry, including an outline of the disorders seen within C&A psychiatric practice, with links to the main articles on each disorder.
 * Theoretical foundations: with subheadings including child psychology, neurodevelopment, psychoanalysis, family systems, attachment theory, trauma theory
 * The Psychiatry article, although far from perfect, gives some pointers as to what could be included here.

Overprescription

 * 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)

Add blurb about electronic youth psychiatric assessments in schools
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. 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. Following screening with Check Yourself, interventions may include referral to a child psychiatrist for further assessment.

Paprika 22:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Merge proposal
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)
 * Hello . Actually although the content is similar I think these are about different topics and both I think are quite notable and broad. One is about psychiatry (the medical speciality) and I think the other is about mental disorders in children. Following the naming of other articles, how about a move to Mental health in children? (Mental health) or Mental disorders affecting children (following mental disorder)? We can both work on it together once it's moved. Tom (LT) (talk) 04:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , you have a good point about that being a potential difference - a small rotation in perspective (I didn't realise because I have personally also used CAP to refer to mental disorders in children). Problem is, we appear to already have Mental disorders diagnosed in childhood. There is also pediatric psychology but that appears to describe a field, and Epidemiology of child psychiatric disorders, which is a strange thing to have given there is no article "Child psychiatric disorders" (it redirects to the epidemiology article). So, perhaps a complex multi-part merge? --Xurizuri (talk) 08:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait... I've done some more thinking. Given that both the DSM and ICD have shed their childhood disorders category, in favour of putting the childhood "versions" of disorders into the category with the adulthood "versions", an article on paediatric conditions may have a very vague scope. It may be unwise to settle on a name before there is any specific scope set. While trying to find any articles with related naming for my previous comment, I noticed there was no article about youth mental health, despite it being a very important space - one, because young people are more susceptible, and two, because almost everyone that experiences psychiatric disorders will have had some experience of mental illness before they were 25. It may at this point be a good idea to continue this conversation at the child psychopathology article. I'm going to close this merge proposal. --Xurizuri (talk) 09:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

"Medication of children" listed at Redirects for discussion
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 Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 18 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. MB 06:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)