Editorial: Developmental transitions to psychopathology: from genomics and epigenomics to social policy.
Editorial: Developmental transitions to psychopathology: from genomics and epigenomics to social policy.
复制标题
社论：向精神病理学的发展转变：从基因组学和表观基因组学到社会政策。
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2010
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
M. Yazgan
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Leckman;M. Yazgan
儿童期发作的精神、行为和发育障碍是一个主要的公共卫生问题（WHO，2005）。根据国家科摩罗调查重复研究，大约一半的美国人在他们一生中的某个时候会符合DSM-IV障碍的标准，首次发作通常在儿童期或青春期（Kessler et al.，2005年）。冲动控制障碍和焦虑障碍的发病年龄中位数为11岁。很可能大多数精神、行为和发育障碍开始于儿童和青春期。然而，年轻人的心理健康需求往往得不到满足，即使在高收入国家也是如此（Leckman & Leventhal，2008年;儿童基金会，2007年）。鉴于与精神障碍相关的耻辱以及训练有素的专业人员数量少，迫切需要制定有效的干预措施，旨在预防或早期治疗，并可由初级卫生保健机构的非专业卫生工作者实施（国家研究理事会和医学研究所，2009年）。这个年度回顾的重点是前驱期研究的重要性和现状。由于诊断标准的各种重新表述被认为是DSM-V和ICD-11审议的一部分，因此迫切需要强调有助于出现完整综合征的发育和维度过程的重要性（Hudziak，Achenbach，Althoff，& Pine，2007; Pine et al.，2010; Regier等人，（2009）; Shaffer，Fischer，& Burke，2010）.例如，了解如何最好地识别和干预精神分裂症临床高风险个体是一个历史悠久、日益成熟和复杂的领域（Correll、豪瑟、Auther和Cornblatt，出版中）。对于其他疾病，如儿童期发作的重度抑郁症，在未来几年内将取得重大进展（Kovacs & Lopez-Duran，出版中）。对于其他疾病，包括儿童发作的双相情感障碍，尽管取得了重大进展和潜力，但开发有效的早期干预措施的进展才刚刚开始（吕比和Navsaria，出版中）。最后，对于物质使用障碍，但实际上对于所有障碍，问题出现了：在缺乏对障碍背后的发育病理生理学的准确理解的情况下，是否可能定义前驱症状（Costello & Angold，出版中; NAMHC神经发育工作组，2008）？在这一研究领域存在大量问题。什么是前驱症状？疾病特异性前驱症状的特征是否有可能为早期发现和干预提供有用的诊断学？前驱症状甚至可以被前瞻性地识别吗（Eaton，Badawi，& Melton，1995）？一种亚临床形式的疾病与前驱症状的概念有什么关系？在多大程度上，我们需要将儿童和青少年精神障碍（CAMD）分类为离散的、可靠识别的诊断实体，这给这一领域的研究带来了困难？目前的努力，使疾病分类系统更发展和维度是有用的，在定义前驱状态？“遗传和环境风险因素”和可遗传的“内表型”与前列腺增生症有何关系？在取得重大进展之前，我们还需要了解维斯具体的疾病，或者更具体地说，重叠的疾病组？尽管存在这些问题，但某些主题和观点在本期中反复出现。也许最重要的是，孩子的遗传禀赋、产前环境、气质倾向、早期养育、同伴关系以及更大的社会和代际环境如何塑造和塑造孩子的行为以及发育过程中的相关神经通路。Tremblay在探索破坏性行为问题的起源时触及了这些问题中的每一个，提醒我们攻击行为对我们物种的进化价值，以及大多数人类身体攻击的峰值频率是“2到4岁之间的某个地方”。他还指出了基因和儿童早期生活环境的其他特征的至关重要性：“母亲特征-生活方式-心理健康，家庭特征，母亲养育和儿童儿童心理学和精神病学杂志51：4（2010），第333-340页doi：10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02226.x。
Mental, behavioral, and developmental disorders with childhood onset are a major public-health concern (WHO,2005).Basedon theNationalComorbidity Survey Replication study, about half of all Americans will meet the criteria for a DSM-IV disorder sometime in their life, with first onset usually in childhood or adolescence (Kessler et al., 2005). Impulse control and anxiety disorders lead the way with a median age of onset of 11 years of age. It is likely that amajority of mental, behavioral, and developmental disorders begin in childhood and adolescence. Yet the mental health needs in young people are often unmet, even in high-income countries (Leckman & Leventhal, 2008; UNICEF, 2007). Given the stigma associated with mental disorder and the small numbers of trained professionals, there is an urgent need to develop efficacious interventions aimed at prevention or early treatment that can be implemented by non-specialist health workers in primary health care settings (National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 2009). The focus of this annual review issue is the importance and the current status of prodromal research. As various reformulations of diagnostic criteria are being considered as part of theDSM-Vand ICD-11 deliberations, there is an urgent need to highlight the importance of developmental and dimensional processes that contribute to the emergence of full syndromes (Hudziak, Achenbach, Althoff, & Pine, 2007; Pine et al., 2010; Regier et al., (2009); Shaffer, Fischer, & Burke, 2010). Understanding how best to identify and intervene with individuals at clinical high risk for schizophrenia, for example, is an area with a long history, increasing maturity and sophistication (Correll, Hauser, Auther, and Cornblatt, in press). For other disorders, such as pediatric-onset major depression, the stage is set for a major advance in the years to come (Kovacs & Lopez-Duran, in press). For other conditions, including pediatric-onset bipolar disorder, despite significant progress and potential, progress towards developing efficacious early interventions has just begun (Luby & Navsaria, in press). Finally, for substance use disorders, but indeed for all disorders, the question arises: Is defining a prodrome even possible in the absence of an accurate understanding of developmental pathophysiology underlying the disorder (Costello & Angold, in press; NAMHC Workgroup on Neurodevelopment, 2008)? Questions abound in this area of research. What is a prodrome? Does the characterization of a disorderspecific prodrome have the potential to provide useful heuristics for early detection and intervention? Can a prodrome even be identified prospectively (Eaton, Badawi, & Melton, 1995)? How does a subclinical form of a disorder relate to the concept of prodrome? To what extent does our need to sort child and adolescent mental disorders (CAMDs) into discrete, reliably identified diagnostic entities create difficulties for this area of research? Will current efforts to make nosological systems more developmental and dimensional be useful in defining prodromal states? How do ‘genetic and environmental risk factors’ and heritable ‘endophenotypes’ relate to prodromes? What more do we need to know vis-à-vis specific disorders, or more especially, overlapping groups of disorders, before significant progress can be made? Despite these questions, certain themes and perspectives recur throughout this issue. Perhaps most prominently, how the child’s genetic endowment, prenatal environment, temperamental predisposition, early parenting, peer relationships, and larger social and intergenerational environments shape and mold the child’s behavior and the relevant neural pathways over the course of development. Tremblay (in press) touches on each of these issues as he explores the origins of disruptive behavior problems, reminding us of the evolutionary value of aggressive behavior for our species and that the peak frequency of physical aggression for most humans is ‘somewhere between 2 and 4 years of age.’ He also points to the critical importance of genes and other features of the child’s early life circumstances: ‘maternal characteristics – lifestyle – mental health, family characteristics, maternal parenting and child Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 51:4 (2010), pp 333–340 doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02226.x
登录
查看更多内容
DOI：
10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02235.x
发表时间：
2010-04
期刊：
Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines
影响因子：
--
作者：
Correll CU;Hauser M;Auther AM;Cornblatt BA
通讯作者：
Cornblatt BA
影响因子：
120.7
作者：
Correll, Christoph U.;Manu, Peter;Olshanskiy, Vladimir;Napolitano, Barbara;Kane, John M.;Malhotra, Anil K.
通讯作者：
Malhotra, Anil K.
影响因子：
5.9
作者：
Stice, Eric;Shaw, Heather;Bohon, Cara;Marti, C. Nathan;Rohde, Paul
通讯作者：
Rohde, Paul
2至4岁自闭症儿童杏仁核体积和联合注意力的纵向研究。
影响因子：
--
作者：
Mosconi, Matthew W.;Cody-Hazlett, Heather;Poe, Michele D.;Gerig, Guido;Gimpel-Smith, Rachel;Piven, Joseph
通讯作者：
Piven, Joseph
DOI：
10.1176/ajp.152.7.967
发表时间：
1995-07
期刊：
The American journal of psychiatry
影响因子：
--
作者：
W. Eaton;M. Badawi;Beth Melton
通讯作者：
W. Eaton;M. Badawi;Beth Melton