Influence OF THE Psychological Diagnosis IN Relationships PDF

Preview

Summary

Influence OF THE Psychological Diagnosis IN Relationships...

Description

INFLUENCE OF THE PSYCHOLOGICAL DIAGNOSIS IN RELATIONSHIPS This research addresses the influences of psychological diagnosis on interpersonal relationships and the stigmatization that arises from it. The psychological diagnosis is established in the presence of a certain symptomatology that generates discomfort in the individual and affects its functionality. The interest to carry out this research arises from the question about the impact that this diagnosis can have on the lives of the subjects, the study focuses on the interpersonal and social area and how it is affected, therefore the objective of the Research consists of establishing the influence of psychological diagnosis on interpersonal relationships and the possible social stigmatization caused by the disorder. It is pertinent to the discipline inasmuch as it allows a questioning about the implications of making a diagnosis in the life of an individual and critically evaluating the repercussions that it has on the representation that the subject elaborates before his diagnosis and how it interferes with your social life. Although it is necessary to establish the diagnosis, it is of great importance to consider its consequences and thus generate more appropriate routes of action in search of the well-being of the individual. The research methodology is qualitative with a phenomenological approach, the sample was made up of eight students from the University of Antioquia and the instruments for collecting the information were a semi-structured interview and two focus groups. The study tries to know the meaning that the participants attribute to their diagnosis, to identify the forms of social and family relationship in the previous moments

1

at the diagnosis and in the moments after it, and describe the experience that the participants report on the possible social stigmatization to which they have been exposed after the diagnosis. Regarding investigative work, in the first instance the problem is posed and the theoretical bases under which it will be addressed are established; After the field work, the results are analyzed and discussed in light of the theory to continue with the conclusions obtained from the research. Finally, the recommendations and limitations that arise from conducting the study are discussed.

1. Problem Statement. Mental health, defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as "a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being, and not just the absence of disease or illness" (2004), is directly related to the promotion of well-being , the prevention of mental disorders and their treatment, in addition to the rehabilitation of people affected by such disorders. Undoubtedly, the aspect that becomes more relevant is that of mental disorders, rather than the positive dimension that mental health also contemplates. However, according to the WHO (2004) this is still less considered than physical health. These disorders are defined as behavioral patterns that represent a dysfunctionality in the personal, social and work environment, that is, in everyday life; therefore they are considered clinically significant and are associated with discomfort and even with the appearance or increase of counterproductive behaviors or premature death (Echeburúa, Salaberría and Cruz-Sáez, 2014). These disorders are expressed in the relationship that the individual has with himself, others and his environment, which generates great disability and affects the quality of life. To this extent, the WHO has designed the National Mental Health Survey (ENSM) carried out in twenty-eight countries on all continents in order to identify difficulties in this area and be able to develop local strategies to reduce discomfort and burden. of the disease (Gómez, et.al., 2016). In the specific case of the Colombian population, the ENSM had the following objective general

Obtain updated information about mental health, problems, mental disorders, accessibility of services and medications, of the rural and urban Colombian population older than 7 years, privileging their understanding from social determinants and equity. (Gómez, et. Al., 2016, p. 3) The population was divided into four age groups, namely: 7-11 years old, 12-17 years old, and 18-44 years old and ≥ 45 years old. According to the ENSM executive summary, the results for the first age group, (7-11 years), show a prevalence of any mental disorder of 4.7% for the last year and 3.0% for the last 30 days. . It was also evidenced a higher frequency in girls, for the prevalence of the last year, girls suffer more disorders in a ratio of 5.6% vs. 3.8% more than in boys. The most frequent disorders in the last year are Attention Deficit Disorder, the variation with hyperactivity being the most frequent; then separation anxiety, generalized anxiety disorder, and finally challenging opposition (2016). For the adolescent population, that is, the second age group (12-18 years), the prevalence for any mental disorder is 7.2%; 4.4% for the last 12 months and 2.5% for the last 30 days. The most prevalent disorders are those related to anxiety, with social phobia being the most frequent and with a higher prevalence in women. With regard to suicide in this population, suicidal ideation has a prevalence of 6.6%, the suicidal plan one of 1.8%, suicide attempt 2.5%. In this population 3.7% of those who have thought about it have tried it. Regarding mental disorders in adults, the prevalence of any disorder is 9.1%; 4.0% in the last 12 months and 1.6% in the last 30 days. There is a greater

prevalence of affective disorders in this population (6.7%), and there is a higher frequency in women than in men, except in bipolar disorders whose prevalence is higher in the latter. Regarding suicide, suicidal ideation has a prevalence of 7.4% with a higher proportion in women; 2.4% reported having had suicidal thoughts and 2.6% having tried it. About a third of this population (35.9%) have presented suicidal ideation, have made plans and / or have attempted it. The survey showed that the highest prevalence of any mental disorder is found in the age group of 18-44 years. Globally, projections show that psychiatric and neurological conditions will increase from 10.5% of the total burden of disease to 15% by 2020 (Posada, 2013). The prognosis of the increase in the prevalence of mental disorders, similarly suggests, an increase in the diagnoses of these disorders. Therefore, it is considered pertinent to address this aspect. The way to determine whether or not a mental disorder occurs is through psychological or psychiatric consultation and is consolidated through a diagnosis. In general, this is done with the support of diagnostic manuals such as the ICD-10 (International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision) and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). Regarding the issue of the diagnosis, specifically its criteria, its relevance has been questioned, while in some cases, these do not necessarily coincide with the complainants' complaint, since the reason for the consultation is not precisely because of what they experience but because of the consequences that this entails (Ezama, Alonso and Fontanil, 2010);

problems of daily life that, although they involve unhappiness and discomfort, do not justify the classification of a clinical diagnosis (Echeburúa et.al, 2014). Another aspect to consider is that the diagnosis, from the manuals, is linked to the categorical medical model of disease, which in the case of mental disorders represents a limitation in clinical practice (Ezama et. Al., 2010) ; As mentioned by Echeburúa et.al, (2014), the limitation of describing in detail the diagnostic criteria of said disorders, allows a common language among professionals, but is far from a psychopathological approach, and also restricts the diagnosis to a labeling of the problems. , leaving this as the process resulting from the psychological evaluation and excluding fundamental questions for which the evaluation must answer such as why this happens to the patient and not only what is happening to him. However, the diagnosis of mental disorders continues to occur frequently, and one of the questions that arises against this is the prevalence of such diagnoses, for example in university settings. Although this variable is related to others such as the consumption of psychoactive substances, violence in childhood and associated emotional risk factors, among others, this has allowed us to find that there is a higher prevalence of mental illness in university students in relation to the rest of the population, and that one of the most common is depression (Díaz, 2015; Baader, et.al., 2014; Zanoletti, 2008 and Pinzón, 2017). The psychological evaluation aims to promote a better understanding of some aspects of the life of a person or group through recognized techniques and appropriate language (Nunes, Capitão and Scortegagna, 2006). Regarding this and the diagnosis, it is highlighted by authors such as Contini (2003.) that it is of utmost importance to contemplate them from a

multicultural approach so that it does not contribute to the psychopathologization of what can be understood from cultural differences. Given that the psychological diagnosis is linked to the medical model, the ethics that underlie this model also apply, therefore, the criterion of prudence must be adjusted by means of three principles, namely, why is a diagnosis made? How is a diagnosis made? And how is the diagnosis adjusted to the principles of the doctor-patient relationship, avoiding the expeditious manipulation of the patient as the object of a classification? In addition, it is stated that what prevails is not the need to classify or detect various abnormalities if they do not explain the dysfunction, discomfort or personal suffering, in addition to that in some cases it is more important to explain the reason for the permanence of the symptoms rather than their origin (González de Rivera and Revuelta, 1996; Ezama et.al, 2010). Regarding the nature of the diagnosis, different alternatives have emerged that propose a reorganization of the diagnosis, as long as it becomes an instrument of analysis and intervention that contemplates other aspects and has more scope. It is then proposed as a psychosocial resource (Centeno, 2013) or as a strategic path that responds to effective strategies to achieve specific goals (Ezama.et. Al, 2010). On the other hand, Centeno (2013) states that one of the fundamental aspects to consider when making the diagnosis is the social impact, while the label that it generates becomes a social reference that goes beyond the individual sphere and reaches have stigmatizing consequences. These implications, in turn, influence the forms of interaction of the diagnosed people, directly in their interpersonal relationships. Since the need of the human being to relate responds to an adaptive capacity that allows people to communicate between peers and therefore components

As cooperation and trust (Gámez and Marrero, 2005; Tapia, 2016), the question of how a diagnosis, with the aforementioned characteristics, interferes with such a fundamental sphere of life emerged. Furthermore, interpersonal relationships have been directly associated with the topic of mental disorders as they function as a predictor of the improvement of the quality of life, the well-being of people and as a resource to deal with the discomfort caused by these diseases and to endure difficulties. (Gámez and Marrero, 2005; Cohen, 2004). Although the social context does not only contain positive aspects for the life of the human being, since in itself it can represent conflicts, transmission of stress, failed attempts to help others and feelings of loss and loneliness, which generate in the individual feelings of discomfort, which taken to the extreme can lead to isolation, which is a psychological stressor that increases negative affect and decreases feelings of control and self-esteem (Cohen, 2004). To the extent that the human being seeks to establish close emotional ties and engage in warm relationships (Gámez and Marrero, 2005), responding to his need for bonding (Deci and Ryan quoted in Gámez and Marrero, 2005); When it is limited or hindered by the social consequences of having a diagnosis, the perception of psychological distress increases, which interferes with the way the person carries her condition and the prognosis for recovery. The latter is due to the fact that, according to different studies, interpersonal relationships represent a significant psychological effect which is evidenced in the improvement of autonomy and decision-making, the alleviation of stigma and inequalities generated by the diagnosis, the good prognosis which contributes to recovery,

This need for connection and therefore to establish relationships with others responds to the fact that the human being from birth establishes attachment relationships with those close figures who respond to the needs of the newborn. As the human being develops, he seeks satisfaction of this need among his peers (Hazan and Shaver, 1994). This is why the perception of caring about others is so relevant to psychological well-being, which is evidenced in the recognition by others, the feeling that they care about well-being and interdependence in relationships ( Pernice, Biegel, Kim and Conrad-Garrisi, 2017). Another aspect of great importance within interpersonal relationships is that of social skills (HHSS), these also have a direct relationship with mental disorders, since they are a factor that can be affected by the diagnosis or even be a predictor of certain mental illnesses when there is not an adequate functioning (Pereira and Espada, 2010). The optimal development of these social skills is expressed in positive social consequences, while a deficiency in these skills would bring negative social consequences, which, regardless of the nature of the consequences, will have a significant impact on the psychological well-being of the individual. Some authors have emphasized the importance of strengthening these skills from childhood, In reference to its relationship with mental disorders, it has been argued that in some disorders, such as anxiety and personality disorders, the area of mental abilities is seen

seriously affected, therefore, in the framework of treatment of mental disorders, the component of social skills is widely worked as an intervention strategy, so much so that it is considered as a pillar of rehabilitation in models such as psychosocial rehabilitation (Pereira and Sword, 2010). Along these lines, in addition to being a component of treatment, HHSS are recognized as a means of protecting and promoting health, since social behaviors favor adaptation, acceptance of others, positive reinforcements and the well-being of the subject. Their importance also resides in that they influence aspects such as self-esteem, role adoption, selfregulation of behavior and academic and work performance both in childhood and in adult life (Betina and Contini, 2011), components that can be seen clouded by psychological diagnosis, since, as one of the consequences, beliefs about self-efficacy, that is, the subjective perception of capacity may be affected (Rosentreter, 1996). This influence can affect one of the purposes of interpersonal relationships, This influence of psychological diagnosis is also found with an aspect such as that of selfconcept, a fundamental component in the construction of social relationships and in the interaction of the individual with society. From the psychosocial maturity model proposed by Greenberger, the aim is to integrate the goals of socialization with the goals of the psychological development of the individual; to this extent, if individual adequacy is affected, in this case by the influence of the diagnosis, the demands made by society in this regard do not

they will be satisfied, which will disturb what is considered an acceptable social self-concept (Goñi and Fernández, 2007). The latter is also affected by an aspect that is transversal to the subject of interpersonal relationships and psychological diagnosis, namely, that of stigma. Several investigations have been devoted to studying the interaction between these aspects (Farina, Rolland and Ring, 1966; Pernice et.al. 2017; Magallares, 2011; Farina and Ring, 1965). In these it is stated that mental disorders are perceived as an attribute that discredits the social status of the individual (Farina et.al., 1966; Farina and Ring, 1965). In this line, interpersonal relationships become a very problematic aspect given the nature of the mental disorder and the little support and understanding that the person receives from others, due to the perception of the mental disorder, or specifically of the person who has the label, that is, with characteristics of violence or aggressiveness. Other vital areas that are affected by stigmatization are accommodation, work and recovery from mental disorder itself, which in turn causes social isolation (Magallares, 2011; Lauber, Nordt, Falcato and Rössler, 2004). As one of the consequences of stigmatization for this condition is the change in the identity of individuals, since it has been shown that there is a loss of autonomy, a perception of disability and an arrest in life projects (Restrepo, Mora and Cortés, 2007). This is directly related to what some authors propose about the possible internalization of this stigma, which reinforces this change in identity, in addition to contributing to a low self-concept that keeps people away from interaction or even the search for health services (Pernice et.al, 2017; Restrepo, et.al. 2007).

This social stigmatization is mainly due, according to Lauber et.al., (2004), to the social perception of mental illness. In this measure, people with mental disorders cause social distancing reactions because they are perceived as unpredictable, threatening and frightening. These authors refer that although it seems paradoxical, the perceived discrimination about mental illness increases social distancing, when it could be thought that the higher the perception, the greater the social competence; this suggests that the more medical examination of the disease the greater the social distancing, apparently perceiving mental illness as a life crisis implies less attitudes of this type. The aforementioned has a counterproductive effect in that by limiting the interaction in interpersonal relationships, it does not allow the consolidation of the benefits that this raises, such as the quality of life, the possibility of committing to a job and also promotes an increase in the symptoms of the mental condition (Magallares, 2011). According to Pernice et.al. (2017) that the person with a psychological diagnosis knows that it is important for others, to feel valued, recognized and present for others, works as a psychological resource that mediates the relationship between positive social support and two factors, namely: recovery and internalized stigma. In this line, a circular dynamic could be evidenced in which the psychological diagnosis can influence interpersonal relationships, generating consequences in the way of interacting with people in the environment, which can cause psychological discomfort with respect to these two components, which I finally ended up reinforcing some symptoms of the mental condition.

In accordance with all of the above, the question arose about the impact that a psychological diagnosis can have on the way people relate, how and to what extent their interaction is affected and specifically their interpersonal relationships, taking into account that being Human needs interaction and bonding for a proper or functional life, and the diagnosis of a mental disorder interferes with this. To this extent, the research question that was asked was What is the influence of psychological diagnosis on interpersonal relationships and the possible social stigmatization caused by the disorder?

2. Justification. Given the high prevalence of diagnosing mental disorders, it is worth asking about its implications in the personal l...