The content and organization of mental health care have been heavily influenced by the view that mental difficulties come as diagnosable disorders that can be treated by specialist practitioners who apply evidence-based practice (EBP) guidelines of symptom reduction at the group level. However, the EBP symptom-reduction model is under pressure, as it may be disconnected from what patients need, ignores evidence of the trans-syndromal nature of mental difficulties, overestimates the contribution of the technical aspects of treatment compared to the relational and ritual components of care, and underestimates the lack of EBP group-to-individual generalizability. A growing body of knowledge indicates that mental illnesses are seldom "cured" and are better framed as vulnerabilities. Important gains in well-being can be achieved when individuals learn to live with mental vulnerabilities through a slow process of strengthening resilience in the social and existential domains. In this paper, we examine what a mental health service would look like if the above factors were taken into account. The mental health service of the 21st century may be best conceived of as a small-scale healing community fostering connectedness and strengthening resilience in learning to live with mental vulnerability, complemented by a limited number of regional facilities. Peer support, organized at the level of a recovery college, may form the backbone of the community. Treatments should be aimed at trans-syndromal symptom reduction, tailored to serve the higher-order process of existential recovery and social participation, and applied by professionals who have been trained to collaborate, embrace idiography and maximize effects mediated by therapeutic relationship and the healing effects of ritualized care interactions. Finally, integration with a public mental health system of e-communities providing information, peer and citizen support and a range of user-rated self-management tools may help bridge the gap between the high prevalence of common mental disorder and the relatively low capacity of any mental health service.

The interrater reliability, factorial and discriminant validity of a standardized and expanded Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS-E) were investigated in a heterogeneous short-stay group of psychiatric inpatients in the Netherlands (n = 162). Repeated separate interviews by single clinicians (psychiatrists, residents or clinical psychologists), best reflecting the way the BPRS is usually employed in clinical practice and psychopharmacological research, were used to determine interrater reliability (n = 79). Although the 5 subscales of the original 18-item BPRS (BPRS-18) were successfully cross-validated in this Dutch sample, 4 of these subscales (except for thought disturbance) were found to lack interrater reliability. The 10-item schizophrenia scale derived from the BPRS-18 by a Scandinavian group met the standard of acceptable interrater reliability; BPRS-18 and BPRS-E global scales approximated this standard. For the thought disturbance subscale, the schizophrenia scale and for BPRS-18 and BPRS-E global scales, findings supported discriminatory power.

No abstract

This study aimed to determine the replicability of the interrater reliability coefficients obtained with a standardized and expanded Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS-E) in a 1991 psychometric evaluation. Furthermore, intrarater reliability was assessed. At item level, interrater concordance turned out to be satisfactory for most of the BPRS-E items. However, only a few of the items reached acceptable chance-corrected coefficients. In contrast to the previous study, the anxiety-depression subscale met the standard of acceptable interrater reliability in the present study. As in the 1991 study, the 10-item psychotic disintegration scale as well as BPRS-18 global scores met (or closely approximated) this standard. The 6 additional items of BPRS-E did not contribute to the scale's reliability. Joining the samples of the 1991 and replication studies (to cover the range of symptoms' severity and heterogeneity more fully) did not improve interrater reliability. Intrarater reliability coefficients were globally comparable to interrater reliability coefficients. In all, the results of this replication study suggest that only the anxiety-depression subscale, the 10-item psychotic disintegration scale and the BPRS-18 global scale can be used reliably in unselected groups of psychiatric inpatients in acute distress.

Objective countertransference refers to the constricted feelings, attitudes and reactions of a therapist, that are induced primarily by the patient's maladaptive behaviour and that are generalizable to other therapists (and to other significant others in the patient's life). In interpersonal theory and therapy, the equivalent of objective countertransference is the impact message concept. Impact messages refer to the cognitions, emotions and action tendencies evoked in the therapist by a particular patient's interpersonal pressures. This paper tests the interpersonal hypothesis that interpersonal impact generalizes across therapists (and by extension across interpersonal relationships). Generalizability of impact messages across therapists was determined for different combinations of therapist pairs, independently rating a total of 131 psychiatric outpatients with the IMI-C (Impact Message Inventory, revised circumplex version). It was found that impact messages were most clearly generalizable across therapists for the Dominance (D) category, followed by the Hostile-Dominant (HD) and Hostile-Submissive (HS) categories. In contrast, the other five categories of impact messages turned out to be poorly generalizable across therapists. Impact messages within the Dominance (D) category were also strikingly stable over a period of time of 12 months or longer. Some possible causes of the limited generalizability of most impact message categories are discussed.