4.4 Article

Bridging the gap: Lessons we have learnt from the merging of psychology and psychiatry for the optimisation of treatments for emotional disorders

期刊

BEHAVIOUR RESEARCH AND THERAPY
卷 62, 期 -, 页码 3-16

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.brat.2014.07.012

关键词

Anxiety; Depression; Fear conditioning; Fear extinction; Pharmacotherapy; Cognitive behavioural therapy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In recent years the gap between psychological and psychiatric research and practice has lessened. In turn, greater attention has been paid toward how psychological and pharmacological treatments interact. Unfortunately, the majority of research has indicated no additive effect of anxiolytics and antidepressants when combined with psychological treatments, and in many cases pharmacological treatments attenuate the effectiveness of psychological treatments. However, as psychology and psychiatry have come closer together, research has started to investigate the neural and molecular mechanisms underlying psychological treatments. Such research has utilised preclinical models of psychological treatments, such as fear extinction, in both rodents and humans to determine multiple neural and molecular changes that may be responsible for the long-term cognitive and behavioural changes that psychological treatments induce. Currently, researchers are attempting to identify pharmacological agents that directly augment these neural/molecular changes, and which may be more effective adjuncts to psychological treatments than traditional anxiolytics and antidepressants. In this review we describe the research that has led to this new wave of thinking about combined psychological/pharmacological treatments. We also argue that an increased emphasis on identifying individual difference factors that predict the effectiveness of pharmacological adjuncts is critical in facilitating the translation of this preclinical research into clinical practice. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据