Deconstruction in Psychiatry: Are We Missing the Forest for the Trees?

Background Although the field of psychiatry has recently seen significant advancement in neurobiological knowledge, we have not seen corresponding improvements in clinical practice. In response to this stagnation, some researchers have turned to concepts such as deconstruction by incorporating programs like the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) into psychiatric research. Methods This review examines the role of deconstruction in psychiatry and analyzes efforts to apply a dimensional approach to psychopathology. Results In this article, we argue that deconstruction rejects current medical knowledge in favor of an ill-fitting dimensional approach, placing symptoms in a broader spectrum rather than treating symptoms as individual characteristics of categorical diagnoses. We contend that psychiatry is not unique among medical fields and that a categorical approach continues to be most effective for achieving clinical success. While heterogeneity in clinical presentations complicates efforts to better understand psychiatric disorders, it is not an inherent impediment to progress and does not warrant redefining psychiatric illness. Conclusions Deconstruction in psychiatry is unlikely to yield any improvement in clinical practice. Ultimately, further study is needed to better understand the heterogeneity found in psychiatric disease.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Annals of Clinical Psychiatry
Published
2025-07-04
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/10401237251344101
Primary Topic
Mental Health and Psychiatry
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Deconstruction in Psychiatry: Are We Missing the Forest for the Trees?

Napoleon Waszkiewicz, Walter Glannon, Farooq H. Sheikh, Ori David Florentin et al.
Annals of Clinical Psychiatry
Mental Health and Psychiatry
article

Deconstruction in Psychiatry: Are We Missing the Forest for the Trees?

Napoleon Waszkiewicz, Walter Glannon, Farooq H. Sheikh, Ori David Florentin, Maju Mathew Koola, Mitchel A. Kling, Mujeeb Uddin Shad, Tiffany Elizabeth Jakowczuk, Goutham A. Nair, Stefano Barlati, Martin Schaefer, Stephen J. Curtis
article en

Abstract

Background Although the field of psychiatry has recently seen significant advancement in neurobiological knowledge, we have not seen corresponding improvements in clinical practice. In response to this stagnation, some researchers have turned to concepts such as deconstruction by incorporating programs like the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) into psychiatric research. Methods This review examines the role of deconstruction in psychiatry and analyzes efforts to apply a dimensional approach to psychopathology. Results In this article, we argue that deconstruction rejects current medical knowledge in favor of an ill-fitting dimensional approach, placing symptoms in a broader spectrum rather than treating symptoms as individual characteristics of categorical diagnoses. We contend that psychiatry is not unique among medical fields and that a categorical approach continues to be most effective for achieving clinical success. While heterogeneity in clinical presentations complicates efforts to better understand psychiatric disorders, it is not an inherent impediment to progress and does not warrant redefining psychiatric illness. Conclusions Deconstruction in psychiatry is unlikely to yield any improvement in clinical practice. Ultimately, further study is needed to better understand the heterogeneity found in psychiatric disease.

Annals of Clinical PsychiatryVol. 36(3)
Westchester Medical Center (US), University of Nevada, Las Vegas (US), Medical University of Białystok (PL), University of Calgary (CA), Franciscan Health (US), VA New Jersey Health Care System (US), Cooper Medical School of Rowan University (US), Franciscan Health Indianapolis (US), Kliniken Essen-Mitte (DE), Veterans Biomedical Research Institute (US), Rowan University (US), The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston (US), Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin (DE), University of Brescia (IT)
Openalex Percentile: Top 76%
Mental Health and Psychiatry
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.