Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Complex post-traumatic stress disorder article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Section 1.3 is disjointed and needs some clarification and polishing. Why is this idea controversial? Who is for and who is against this idea? What research backs up either claim? Why does C-PTSD's supposed similarity to BPD "[underline] the fragility of C-PTSD as an empirical diagnostic category separate from PTSD"? What symptoms does C-PTSD share with BPD? (And let's keep in mind that we are encouraged to stay away from "weasel words.") The attempt to use attachment theory to explain a commonality between BPD and C-PTSD is poorly written and unclear, as are the last three sentences that attempt to explain the differences between C-PTSD and BPD. 66.225.163.6 ( talk) 22:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)Creta
The Introduction does a great job of mentioning various situations/circumstances that can lead to what is known as complex trauma, however, I worry about the emphasis that is placed on interpersonal relationships. The term complex trauma is also attributed to long-term exposure to traumatic situations or situations in which someone's life may be threatened. For example, people who live in war-torn countries and/or children living in violent communities. I would just suggest a broadening of the definition a bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CelestePoePhD ( talk • contribs) 2017-09-26 (UTC)
I don't understand why you sir, mr. fainites, are so hostile to any adding of ddp to this page. As i mentioned, i think ddp has some support, a study or two, and is a treatment that has some promising material written about it, so why not allow my edit. I thought wikipedia is supposed to allow multiple views, so even if you disagree, why are you the one to decide? Do you own this page? I didn't think that was how this site worked, but if i am wrong, so be it? PranakanLegion ( talk) 01:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
This seems all fantasy now actually, and CPTSD should be removed from the wikipedia, as the DSM 5 is not picking it up, and from the DSM 5 website, they have expanded PTSD to be more child friendly: http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=165# and they have created a specific PTSD diagnosis for children under 6: http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=396. Reviewing clinical conditions of focus, CPTSD is not on the table: http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/OtherClinicalConditionsThatMayBeaFocusofClinicalAttention.aspx nor conditions proposed by outside sources: http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/ConditionsProposedbyOutsideSources.aspx. This name has no official status it seems, considering DSM V is now in field trials. If CPTSD was going to be an official diagnosis, it would already be listed and part of the field trials with the newly written PTSD criterion. This name should be removed as a good effort, but it didn't stick. Complex trauma is real, but CPTSD as a diagnosis is not it seems, and the APA seem to have taken that stance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.234.37 ( talk) 10:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok, now CPTSD is officially dead from this mythical discussion of a diagnosis, that never contained a single approved medical criterion. The DSM V has included CPTSD as a sub-type of PTSD, called: Posttraumatic Stress Disorder – With Prominent Dissociative (Depersonalization/Derealization) Symptoms. See: http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevision/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=165
There really isn't any more debate on this one now, CPTSD does not exist. PTSD - PDS is the official term coming. There is zero doubt that the ICD will follow suit, thus both mental health manuals will have an official status covering this controversial area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.148.70.125 ( talk) 23:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
There are still several clinicians who believe C-PTSD is real. The diagnosis is given by psychiatrist in prestigious institutions. To remove the article would be like saying that PTSD didn't exist before 1980. PTSD took almost 100 years to be recognized. C-PTSD as a condition has been out there for a little more than 20 years. You sound like this moderator on a certain PTSD forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir John Falstaff ( talk • contribs) 04:55, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
---I have my medical records from a prominent psychiatric Hospital in Boston. I took an ink blot test because of proposed hallucinations with my ptsd. Results were; quote: "patient's hallucinations and voices heard are part of the dissociative phenomena associated with of COMPLEX PTSD." My psychiatrist told me i have complex ptsd and it was mentioned by staff many times as I was there for two months. Therefore, in the trauma world of psychiatry, complex ptsd exists. So they put on my chart...dx: PTSD, mood disorder nos, mdd,severe. That's how they do it at this Hospital. On the other hand, DID is in the DSM but there are many skeptical doctors about that diagnosis as well.
203.121.206.252 ( talk) 20:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC) - I have a question relating to this information in the opening of the article: "It may be included in the upcoming ICD 11.[citation needed] However, the former includes "disorder of extreme stress, not otherwise specified" and the latter has this similar code "personality change due to classifications found elsewhere" (31.1), both of whose parameters accommodate C-PTSD."
Firstly, the citation for possible CPTSD diagnosis in the ICD 11 is http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/l-m/en#/http%3a%2f%2fid.who.int%2ficd%2fentity%2f585833559.
In relation to the statement (the former includes "disorder of extreme stress, not otherwise specified"), is this correct? That to me references the DSM, which does not include DESNOS, or I'm blind, as I have the DSM V in front of me and that is not listed in the alphabetical disorder listings. This document also cites "the latter has this similar code "personality change due to classifications found elsewhere" (31.1)" which does not exist in the ICD 10 CM. The 31.1 range references Bipolar disorders. There is no such listing as personality change due to classifications found elsewhere.
Hope that helps whoever edits this document.
CPTSD isn't a term that is used that generally in the literature regarding trauma. Much more commonly used terms are Complex Trauma and Developmental Trauma Disorder, see, for example
http://www.traumacenter.org/products/pdf_files/Preprint_Dev_Trauma_Disorder.pdf
So, I think adding the aka is helpful for reader to find the relationships among these various terms. OK? AxisOfCharm ( talk) 15:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Under the Treatment for children section there is a link to "developmental trauma disorder (DTD)" but that loops back to the same page, which may be unexpected for the casual reader. It should really lead to a section that discusses the similarity of these terms, as discussed here. Branciforte3241 ( talk) 22:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I alphabetized the list, got rid of some that seemed out of place, and added a couple. Still needs to be shortened more but I think it's better at least. Forgotten Faces ( talk) 01:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Admittedly I just archived the page and I could be missing it, but why is this one CP-TSD when regular PTSD is without the dash? Should the page be renamed? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 13:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus for move. Favonian ( talk) 23:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Complex post-traumatic stress disorder → Complex posttraumatic stress disorder – There has been extensive past debate on the proper naming in the posttraumatic stress disorder talk archive. Consensus is posttraumatic without the dash. relisting Andrewa ( talk) 18:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Forgotten Faces ( talk) 19:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I do agree that forms of trauma associated with C-PTSD include physical abuse, emotional abuse, so why not to refer to Khan, M. (1964). Ego distorsion, cumulative trauma and the role of reconstruction in the analytic situation. In International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 45, pp. 272-279. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.71.110.39 ( talk) 17:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm a C-PTSD patient not a practitioner, this comment might affect more than one paragraph but so be it. On a number of external weblogs there's been quite a bit of discussion lately that many of us with C-PTSD also have alexithymia (severe difficulty feeling emotions or understanding them in others, also low creativity). Patients with this condition may find that it makes it next to impossible to successfully pursue most therapies, certainly EMDR in my experience is one, probably CBT as well, I never attempted DBT but I kind of doubt it works either, basically any method where getting a valid answer to the question "how does this make you feel?" will have problems. Now there has been much work recently particularly by Sebern Fisher (she has an informative book out about it, the forward was written by none other than Dr. Bessel van der Kolk) about applying infra-low neurofeedback techniques to the treatment of developmental trauma. I'm in the early stages of such a program so I'm not able to comment yet on its effectiveness but I think the issue of alexithymia itself ought to be mentioned, and perhaps that there are those seeing some relief from neurofeedback techniques especially when other options are not working, I don't wish to be dismissed as "an advocate" because I'm just trying to get well myself but I thought there might be others who could benefit from this information. Jlawton11 ( talk) 21:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4165723/
That one. I thought I would put it up for consideration and inclusion. The study found that they could distinguish between comorbidity and individual cases of having just c-ptsd. Published 2014. Because that section of the article is sparse.
Also, it might be worth mentioning that the World Health Organization included c-PTSD as a separate diagnosis from both PTSD and borderline in the lead and in the article in their ICD: Reference: http://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/newsletters/research-quarterly/V25N2.pdf -- KimYunmi ( talk) 17:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
The introduction describing the causes of C-PTSD currently includes victims of parents or guardians with Narcissistic Personality Disorder but there is no mention of relationships with people (especially with a parent or guardian) who have Anti-Social Personality Disorder (ASPD). Perhaps that could be included and/or people with Cluster B personality disorders in general. Cyrus Freedman ( talk) 21:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Complex post-traumatic stress disorder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
In particular, there's the bit about PAS that cites Childress. Besides the bad formatting, I'm struggling to find how it's directly relevant to symptoms of C-PTSD in children and adolescents; to my eye, it looks as though it was meant to be edited into the article about Parental Alienation Syndrome and accidentally ended up here. But it's possible I'm missing something. If the information is deemed relevant, I'd like to fix the formatting, but first wanted to check if others thought it should even be there in the first place. 73.61.15.187 ( talk) 01:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
The entire section was removed and I don't think that is what is best. I propose we trim it down a bit and take out some of the long quote, or summarize it? TantraYum ( talk) 19:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree. It contains some useful information but is by now extremely unclear. Solus Nisi Ulrich ( talk) 07:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The lead says "not DNS based" but does not explain what DNS means in this context. I would be appropriate to expand the acronym or to “link” it, I believe. I can’t do this myself, since I am not familiar with the topic. Ariadacapo ( talk) 11:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
CPTSD is related to a number of disorders, and the introduction to this article can do a better job explaining that.
Joe Easterly ( talk) 19:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
“…motivations behind such abuse vary, though mostly being predominantly malicious, it has also been shown that the motivations behind such abuse can occasionally be well-intentioned” I don’t think this sentence belongs in the introduction, though maybe in the main article. Motivation for abuses and crimes (or even understanding of perpetrators of the repercussions of their actions) is a complex topic in itself and this sentence is clumsy and not inherent to introducing a basic outline of the topic. 88.104.102.175 ( talk) 14:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Remove from a principle environment in which C-PTSD develops over "Undue weight" /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources_and_undue_weight
Canadian residential school system is only one of a large number of similar government-sanctioned environments where survivors will risk developing C-PTSD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.147.85.176 ( talk) 09:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Largest C-PTSD event in modern History.
Discuss appropriateness of including Mandated Pandemic Lockdown induced C-PTSD in this page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.69.55 ( talk) 21:11, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Such as EPCACE & DESNOS: There is a slight difference in criteria between both. https://www.mind.org.uk/information-support/types-of-mental-health-problems/post-traumatic-stress-disorder-ptsd-and-complex-ptsd/complex-ptsd/ 86.14.56.116 ( talk) 13:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps as a sub-section, or as a type of variant for it. 86.14.56.116 ( talk) 13:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
This article needs to be focused on what the term "complex PTSD" refers to, which is a proposed condition and/or a theoretical construct. Most of the citations are from Judith Herman, whose claims about PTSD are highly controversial.
Yes, it was recently included in the ICD, so calling it a "proposed condition" in the article may not be necessary. But the article needs to acknowledge that the slim number of citations it was able to procure, including expert opinions as well as original research, do not necessarily represent the consensus.
The article takes for granted some dangerous assumptions about PTSD, namely that it is limited to very specific traumas (it's not), that it is a rigid construct that cannot evolve (it has, per the much better cited PTSD article), and that it is easily treated (treatment is for individual symptoms, not the overall condition). It bases these assumptions on individual opinions, not consensus, and does allow PTSD experts, who typically oppose the splitting of PTSD into two labels or grudgingly tolerate it, to be represented here.
To a lesser extent, it does this for BPD. Stigmas of and misconceptions about BPD played a huge role in the development of C-PTSD as a distinct clinical entity. These misconceptions of BPD are addressed on the article for that condition, but not here, which to me says that this article was created entirely by combing the internet for supporting evidence and ignoring how controversial this label still is.
I think that, rather than focusing on the controversy itself, the article should reframe the condition in terms of clinical practice. It is not okay to say "PTSD does or does not include such-and-such symptoms" without providing clear evidence, but it is okay to make claims about C-PTSD, like, "C-PTSD is increasingly used to diagnose cases where prolonged trauma has occurred, rather than using the older diagnosis of PTSD." This is a fact, per its inclusion in the ICD and increased rate of diagnosis, and bypasses the controversy in a way that will probably keep the page from being a "validation project" for one side of the argument, as it is now and largely has been.
This is not an attack on Herman or the practical utility of C-PTSD as a distinct clinical entity. It's a counterattack on a fringe movement that is obsessed with invalidating the PTSD community based on decades-old research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7081:1603:A300:D02E:367C:7CE4:2B16 ( talk) 14:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Naming for wartime PSD, but I don't understand how the term "somatization" apears in it, I don't agree. And to edd to this, but a different topic, I don't understand why, scientifically, psychology has to be understood as mainly American, I don't believe psychology is what americans understand right now, also you in US has very little knowledge in medicine and this is obvious in your psychological articles. I don't even like the amercain stile of writing, I don't think most of it is correct, in fact I think it is mostly not right, but some terminology still is good, however the quality is getting too low, because of this "claim that psychology is an American discipline". It is not also true that American is contrary to Russian psychology, I've noticed how Medvedevian politicians, administration and "psychologists" rely to American psychology, they also tend to claim that "it cures them medically" this is not true, they seek the closest medician who also reads psychology to "paranormally" and with mental efford cure them, which is beyond....unpolite. Also they use American psychology for dictatorship Russian pupouses. And not only they, what about even Prince W. whos people would take American psychology to press on Russian communists with Russian psychology? And categorise communists as sick based on these ideas, but US is a federal republic? Yet, in psychology looks like it isn't. It is normal that everyone wants to read psychology and psychological advices, and what this one would find with these tendencies.
I dont agree that American psychology is entirely pure and without political dictatorship methods, in fact it serves most of the time RUssian politics, it is so very obvious, that it looks offensive, even. Psychologynewartnotice2 ( talk) 16:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi @ 7e8y: I'm moving this discussion to this page as it's much easier than communicating through the short summaries. TempusTacet ( talk) 19:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Syntax/happening issue
You wrote: I do agree that the verb 'to develop' fits the contextual use but the Wikipedia’s first sentence becomes too close to the ICD-11's first sentence... Please, consider that the verb 'to happen' also fits this contextual use from [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/happen]. It strikes me as unusual to state that "a disorder is happening in response to something". I don't think I've ever come across that in spoken or written language. Do you have examples where "happening" is used like that? (I'm not claiming it's wrong or isn't common, I'm more than happy to learn that it is!)
Usually, as far as I'm aware, a disorder either "develops" or "occurs". While I'm not a fan of blindly copy-pasting definitions from the ICD or DSM to Wikipedia, in this case, I believe the fact that the ICD states that CPTSD is something that "develops" is a strong argument in favor of using that verb. It's also one of the rarer cases where the lay person's understanding and the scientific meaning are closely related. It's very common to say e.g. "I developed a headache due to stress" or "I developed a fear of something".
TempusTacet (
talk)
19:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
ICD-date issues
You also wrote: ii.wholesomeness – i.e. please pay attention in your edit summaries to ambiguities, e.g. I have never claimed that CPTSD was in the DSM. I have never stated that you claimed that CPTSD was in the DSM. I added this fact to the article that previously just claimed that CPTSD had not yet been added to the DSM-5. That second statement is, of course, also correct, but much narrower than "To date, CPTSD has never been recognized in the DSM".
TempusTacet (
talk)
19:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
The argument currently displayed:
However, CPTSD and BPD have been found by some researchers to be distinctive disorders with different features. Those with CPTSD do not fear abandonment or have unstable patterns of relations; rather, they withdraw.
Repeated use of withdrawal as a defense mechanism may in fact cause unstable patterns in relationships. And it certainly makes sense to use withdrawal as a defense when fearing abandonment. See avoidant or disorganized attachment styles. 142.117.46.145 ( talk) 21:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2024 and 9 March 2024. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Bacteriaburst (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by DoctorHeck ( talk) 17:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)