Describe what the authors mean by "Strength-Based" and "Resiliency." Do you agree that these approaches are valuable? Why or why not?
Social workers and mental health practitioners are increasingly embracing strength-based practices in performing their duties. According to Petrovich and Garcia (2015), strength-based practice is the collaborative relationship between social workers and clients or other mental health practitioners with clients. In the strength-based approach, the collaborative relationship is promoted, and the clients have perceived processing resources and problems. Health psychology-related research has supported strength-based practices because of its self-efficacy and its ability to achieve the set goals in the context of complex struggle and uncertain outcomes. The strength-based approach also promotes healthy behaviors to attain life-enhancing and educational goals.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Resiliency practice refers to practice based on the value of wellness instead of investigating the cause and effects of the disease. Resiliency is a protective factor as it examines resources associated with social, identity, attitude, and coping ability. It also captures resources on family structure and communication and community networks, support, and roles in promoting individual wellness ( Petrovich and Garcia, 2015). Nursing and Mental health disciplines associated with social work and psychology tend to ignore resiliency at the client's expense.
Agree with the strength-based approach but disagree with the resiliency approach. According to the two approaches, strength-based practice promotes the interaction between the health providers and the patient, thus enhancing a better health outcome. In resiliency practice, no focus is given to the cause and effect of a disease, making it challenging to handle any situation with an immediate impact.
Please describe what the authors believe are the major flaws of the DSM 5. Why do they view them as flaws? What do you think about this?
According to the article, DSM 5 has both strengths and weaknesses. Some of the significant flaws of the DSM 5 include the following:
The DSM 5 formulation and decision-making process involves minimum multidisciplinary input. It implies that DSM 5 focuses more on the pathology signs and symptoms that forces or factors contribute to client well-being. The medical model is insufficient in handling the ever complex human problems.
DSM 5 ignore important predators of successful treatment outcome. The diagnosis tends to ignore essential client characteristics that would help predict the mental health treatment outcome. These factors are crucial as they assist the patient to adhere to the medication.
The diagnosis only emphasizes the pathology, while the resources and strengths are ignored. Most DSMs focus on pathology and fail to incorporate the client's resources, thus making it challenging to identify social and community-related factors
DSM 5 facilitates professional cynicism. The deficiency, doubt, and pessimism language used in the diagnosis result in professional cynicism; ignoring the ability of patients to cope up with life challenges and engaging in natural healing processes
The decontextualizing process applied in DSM 5 can prevent recognition of potential healing sources; it discourages ecological client understanding and promotes individualistic understanding
The diagnosis is subjected to bias, thus affecting the validity and reliability of the outcome.
Finally, the links among the disease cause and cure in DSM are unclear, thus increasing the possibility of obtaining inaccurate results.
Why do the authors believe the Diversity/ Resiliency formulation should be added to the diagnostic process? Do you agree?
Diversity/Resiliency formulation should be added to the diagnostic process because it adds the dimension of diversity, strength, and resilience to the DSM formulation and the elements absent in the current DSM structure. I agree with the author's argument because the addition of Diversity/Resiliency formulation enables the client to be encountered, including the strengths and problems in both societal and interpersonal contexts. Engaging the client as a whole person promote diagnosis accuracy and completeness. In general, adding Diversity/ Resiliency formulation to the diagnostic process enhances the diagnosis's completeness and accuracy.
Reference
Petrovich, A., & Garcia, B. (2015). Strengthening the DSM: Incorporating Resilience and Cultural Competence . Springer Publishing Company.
