Hoarding revisited: there is light at the end of the living room
Since 2013, hoarding disorder has been recognised as a standalone diagnosis in the DSM, affecting an estimated 2–6% of the general population. This article outlines the arguments for and against this separate classification and considers the differentiation of hoarding disorder from normative collec...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | BJPsych advances 2019-01, Vol.25 (1), p.26-36 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Since 2013, hoarding disorder has been recognised as a standalone diagnosis in the DSM, affecting an estimated 2–6% of the general population. This article outlines the arguments for and against this separate classification and considers the differentiation of hoarding disorder from normative collecting. It then discusses aetiology, assessment, course and treatment (both psychological and pharmacological interventions). It concludes with a discussion of ethical and legal considerations, in particular the fact that the inclusion of hoarding disorder as a distinct diagnosis in DSM-5 confers specific protections for people with the disorder under the Equality Act 2010. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 2056-4678 2056-4686 |
DOI: | 10.1192/bja.2018.39 |