Search Results

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) develops in predisposed individuals who have had a traumatic experience. There are many different ways in which PTSD presents itself, and only some of them(e.g., avoidance behavior, symptoms of hyperarousal)make it look like other anxiety disorders. Various manifestations of PTSD have led to its also being considered primarily a disorder of memory, a dissociative disorder, or a condition more closely related to depression. Given the presumed etiological link between a traumatic event and PTSD, there is a rare opportunity among psychiatric disorders for implementation of strategies that might prevent the development of PTSD. Most people recover after trauma, while many of those who do develop PTSD remit spontaneously. Still, a proportion of traumatized people develop a chronic form of PTSD–a condition that is often very difficult to treat. Posttraumatic stress disorder has been a controversial entity since its official introduction in the psychiatric classification in 1980.Anumber of issues have arisen, and many of them remain unresolved. Some of the key questions are listed below…. 1. Is the concept of PTSD too heterogeneous? 2. Are there different types of PTSD or different disorders arising in the aftermath of trauma? 3. Has the concept of a traumatic event become too broad? Alternatively, can a greater variety of stressful events precipitate PTSD? 4. Is the occurrence of trauma necessary for the development of PTSD? 5. Are there any specific or unique features of PTSD, which would allow its differentiation from related disorders? 6. Has the concept of PTSD been overused or misused, especially in the context of compensation claims and litigation? Does PTSD reflect a ‘‘medicalization’’ of the normal human reactions and emotions in response to trauma? 7. What accounts for the fact that the majority of trauma victims recover spontaneously from early PTSD-like symptoms, whereas some go on to develop a chronic, severe, and debilitating PTSD? Has there been too much emphasis on vulnerability to developing post-trauma psychopathology and too little attention paid to factors such as resilience? 8. Why do we still have a difficulty understanding what combination of risk factors best predicts the development of PTSD?

This chapter demonstrates that impulse control disorders (ICDs) and substance use disorders may share certain neurobiological features and processes, and suggests that certain neurodevelopmental features may predispose youth to developing problematic addictive behavior. It shows that the same neurodevelopmental processes which contribute to the necessary experimentation, learning, and adaptation of adolescence needed to enable children to move toward adulthood are those that render adolescents vulnerable to addiction and ICDs such as pathological gambling (PG). Neurotransmitters that promote PG are described, such as serotonin, dopamine, gamma-aminobutyric acid, glutamate, norepinephrine, opioid, neuropeptides, and monoamine oxidase. The chapter also shows that a complex interaction between genetic and environmental factors leads to PG.

This chapter focuses on explaining impulse control disorders (ICD) in Parkinson’s disease (PD). A PD patient suffers from ICD when he or she loses control over impulses associated with the performance of certain tasks that are impulsive in nature. The impaired agentic self system resulting from PD aggravates ICD and leads to impulsive decisions on sexual activities, financial matters, and gambling. Reduced doses of certain medicines and enhanced dopaminergic activity cause ICD in certain PD patients. ICDs and the compulsive use of dopaminergic medicines in PD patients are mainly observed in younger males afflicted with the disease. Younger patients are vulnerable to symptoms of involuntary movement and unstable motor activities, and are administered certain medications to control these disorders. Regular and compulsive use of such medications have severe side effects and result in ICDs in a few PD patients.

Students who meet criteria for disruptive, impulse control, and conduct disorders generally present with a wide range of challenging behaviors that impede their ability to function appropriately at school and at home. Understanding the differential diagnosis and comorbid manifestations of these disorders—particularly the two most common disruptive disorders (i.e., oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder)—can assist school practitioners in addressing students’ behavior and socioemotional well-being in school. It is also important that school practitioners are knowledgeable about Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) categories for which students exhibiting the symptoms of these disorders are most likely to qualify for school-based services. This chapter provides resources to assist schools and school-based practitioners in implementing universal screening, progress monitoring, and rapid assessment of students, as well as evidence-based psychosocial interventions to meet the needs of students with disruptive, impulse control, and conduct disorders.