 |
 |

Persistent Stress Reaction After CombatA 20-Year Follow-Up
HERBERT C. ARCHIBALD, MD;
READ D. TUDDENHAM, PhD
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1965;12(5):475-481.
 |
 |
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings. |
|
 |
 |
I.
DURING WORLD War II and shortly afterward, the problem of "combat fatigue," or gross stress reaction was studied intensively. Lewis and Engle's Wartime Psychiatry, published in 1954, reviewed 1,166 articles by 1,431 authors. In this massive literature there was some disagreement as to whether or not the combat fatigue syndrome should be differentiated from psychoneurosis, but nearly all investigators concurred in viewing it as a transient state. The Gray Manual, published in 19521 and representing the consensus at that time, listed five diagnostic criteria: (1) unusual stress; (2) previous normal personality; (3) reversibility; (4) possible progress to one of the neurotic reactions; (5) if persistent reaction, "this term is to be regarded as a temporary diagnosis to be used only until a more definite diagnosis is established" (reference 1, p 40). However, there was no provision or official name for the persistence
. . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]
Author Affiliations
OAKLAND, CALIF; BERKELEY, CALIF
Chief, MHC, Veterans Administration Office (Dr. Archibald) and Professor of Psychology, University of California (Dr. Tuddenham).
Footnotes
Submitted for publication Oct 6, 1964.
A similar decline was noted after World War I. A small book on war neuroses published in 1919 mentions that the subject was discussed at the Fifth Psychoanalytic Congress but before a proposed study could be put into effect the war came to an end, and "interest in the war neuroses gave place to other concerns."7
Reprint requests to 1305 Franklin St, Oakland, Calif 94612 (Dr. Archibald).
CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati Twitter
What's this?
|