scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

David Rosenthal

Other affiliations: Boston University
Bio: David Rosenthal is an academic researcher from National Institutes of Health. The author has contributed to research in topics: Schizophrenia (object-oriented programming) & Concordance. The author has an hindex of 19, co-authored 34 publications receiving 1464 citations. Previous affiliations of David Rosenthal include Boston University.


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The authors suggest that the most promising route to effective strategies for the prevention of adolescent alcohol and other drug problems is through a risk-focused approach.
Abstract: The authors suggest that the most promising route to effective strategies for the prevention of adolescent alcohol and other drug problems is through a risk-focused approach. This approach requires the identification of risk factors for drug abuse, identification of methods by which risk factors have been effectively addressed, and application of these methods to appropriate high-risk and general population samples in controlled studies. The authors review risk and protective factors for drug abuse, assess a number of approaches for drug abuse prevention potential with high-risk groups, and make recommendations for research and practice.

5,348 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The view that addiction is the pathology that results from an allostatic mechanism using the circuits established for natural rewards provides a realistic approach to identifying the neurobiological factors that produce vulnerability to addiction and relapse.

2,678 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: There was limited evidence of the specific effectiveness of interpersonal psychotherapy and none for cognitive behavior therapy, but Superior recovery rates were found for both interpersonal Psychotherapy and imipramine plusclinical management, as compared with placebo plus clinical management.
Abstract: • We investigated the effectiveness of two brief psychotherapies, interpersonal psychotherapy and cognitive behavior therapy, for the treatment of outpatients with major depressive disorder diagnosed by Research Diagnostic Criteria. Two hundred fifty patients were randomly assigned to one of four 16-week treatment conditions: interpersonal psychotherapy, cognitive behavior therapy, imipramine hydrochloride plus clinical management (as a standard reference treatment), and placebo plus clinical management. Patients in all treatments showed signifi-cant reduction in depressive symptoms and improvement in functioning over the course of treatment. There was a consistent ordering of treatments at termination, with imipramine plus clinical management generally doing best, placebo plus clinical management worst, and the two psychotherapies in between but generally closer to imipramine plus clinical management. In analyses carried out on the total samples without regard to initial severity of illness (the primary analyses), there was no evidence of greater effectiveness of one of the psychotherapies as compared with the other and no evidence that either of the psychotherapies was significantly less effective than the standard reference treatment, imipramine plus clinical management. Comparing each of the psychotherapies with the placebo plus clinical management condition, there was limited evidence of the specific effectiveness of interpersonal psychotherapy and none for cognitive behavior therapy. Superior recovery rates were found for both interpersonal psychotherapy and imipramine plus clinical management, as compared with placebo plus clinical management. On mean scores, however, there were few significant differences in effectiveness among the four treatments in the primary analyses. Secondary analyses, in which patients were dichotomized on intial level of severity of depressive symptoms and impairment of functioning, helped to explain the relative lack of significant findings in the primary analyses. Significant differences among treatments were present only for the subgroup of patients who were more severely depressed and functionally impaired; here, there was some evidence of the effectiveness of interpersonal psychotherapy with these patients and strong evidence of the effectiveness of imipramine plus clinical management. In contrast, there were no significant differences among treatments, including placebo plus clinical management, for the less severely depressed and functionally impaired patients.

2,171 citations

01 Jan 1997
TL;DR: A second-order model, vulnerability, is proposed as the common denominator, and methods for finding markers of vulnerability are suggested in the hope of revitalizing the field.
Abstract: Although descriptive and etiological approaches to psychopathology have made notable advances, they seem to have reached a plateau. After reviewing the six approaches to etiology that now preempt the field—ecological, developmental, learning, genetic, internal environment, and neurophysiological models—a second-order model, vulnerability, is proposed as the common denominator, and methods for finding markers of vulnerability are suggested in the hope of revitalizing the field. It is assumed that exogenous and/or endogenous challengers elicit a crisis in all humans, but depending on the intensity of the elicited stress and the threshold for tolerating it, that is, one's vulnerability, the crisis will either be contained homeostatically or lead to an episode of disorder. Vulnerability and episode stand in a trait-state relation, and markers for each must be provided to distinguish between them.

2,095 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, a second-order model, vulnerability, is proposed as the common denominator, and methods for finding markers of vulnerability are suggested in the hope of revitalizing the field.
Abstract: Although descriptive and etiological approaches to psychopathology have made notable advances, they seem to have reached a plateau. After reviewing the six approaches to etiology that now preempt the field—ecological, developmental, learning, genetic, internal environment, and neurophysiological models—a second-order model, vulnerability, is proposed as the common denominator, and methods for finding markers of vulnerability are suggested in the hope of revitalizing the field. It is assumed that exogenous and/or endogenous challengers elicit a crisis in all humans, but depending on the intensity of the elicited stress and the threshold for tolerating it, that is, one's vulnerability, the crisis will either be contained homeostatically or lead to an episode of disorder. Vulnerability and episode stand in a trait-state relation, and markers for each must be provided to distinguish between them.

2,022 citations