Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders explained

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) published by the American Psychiatric Association provides a common language and standard criteria for the classification of mental disorders. It is used in the United States and in varying degrees around the world, by clinicians, researchers, psychiatric drug regulation agencies, health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and policy makers. The current version is the DSM-IV-TR (fourth edition, text revision). It is organized into a five-part 'axis' system, with the first axis incorporating 'clinical disorders' and the second covering personality disorders and intellectual disabilities. The remaining axes cover related medical, psychosocial and environmental factors, as well as assessments of functioning for children.

The manual evolved from systems for collecting census and psychiatric hospital statistics, and from a manual developed by the United States Army, and was substantially revised in 1980. There have been five revisions since it was first published in 1952, gradually including more mental disorders, although some have been removed and are no longer considered to be mental disorders. The last major revision was the fourth edition ("DSM-IV"), published in 1994, although a "text revision" was produced in 2000. The fifth edition ("DSM-5") is currently in consultation, planning and preparation, due for publication in May 2013.[1] The International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, produced by the World Health Organization (WHO), is another commonly used manual which includes criteria for mental disorders. This is in fact the official diagnostic system for mental disorders in the US, but is used more widely in Europe and other parts of the world. The coding system used in the DSM-IV is designed to correspond with the codes used in the ICD, although not all codes may match at all times because the two publications are not revised synchronously.

The DSM has attracted praise for standardizing psychiatric diagnostic categories and criteria. It has also attracted controversy and criticism. Some critics argue that the DSM represents an unscientific system that enshrines the opinions of a few powerful psychiatrists. There are ongoing issues concerning the validity and reliability of the diagnostic categories; the reliance on superficial symptoms; the use of artificial dividing lines between categories and from 'normality'; possible cultural bias; medicalization of human distress and financial conflicts of interest, including with the practice of psychiatrists and with the pharmaceutical industry; political controversies about the inclusion or exclusion of diagnoses from the manual, in general or in regard to specific issues; and the experience of those who are most directly affected by the manual by being diagnosed, including the consumer/survivor movement. The publication of the DSM, with tightly guarded copyrights, now makes APA over $5 million a year, historically adding up to over $100 million.

Uses and definition

Many mental health professionals use the manual to determine and help communicate a patient's diagnosis after an evaluation; hospitals, clinics, and insurance companies in the US also generally require a 'five axis' DSM diagnosis of all the patients treated. The DSM can be used clinically in this way, and also to categorize patients using diagnostic criteria for research purposes. Studies done on specific disorders often recruit patients whose symptoms match the criteria listed in the DSM for that disorder. An international survey of psychiatrists in 66 countries comparing use of the ICD-10 and DSM-IV found the former was more often used for clinical diagnosis while the latter was more valued for research.[2]

The DSM, including DSM-IV, is a registered trademark belonging to the American Psychiatric Association (APA).[3]

The current version of the DSM characterizes a mental disorder as "a clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual [which] is associated with present distress...or disability...or with a significant increased risk of suffering." It also notes that "...no definition adequately specifies precise boundaries for the concept of 'mental disorder'...different situations call for different definitions". It states that "there is no assumption that each category of mental disorder is a completely discrete entity with absolute boundaries dividing it from other mental disorders or from no mental disorder" (APA, 1994 and 2000). There are attempts to adjust the wording for the upcoming DSM-V.[4] [5]

History

The initial impetus for developing a classification of mental disorders in the United States was the need to collect statistical information. The first official attempt was the 1840 census which used a single category, "idiocy/insanity". In 1917, a Committee on Statistics from what is now known as the American Psychiatric Association (APA), together with the National Commission on Mental Hygiene, developed a new guide for mental hospitals called the "Statistical Manual for the Use of Institutions for the Insane", which included 22 diagnoses. This was subsequently revised several times by APA over the years. APA, along with the New York Academy of Medicine, also provided the psychiatric nomenclature subsection of the US medical guide, the Standard Classified Nomenclature of Disease, referred to as the "Standard".[6]

DSM-I (1952)

World War II saw the large-scale involvement of US psychiatrists in the selection, processing, assessment and treatment of soldiers. This moved the focus away from mental institutions and traditional clinical perspectives. A committee that was headed by psychiatrist Brigadier General William C. Menninger developed a new classification scheme called Medical 203 that was issued in 1943 as a War Department Technical Bulletin under the auspices of the Office of the Surgeon General.[7] The foreword to the DSM-I states the US Navy had itself made some minor revisions but "the Army established a much more sweeping revision, abandoning the basic outline of the Standard and attempting to express present day concepts of mental disturbance. This nomenclature eventually was adopted by all Armed Forces", and "assorted modifications of the Armed Forces nomenclature [were] introduced into many clinics and hospitals by psychiatrists returning from military duty." The Veterans Administration also adopted a slightly modified version of Medical 203.

In 1949, the World Health Organization published the sixth revision of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases (ICD) which included a section on mental disorders for the first time. The foreword to DSM-1 states this "categorized mental disorders in rubrics similar to those of the Armed Forces nomenclature." An APA Committee on Nomenclature and Statistics was empowered to develop a version specifically for use in the United States, to standardize the diverse and confused usage of different documents. In 1950 the APA committee undertook a review and consultation. It circulated an adaptation of Medical 203, the VA system and the Standard's Nomenclature, to approximately 10% of APA members. 46% replied, of which 93% approved, and after some further revisions (resulting in it being called DSM-I), the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders was approved in 1951 and published in 1952. The structure and conceptual framework were the same as in Medical 203 and many passages of text identical.[7] The manual was 130 pages long and listed 106 mental disorders.[8] This included several categories of 'personality disturbance', generally distinguished from 'neurosis' (nervousness, 'egodystonic).[9]

DSM-II (1968)

Although the APA was closely involved in the next significant revision of the mental disorder section of the ICD (version 8 in 1968), it decided to go ahead with a revision of the DSM. It was published in 1968, listed 182 disorders, and was 134 pages long. It was quite similar to the DSM-I. The term “reaction” was dropped, but the term “neurosis” was retained. Both the DSM-I and the DSM-II reflected the predominant psychodynamic psychiatry, although they also included biological perspectives and concepts from Kraepelin's system of classification. Symptoms were not specified in detail for specific disorders. Many were seen as reflections of broad underlying conflicts or maladaptive reactions to life problems, rooted in a distinction between neurosis and psychosis (roughly, anxiety/depression broadly in touch with reality, or hallucinations/delusions appearing disconnected from reality). Sociological and biological knowledge was incorporated, in a model that did not emphasize a clear boundary between normality and abnormality.[10] The idea that personality disorders did not involve emotional distress was discarded.[9]

Seventh printing of the DSM-II, 1974

As described by Ronald Bayer, a psychiatrist and gay rights activist, specific protests by gay rights activists against the APA began in 1970 when the organization held its convention in San Francisco. The activists disrupted the conference by interrupting speakers and shouting down and ridiculing psychiatrists who viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder. In 1971, gay rights activist Frank Kameny worked with the Gay Liberation Front collective to demonstrate against the APA's convention. At the 1971 conference, Kameny grabbed the microphone and yelled, "Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against you."[11]

This activism occurred in the context of a broader antipsychiatry movement that had come to the fore in the 1960s and was challenging the legitimacy of psychiatric diagnosis. Antipsychiatry activists protested at the same APA conventions, with some shared slogans and intellectual foundations.[12] [13]

Presented with data from researchers such as Alfred Kinsey and Evelyn Hooker, the seventh printing of the DSM-II, in 1974, no longer listed homosexuality as a category of disorder. After a vote by the APA trustees in 1973, and confirmed by the wider APA membership in 1974, the diagnosis was replaced with the category of "sexual orientation disturbance".[14]

DSM-III (1980)

In 1974, the decision to create a new revision of the DSM was made, and Robert Spitzer was selected as chairman of the task force. The initial impetus was to make the DSM nomenclature consistent with the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD), published by the World Health Organization. The revision took on a far wider mandate under the influence and control of Spitzer and his chosen committee members.[15] One goal was to improve the uniformity and validity of psychiatric diagnosis in the wake of a number of critiques, including the famous Rosenhan experiment. There was also a need to standardize diagnostic practices within the US and with other countries after research showed that psychiatric diagnoses differed markedly between Europe and the USA.[16] The establishment of these criteria was an attempt to facilitate the pharmaceutical regulatory process.

The criteria adopted for many of the mental disorders were taken from the Research Diagnostic Criteria (RDC) and Feighner Criteria, which had just been developed by a group of research-orientated psychiatrists based primarily at Washington University in St. Louis and the New York State Psychiatric Institute. Other criteria, and potential new categories of disorder, were established by consensus during meetings of the committee, as chaired by Spitzer. A key aim was to base categorization on colloquial English descriptive language (which would be easier to use by federal administrative offices), rather than assumptions of etiology, although its categorical approach assumed each particular pattern of symptoms in a category reflected a particular underlying pathology (an approach described as "neo-Kraepelinian”). The psychodynamic or physiologic view was abandoned, in favor of a regulatory or legislative model. A new "multiaxial" system attempted to yield a picture more amenable to a statistical population census, rather than just a simple diagnosis. Spitzer argued, “mental disorders are a subset of medical disorders” but the task force decided on the DSM statement: “Each of the mental disorders is conceptualized as a clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome.” The personality disorders were placed on axis II along with mental retardation.[9]

The first draft of the DSM-III was prepared within a year. Many new categories of disorder were introduced, while some were deleted or changed. A number of the unpublished documents discussing and justifying the changes have recently come to light.[17] Field trials sponsored by the U.S. National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) were conducted between 1977 and 1979 to test the reliability of the new diagnoses. A controversy emerged regarding deletion of the concept of neurosis, a mainstream of psychoanalytic theory and therapy but seen as vague and unscientific by the DSM task force. Faced with enormous political opposition, so the DSM-III was in serious danger of not being approved by the APA Board of Trustees unless “neurosis” was included in some capacity, a political compromise reinserted the term in parentheses after the word “disorder” in some cases. Additionally, the diagnosis of ego-dystonic homosexuality replaced the DSM-II category of "sexual orientation disturbance".

Finally published in 1980, the DSM-III was 494 pages and listed 265 diagnostic categories. It rapidly came into widespread international use by multiple stakeholders and has been termed a revolution or transformation in psychiatry.[10] However Robert Spitzer later criticized his own work on it in an interview with Adam Curtis saying it led to the medicalization of 20-30 percent of the population who may not have had any serious mental problems.

DSM-III-R (1987)

In 1987 the DSM-III-R was published as a revision of DSM-III, under the direction of Spitzer. Categories were renamed, reorganized, and significant changes in criteria were made. Six categories were deleted while others were added. Controversial diagnoses such as pre-menstrual dysphoric disorder and masochistic personality disorder were considered and discarded. "Sexual orientation disturbance" was also removed and was largely subsumed under "sexual disorder not otherwise specified" which can include "persistent and marked distress about one’s sexual orientation."[18] Altogether, DSM-III-R contained 292 diagnoses and was 567 pages long. Further efforts were made for the diagnoses to be purely descriptive, although the introductory text stated that for at least some disorders, "particularly the Personality Disorders, the criteria require much more inference on the part of the observer" (p. xxiii).[9]

DSM-IV (1994)

In 1994, DSM-IV was published, listing 297 disorders in 886 pages. The task force was chaired by Allen Frances. A steering committee of 27 people was introduced, including four psychologists. The steering committee created 13 work groups of 5–16 members. Each work group had approximately 20 advisers. The work groups conducted a three-step process. First, each group conducted an extensive literature review of their diagnoses. Then they requested data from researchers, conducting analyses to determine which criteria required change, with instructions to be conservative. Finally, they conducted multicenter field trials relating diagnoses to clinical practice.[19] [20] A major change from previous versions was the inclusion of a clinical significance criterion to almost half of all the categories, which required symptoms cause “clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning”. Some personality disorder diagnoses were deleted or moved to the appendix.[9]

DSM-IV-TR (2000)

A "text revision" of the DSM-IV, known as the DSM-IV-TR, was published in 2000. The diagnostic categories and the vast majority of the specific criteria for diagnosis were unchanged.[21] The text sections giving extra information on each diagnosis were updated, as were some of the diagnostic codes to maintain consistency with the ICD.

DSM-IV-TR: the current version

Categorization

The DSM-IV is a categorical classification system. The categories are prototypes, and a patient with a close approximation to the prototype is said to have that disorder. DSM-IV states, “there is no assumption each category of mental disorder is a completely discrete entity with absolute boundaries...” but isolated, low-grade and noncriterion (unlisted for a given disorder) symptoms are not given importance.[22] Qualifiers are sometimes used, for example mild, moderate or severe forms of a disorder. For nearly half the disorders, symptoms must be sufficient to cause “clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning", although DSM-IV-TR removed the distress criterion from tic disorders and several of the paraphilias. Each category of disorder has a numeric code taken from the ICD coding system, used for health service (including insurance) administrative purposes.

Multi-axial system

The DSM-IV organizes each psychiatric diagnosis into five dimensions (axes) relating to different aspects of disorder or disability:

Common Axis I disorders include depression, anxiety disorders, bipolar disorder, ADHD, autism spectrum disorders, anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, and schizophrenia.

Common Axis II disorders include personality disorders: paranoid personality disorder, schizoid personality disorder, schizotypal personality disorder, borderline personality disorder, antisocial personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, histrionic personality disorder, avoidant personality disorder, dependent personality disorder, obsessive-compulsive personality disorder; and intellectual disabilities.

Common Axis III disorders include brain injuries and other medical/physical disorders which may aggravate existing diseases or present symptoms similar to other disorders.

Cautions

The DSM-IV-TR states, because it is produced for the completion of federal legislative mandates, its use by people without clinical training can lead to inappropriate application of its contents. Appropriate use of the diagnostic criteria is said to require extensive clinical training, and its contents “cannot simply be applied in a cookbook fashion”.[23] The APA notes diagnostic labels are primarily for use as a “convenient shorthand” among professionals. The DSM advises laypersons should consult the DSM only to obtain information, not to make diagnoses, and people who may have a mental disorder should be referred to psychological counseling or treatment. Further, a shared diagnosis or label may have different causes or require different treatments; for this reason the DSM contains no information regarding treatment or cause. The range of the DSM represents an extensive scope of psychiatric and psychological issues or conditions, and it is not exclusive to what may be considered “illnesses”.

Sourcebooks

The DSM-IV does not specifically cite its sources, but there are four volumes of "sourcebooks" intended to be APA's documentation of the guideline development process and supporting evidence, including literature reviews, data analyses and field trials.[24] [25] [26] [27] The Sourcebooks have been said to provide important insights into the character and quality of the decisions that led to the production of DSM-IV, and hence the scientific credibility of contemporary psychiatric classification.[28] [29]

Criticism

Validity and reliability

The most fundamental scientific criticism of the DSM concerns the validity and reliability of its diagnoses. This refers, roughly, to whether the disorders it defines are actually real conditions in people in the real world, that can be consistently identified by its criteria. These are long-standing criticisms of the DSM, originally highlighted by the Rosenhan experiment in the 1970s, and continuing despite some improved reliability since the introduction of more specific rule-based criteria for each condition.[30] [31] [32] [33]

Proponents argue that the inter-rater reliability of DSM diagnoses (via a specialized Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID) rather than usual psychiatric assessment) is reasonable, and that there is good evidence of distinct patterns of mental, behavioral or neurological dysfunction to which the DSM disorders correspond well. It is accepted, however, that there is an "enormous" range of reliability findings in studies,[34] and that validity is unclear because, given the lack of diagnostic laboratory or neuroimaging tests, standard clinical interviews are "inherently limited" and only a ("flawed") "best estimate diagnosis" is possible even with full assessment of all data over time.[35]

Critics, such as psychiatrist Niall McLaren, argue that the DSM lacks validity because it has no relation to an agreed scientific model of mental disorder and therefore the decisions taken about its categories (or even the question of categories versus dimensions) were not scientific ones; and that it lacks reliability partly because different diagnoses share many criteria, and what appear to be different criteria are often just rewordings of the same idea, meaning that the decision to allocate one diagnosis or another to a patient is to some extent a matter of personal prejudice.[36]

Superficial symptoms

By design, the DSM is primarily concerned with the signs and symptoms of mental disorders, rather than the underlying causes. It claims to collect them together based on statistical or clinical patterns. As such, it has been compared to a naturalist’s field guide to birds, with similar advantages and disadvantages.[37] The lack of a causative or explanatory basis, however, is not specific to the DSM, but rather reflects a general lack of pathophysiological understanding of psychiatric disorders. As DSM-III chief architect Robert Spitzer and DSM-IV editor Michael First outlined in 2005, "little progress has been made toward understanding the pathophysiological processes and etiology of mental disorders. If anything, the research has shown the situation is even more complex than initially imagined, and we believe not enough is known to structure the classification of psychiatric disorders according to etiology."[38] However, the DSM is based on an underlying structure that assumes discrete medical disorders that can be separated from each other by symptom patterns. Its claim to be “atheoretical” is held to be unconvincing because it makes sense if and only if all mental disorder is categorical by nature, which only a biological model of mental disorder can satisfy. However, the Manual recognizes psychological causes of mental disorder, for example, PTSD, so that it negates its only possible justification.[36]

The DSM's focus on superficial symptoms is claimed to be largely a result of necessity (assuming such a manual is nevertheless produced), since there is no agreement on a more explanatory classification system. Reviewers note, however, that this approach is undermining research, including in genetics, because it results in the grouping of individuals who have very little in common except superficial criteria as per DSM or ICD diagnosis.[30]

Despite the lack of consensus on underlying causation, advocates for specific psychopathological paradigms have nonetheless faulted the current diagnostic scheme for not incorporating evidence-based models or findings from other areas of science. A recent example is evolutionary psychologists' criticism that the DSM does not differentiate between genuine cognitive malfunctions and those induced by psychological adaptations, a key distinction within evolutionary psychology, but one widely challenged within general psychology.[39] [40] [41] Another example is a strong operationalist viewpoint, which contends that reliance on operational definitions, as purported by the DSM, necessitates that intuitive concepts such as depression be replaced by specific measurable concepts before they are scientifically meaningful. One critic states of psychologists that "Instead of replacing 'metaphysical' terms such as 'desire' and 'purpose', they used it to legitimize them by giving them operational definitions...the initial, quite radical operationalist ideas eventually came to serve as little more than a 'reassurance fetish' (Koch 1992) for mainstream methodological practice."[42]

Dividing lines

Despite caveats in the introduction to the DSM, it has long been argued that its system of classification makes unjustified categorical distinctions between disorders, and uses arbitrary cut-offs between normal and abnormal. A 2009 psychiatric review noted that attempts to demonstrate natural boundaries between related DSM syndromes, or between a common DSM syndrome and normality, have failed.[30] Some argue that rather than a categorical approach, a fully dimensional, spectrum or complaint-oriented approach would better reflect the evidence.[43] [44] [45] [46]

In addition, it is argued that the current approach based on exceeding a threshold of symptoms does not adequately take into account the context in which a person is living, and to what extent there is internal disorder of an individual versus a psychological response to adverse situations.[47] [48] The DSM does include a step ("Axis IV") for outlining "Psychosocial and environmental factors contributing to the disorder" once someone is diagnosed with that particular disorder.

Because an individual's degree of impairment is often not correlated with symptom counts, and can stem from various individual and social factors, the DSM's standard of distress or disability can often produce false positives.[49] On the other hand, individuals who do not meet symptom counts may nevertheless experience comparable distress or disability in their life.

Cultural bias

Some psychiatrists also argue that current diagnostic standards rely on an exaggerated interpretation of neurophysiological findings and so understate the scientific importance of social-psychological variables. Advocating a more culturally sensitive approach to psychology, critics such as Carl Bell and Marcello Maviglia contend that the cultural and ethnic diversity of individuals is often discounted by researchers and service providers.[50] In addition, current diagnostic guidelines have been criticized as having a fundamentally Euro-American outlook. Although these guidelines have been widely implemented, opponents argue that even when a diagnostic criteria set is accepted across different cultures, it does not necessarily indicate that the underlying constructs have any validity within those cultures; even reliable application can only demonstrate consistency, not legitimacy.[51] Cross-cultural psychiatrist Arthur Kleinman contends that the Western bias is ironically illustrated in the introduction of cultural factors to the DSM-IV: the fact that disorders or concepts from non-Western or non-mainstream cultures are described as "culture-bound", whereas standard psychiatric diagnoses are given no cultural qualification whatsoever, is to Kleinman revelatory of an underlying assumption that Western cultural phenomena are universal.[52] Kleinman's negative view towards the culture-bound syndrome is largely shared by other cross-cultural critics, common responses included both disappointment over the large number of documented non-Western mental disorders still left out, and frustration that even those included were often misinterpreted or misrepresented.[53] Many mainstream psychiatrists have also been dissatisfied with these new culture-bound diagnoses, although not for the same reasons. Robert Spitzer, a lead architect of the DSM-III, has held the opinion that the addition of cultural formulations was an attempt to placate cultural critics, and that they lack any scientific motivation or support. Spitzer also posits that the new culture-bound diagnoses are rarely used in practice, maintaining that the standard diagnoses apply regardless of the culture involved. In general, the mainstream psychiatric opinion remains that if a diagnostic category is valid, cross-cultural factors are either irrelevant or are only significant to specific symptom presentations.[51]

Medicalization and financial conflicts of interest

It has also been alleged that the way the categories of the DSM are structured, as well as the substantial expansion of the number of categories, are representative of an increasing medicalization of human nature, which may be attributed to disease mongering by psychiatrists and pharmaceutical companies, the power and influence of the latter having grown dramatically in recent decades.[54] Of the authors who selected and defined the DSM-IV psychiatric disorders, roughly half had had financial relationships with the pharmaceutical industry at one time, raising the prospect of a direct conflict of interest.[55] In 2005, then American Psychiatric Association President Steven Sharfstein released a statement in which he conceded that psychiatrists had "allowed the biopsychosocial model to become the bio-bio-bio model".[56]

However, although the number of identified diagnoses has increased by more than 200% (from 106 in DSM-I to 365 in DSM-IV-TR), psychiatrists such as Zimmerman and Spitzer argue it almost entirely represents greater specification of the forms of pathology, thereby allowing better grouping of more similar patients.[30] William Glasser, however, refers to the DSM as "phony diagnostic categories", arguing that "it was developed to help psychiatrists – to help them make money".[57] In addition, the publishing of the DSM, with tightly guarded copyrights, has in itself earned over $100 million for the American Psychiatric Association.[58]

Political controversies

There is scientific and political controversy regarding the continued inclusion of sex-related diagnoses such as the paraphilias (sexual fetishes) and hypoactive sexual desire disorder (low sex drive to asexuality). Critics of these and other controversial diagnoses often cite the DSM's previous inclusion of homosexuality, and the APA's eventual decision to remove it, as a precedent for current disputes.[59]

It is still occasionally argued that homosexuality should be considered a mental disorder. Two psychologists associated with Christian colleges in the US have argued that it is not conclusive that homosexuality does not meet the DSM's criteria, based on their review of some of the research relating to claims of statistical infrequency, personal distress, maladaptiveness and deviation from social norms.[60] The consensus, however, in position statements from the American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association and other institutions in many other countries, is that the research and clinical literature demonstrate that homosexuality is a normal and positive variation of human sexuality, and that any social exclusion or difficulties with homosexuality are a problem of society.[61] [62]

Leaders of the Hearing Voices Network such as psychiatrist Marius Romme have claimed that many people who hallucinate "are like homosexuals in the 1950s -- in need of liberation, not cure."[63]

Disputes over inclusion or exclusion in the DSM can underscore the fact that reevaluation of controversial disorders can be viewed as a political as well as scientific decision. Indeed, Robert Spitzer, a past editor and leading proponent of scientific impartiality in the DSM, conceded that a significant reason that certain diagnoses (the paraphilias) would not, in his opinion, be removed from the DSM is because "it would be a public relations disaster for psychiatry".[64]

A similar line of criticism has appeared in non-specialist venues. In 1997, Harper's Magazine published an essay, ostensibly a book review of the DSM-IV, that criticized the lack of hard science and the proliferation of disorders. The language of the DSM was described as "simultaneously precise and vague" in order to provide an aura of scientific objectivity yet not limit psychiatrists in a semantic or financial sense, and the manual itself compared to "a militia's Web page, insofar as it constitutes an alternative reality under siege" by critics.[65]

Other critics argue that the DSM represents an unscientific system that enshrines the opinions of a few powerful psychiatrists.[66] One paper argued, that every expert involved in writing the diagnostic criteria for DSM-IV disorders depression and schizophrenia, had financial ties to drug companies.[67] This raises the issue of conflicts of interest.

Consumers and survivors

A consumer is a person who accesses psychiatric services and may been given a diagnosis from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, while a survivor self-identifies as having survived psychiatric intervention and the mental health system (which may have involved involuntary commitment and involuntary treatment). Some are relieved to find that they have a recognized condition to which they can give a name. Indeed, many people self-diagnose. Others, however, feel they have been given a "label" that invites social stigma and discrimination (i.e. mentalism), or one that they simply do not feel is accurate. Diagnoses can become internalized and affect an individual's self-identity, and some psychotherapists find that this can worsen symptoms and inhibit the healing process.[68] Some in the Psychiatric survivors movement (more broadly the consumer/survivor/ex-patient movement) actively campaign against their diagnosis, or its assumed implications, and/or against the DSM system in general. It has been noted that the DSM often uses definitions and terminology that are inconsistent with a recovery model, and that can erroneously imply excess psychopathology (e.g. multiple "comorbid" diagnoses) or chronicity.[69]

DSM-5: the next version

See main article: DSM-5. The next (fifth) edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), DSM-5, is currently in consultation, planning and preparation. It is due for publication in May 2013.[1] APA has a website about the development, including draft versions. APA.org is periodically listing several sections of DSM-V for review and discussion.[70] It includes several changes, including proposed deletion of the subtypes of schizophrenia.[71]

Former DSM psychiatrist Allen Frances has expressed concern regarding what he calls 'commercialism and heavy handed censorship' in the DSM-V process. He argues that psychiatric classification is too important to be left under the exclusive control of one professional organization.[72] Frances and others have published debates on what they see as the six most essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis - are they more like theoretical constructs or more like diseases; how to reach an agreed definition; whether the DSM-V should take a cautious or conservative approach; the role of practical rather than scientific considerations; the issue of use by clinicians or researchers; and whether an entirely different diagnostic system is required.[73]

In 2011, psychologist Brent Robbins co-authored a national letter for the Society for Humanistic Psychology that has brought thousands into the public debate about the DSM. Approximately 8,000 individuals and mental health professionals have signed a petition in support of the letter. Thirteen other American Psychological Association divisions have endorsed the petition.[74] In a recent article about the debate in the San Francisco Chronicle, Robbins notes that under the new guidelines, certain responses to grief could be labeled as pathological disorders, instead of being recognized as being normal human experiences.[75]

See also

External links

Notes and References

  1. http://www.psych.org/MainMenu/Newsroom/NewsReleases/2009NewsReleases/DSM-5-Publication-Date-Moved-.aspx DSM-5 Publication Date Moved to May 2013
  2. Mezzich. Juan E.. 2002. International Surveys on the Use of ICD-10 and Related Diagnostic Systems. Psychopathology. 35. 2–3. 72–75. 10.1159/000065122. guest editorial, abstract. 2008-09-02. 12145487.
  3. Web site: Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS). 2010-02-03.
  4. Dan J. Stein, Katharine A. Phillips, Derek Bolton, K.W.M Fulford, John Z. Sadler, and Kenneth S. Kendler What is a Mental/Psychiatric Disorder? From DSM-IV to DSM-V Psychol Med. 2010 November; 40(11): 1759–1765.
  5. American Psychiatric Association Proposed Revision: Definition of a Mental Disorder Retrieved December 20th 2011
  6. Greenberg. S. Shuman. DW. Meyer. RG. Unmasking forensic diagnosis. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry. 27. 1. 1–15. 2004. 15019764. 10.1016/j.ijlp.2004.01.001.
  7. Houts, A.C. (2000) Fifty years of psychiatric nomenclature: Reflections on the 1943 War Department Technical Bulletin, Medical 203. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56 (7), Pages 935 - 967
  8. Grob, GN. (1991) Origins of DSM-I: a study in appearance and reality Am J Psychiatry. April;148(4):421–31.
  9. John M. Oldham. Personality Disorders. FOCUS. 2005. 3. 372–382..
  10. Wilson. M.. 1993 March;. DSM-III and the transformation of American psychiatry: a history. Am J Psychiatry. 150. 3. 399–410. 8434655.
  11. Ronald Bayer Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis (1981).
  12. McCommon, B. (2006) Antipsychiatry and the Gay Rights Movement Psychiatr Serv 57:1809, December doi 10.1176/appi.ps.57.12.1809
  13. Rissmiller, DJ, D.O., Rissmiller, J. (2006) Letter in reply Psychiatr Serv 57:1809-a-1810, December 2006 doi 10.1176/appi.ps.57.12.1809-a
  14. Spitzer. R.L..,. 1981. The diagnostic status of homosexuality in DSM-III: a reformulation of the issues. Am J Psychiatry. 138. 2. 210–215. 7457641.
  15. Speigel, A. (2005) The Dictionary of Disorder: How one man revolutionized of 2005-01-03.
  16. Cross-national study of diagnosis of the mental disorders: some results from the first comparative investigation. 5774702.,. 10 Suppl. 1969. April. 21–9. Cooper. JE. Kendell. RE. Gurland. BJ. Sartorius. N. Farkas. T. The American journal of psychiatry.
  17. Book: Lane, Christopher. Shyness: How Normal Behavior Became a Sickness. Yale University Press. 2007. 0300124465. 263.
  18. Spiegel, Alix. (18 January 2002.) "81 Words". In Ira Glass (producer), This American Life. Chicago: Chicago Public Radio.
  19. Allen Frances, Avram H. Mack, Ruth Ross, and Michael B. First (2000) The DSM-IV Classification and Psychopharmacology.
  20. Schaffer, David (1996) [https://ww1.cpa-apc.org/Publications/Archives/PDF/1996/Aug/schaffer.pdf A Participant's Observations: Preparing DSM-IV] Can J Psychiatry 1996;41:325–329.
  21. APA Summary of Practice-Relevant Changes to the DSM-IV-TR.
  22. Maser, JD. & Patterson, T. (2002) Spectrum and nosology: implications for DSM-5 Psychiatric Clinics of North America, December, 25(4)p855-885
  23. http://www.psych.org/research/dor/dsm/dsm_faqs/faq81301.cfm DSM FAQ
  24. http://www.appi.org/book.cfm?id=2065 DSM-IV Sourcebook Volume 1
  25. http://www.appi.org/book.cfm?id=2071 DSM-IV Sourcebook Volume 2
  26. http://www.appi.org/book.cfm?id=2073 DSM-IV Sourcebook Volume 3
  27. http://www.ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/156/10/1655 DSM-IV Sourcebook Volume 4
  28. Poland, JS. (2001) Review of Volume 1 of DSM-IV sourcebook
  29. Poland, JS. (2001) Review of vol 2 of DSM-IV sourcebook
  30. Dalal PK, Sivakumar T. (2009) Moving towards ICD-11 and DSM-5: Concept and evolution of psychiatric classification. Indian Journal of Psychiatry, Volume 51, Issue 4, Page 310-319.
  31. Distinguishing Between the Validity and Utility of Psychiatric Diagnoses. 12505793.,. 10.1176/appi.ajp.160.1.4. 160. 1. 2003. January. 4–12. Kendell. R.. American Journal of Psychiatry. Jablensky. A.
  32. 17329740.,. 10.1192/bjp.bp.106.024026. 190. 2007. March. 210–6. Diagnostic stability of psychiatric disorders in clinical practice. Baca-Garcia. E.. Perez-Rodriguez. M. M.. Basurte-Villamor. I.. Del Moral. A. L. F.. Jimenez-Arriero. M. A.. De Rivera. J. L. G.. Saiz-Ruiz. J.. Oquendo. M. A.. The British Journal of Psychiatry. 3.
  33. Pincus. H. A..,. 1998. Clinical Significance" and DSM-IV. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 55. 12. 1145. 9862559. 10.1001/archpsyc.55.12.1145. Zarin. DA. First. M. 1145; author reply 1147–8.
  34. http://www.scid4.org/psychometric/scidI_reliability.html What is the Reliability of the SCID-I?
  35. http://www.scid4.org/psychometric/scidI_validity.html What is the "validity" of the SCID-I?
  36. Book: McLaren, Niall. Humanizing Madness. 2007. 1-932-69039-5. 81–94. Loving Healing Press. Ann Arbor, MI.
  37. Paul R. McHugh (2005) Striving for Coherence: Psychiatry’s Efforts Over Classification JAMA. 2005;293(no.20)2526-2528.
  38. Spitzer and First (2005) Classification of Psychiatric Disorders. JAMA.2005; 294: 1898-1899.
  39. http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/ArchiveFolder/Research%20Group/Publications/Mad/Madhouse.html Dominic Murphy, PhD; Steven Stich, PhD (1998) Darwin in the Madhouse
  40. Leda Cosmides, PhD; John Tooby, PhD (1999) Toward an Evolutionary Taxonomy of Treatable Conditions "J of Abnormal Psychology." 1999;108(3):453-464. http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/papers/taxonomywakefield99.pdf
  41. 11227812.,. 39. 3. 2001. March. 309–14. McNally. RJ. On Wakefield's harmful dysfunction analysis of mental disorder. Behaviour research and therapy. 10.1016/S0005-7967(00)00068-1.
  42. DW Hands (2004) On Operationalisms and Economics Journal of Economic Issues
  43. Spitzer, Robert L, M.D., Williams, Janet B.W, D.S.W., First, Michael B, M.D., Gibbon, Miriam, M.S.W., Biometric Research
  44. Maser, JD & Akiskal, HS. et al. (2002) Spectrum concepts in major mental disorders Psychiatric Clinics of North America, Vol. 25, Special issue 4
  45. Krueger. RF.. Watson. D.. Barlow. DH. et al.. 2005. Introduction to the Special Section: Toward a Dimensionally Based Taxonomy of Psychopathology. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 114. 4. 491–493. 10.1037/0021-843X.114.4.491. 16351372. 2242426.
  46. Bentall. R.. 2006. Madness explained : Why we must reject the Kraepelinian paradigm and replace it with a 'complaint-orientated' approach to understanding mental illness. Medical hypotheses. 66. 2. 220–233. 10.1016/j.mehy.2005.09.026. 16300903.
  47. Chodoff, P. (2005) Psychiatric Diagnosis: A 60-Year Perspective Psychiatric News June 3, 2005 Volume 40 Number 11, p17
  48. Wakefield. Jerome C.. PhD. MF. PhD. MB. PhD. DSW. Schmitz. Mark F.. First. Michael B.. MD. Horwitz. Allan V.. 2007. Extending the Bereavement Exclusion for Major Depression to Other Losses: Evidence From the National Comorbidity Survey. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 64. 4. 433–440. 10.1001/archpsyc.64.4.433. 17404120.
  49. Spitzer. RL. Wakefield. JC..,. 1999 December;. DSM-IV diagnostic criterion for clinical significance: does it help solve the false positives problem?. Am J Psychiatry. 156. 12. 1856–64. 10588397.
  50. Shankar Vedantam, Psychiatry's Missing Diagnosis: Patients' Diversity Is Often Discounted Washington Post: Mind and Culture, June 26
  51. Widiger TA, Sankis LM. Adult psychopathology: issues and controversies. Annu Rev Psychol. 51. 377–404. 2000. 10751976. 10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.377.
  52. Kleinman A. Triumph or pyrrhic victory? The inclusion of culture in DSM-IV. Harv Rev Psychiatry. 4. 6. 343–4. 1997. 9385013. 10.3109/10673229709030563.
  53. Bhugra, D. & Munro, A. (1997) Troublesome Disguises: Underdiagnosed Psychiatric Syndromes Blackwell Science Ltd
  54. Healy D (2006) The Latest Mania: Selling Bipolar Disorder PLoS Med 3(4): e185.
  55. Cosgrove, Lisa, Krimsky, Sheldon,Vijayaraghavan, Manisha, Schneider, Lisa, Financial Ties between DSM-IV Panel Members and the Pharmaceutical Industry
  56. Sharfstein, SS. (2005) Big Pharma and American Psychiatry: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly Psychiatric News August 19, 2005 Volume 40 Number 16
  57. http://nationalpsychologist.com/2006/11/glasser-headlines-psychotherapy-conference/10879.html The National Psychologist (Susan Bowman, 2006)
  58. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/30/opinion/the-dsms-troubled-revision.html
  59. Alexander, B. (2008) What's ‘normal’ sex? Shrinks seek definition Controversy erupts over creation of psychiatric rule book's new edition MSNBC Today, May.
  60. Stanton L. Jones & Mark A. Yarhouse (2000) Homosexuality:the use of scientific research in the church's moral debate Pages 93 to 116. Intervarsity Press.
  61. American Psychological Association: Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation
  62. Royal College of Psychiatrists: Submission to the Church of England’s Listening Exercise on Human Sexuality.
  63. http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2007/03/25/voices_carry/?page=1 Voices Carry
  64. Kleinplatz, P.J & Moser, C. (2005). Politics versus science: An addendum and response to Drs. Spitzer and Fink. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 17(3/4), 135-139.
  65. Web site: 'The Encyclopedia of Insanity — A Psychiatric Handbook Lists a Madness for Everyone.'. Harpers Magazine. February 1997. L.J. Davis.
  66. http://www.spiritualmentoring.com/page2/page46/page46.html G. Scott Sparrow: DSM-IV-TR In Action
  67. Cosgrove. Lisa. Krimsky, Sheldon, Vijayaraghavan, Manisha, Schneider, Lisa. Financial Ties between DSM-IV Panel Members and the Pharmaceutical Industry. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics. 2006. 75. 3. 154–160. 10.1159/000091772. 13 March 2012.
  68. http://jhp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/41/4/36 How Using the Dsm Causes Damage: A Client’s Report
  69. Michael T. Compton (2007) Recovery: Patients, Families, Communities Conference Report, Medscape Psychiatry & Mental Health, October 11–14, 2007
  70. http://www.dsm5.org/pages/default.aspx DSM-5 development
  71. Web site: Schizophrenia and Other Psychotic Disorders. American Psychiatric Association. May 6, 2010.
  72. Allen, FJ. (2012) Is DSM 5 A Public Trust Or An APA Cash Cow? Commercialism And Censorship Trump Concern For Quality Psychology Today
  73. Phillips. James et al.. The Six Most Essential Questions in Psychiatric Diagnosis: A Pluralogue. Part 1: Conceptual and Definitional Issues in Psychiatric Diagnosis.. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine. 2012. January 13. 7. 3. 1–51. 10.1186/1747-5341-7-3. 22243994. 24 January 2012. BioMed Central. 1747-5341.
  74. Web site: Professor co-authors letter about America’s mental health manual. December 12, 2011. Point Park University.
  75. Web site: Revision of psychiatric manual under fire. Erin Allday. November 26, 2011. San Francisco Chronicle.