Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2001:4c4e:1545:8300:c518:27dd:5065:6085 (talk) at 16:07, 15 February 2020. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

{{Infobox book |italic title=no | name = Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition
(DSM-5) | image = DSM-5 Cover.png | caption = | alt = | author = American Psychiatric Association | title_orig = | orig_lang_code = | title_working = | country = United States | language = English | series = Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders | subject = Classification and diagnosis of mental disorders | genre = | published = May 18, 2013 | media_type = Print (

Paraphilic disorders

• New specifiers "in a controlled environment" and "in remission" were added to criteria for all paraphilic disorders.
• A distinction is made between paraphilic behaviors, or paraphilias, and paraphilic disorders. All criteria sets were changed to add the word disorder to all of the paraphilias, for example, pedophilic disorder is listed instead of pedophilia. There is no change in the basic diagnostic structure since DSM-III-R; however, people now must meet both qualitative (criterion A) and negative consequences (criterion B) criteria to be diagnosed with a paraphilic disorder. Otherwise they have a paraphilia (and no diagnosis).

Section III: emerging measures and models

Alternative DSM-5 model for personality disorders

An alternative hybrid dimensional-categorical model for personality disorders is included to stimulate further research on this modified classification system.

Conditions for further study

These conditions and criteria are set forth to encourage future research and are not meant for clinical use.

• Attenuated psychosis syndrome
• Depressive episodes with short-duration hypomania
• Persistent complex bereavement disorder
• Caffeine use disorder
• Internet gaming disorder
• Neurobehavioral disorder associated with prenatal alcohol exposure
• Suicidal behavior disorder
• Non-suicidal self-injury

Development

In 1999, a DSM–5 Research Planning Conference; sponsored jointly by APA and the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), was held to set the research priorities. Research Planning Work Groups produced "white papers" on the research needed to inform and shape the DSM-5 and the resulting work and recommendations were reported in an APA monograph and peer-reviewed literature. There were six workgroups, each focusing on a broad topic: Nomenclature, Neuroscience and Genetics, Developmental Issues and Diagnosis, Personality and Relational Disorders, Mental Disorders and Disability, and Cross-Cultural Issues. Three additional white papers were also due by 2004 concerning gender issues, diagnostic issues in the geriatric population, and mental disorders in infants and young children. The white papers have been followed by a series of conferences to produce recommendations relating to specific disorders and issues, with attendance limited to 25 invited researchers.

On July 23, 2007, the APA announced the task force that would oversee the development of DSM-5. The DSM-5 Task Force consisted of 27 members, including a chair and vice chair, who collectively represent research scientists from psychiatry and other disciplines, clinical care providers, and consumer and family advocates. Scientists working on the revision of the DSM had a broad range of experience and interests. The APA Board of Trustees required that all task force nominees disclose any competing interests or potentially conflicting relationships with entities that have an interest in psychiatric diagnoses and treatments as a precondition to appointment to the task force. The APA made all task force members' disclosures available during the announcement of the task force. Several individuals were ruled ineligible for task force appointments due to their competing interests.

The DSM-5 field trials included test-retest reliability which involved different clinicians doing independent evaluations of the same patient—a common approach to the study of diagnostic reliability.

About 68% of DSM-5 task-force members and 56% of panel members reported having ties to the pharmaceutical industry, such as holding stock in pharmaceutical companies, serving as consultants to industry, or serving on company boards.

Revisions and updates

Beginning with the fifth edition, it is intended that diagnostic guideline revisions will be added incrementally. The DSM-5 is identified with Arabic rather than Roman numerals, marking a change in how future updates will be created. Incremental updates will be identified with decimals (DSM-5.1, DSM-5.2, etc.), until a new edition is written. The change reflects the intent of the APA to respond more quickly when a preponderance of research supports a specific change in the manual. The research base of mental disorders is evolving at different rates for different disorders.

Criticism

General

Robert Spitzer, the head of the DSM-III task force, publicly criticized the APA for mandating that DSM-5 task force members sign a nondisclosure agreement, effectively conducting the whole process in secret: "When I first heard about this agreement, I just went bonkers. Transparency is necessary if the document is to have credibility, and, in time, you're going to have people complaining all over the place that they didn't have the opportunity to challenge anything." Allen Frances, chair of the DSM-IV task force, expressed a similar concern.

Although the APA has since instituted a disclosure policy for DSM-5 task force members, many still believe the association has not gone far enough in its efforts to be transparent and to protect against industry influence. In a 2009 Point/Counterpoint article, Lisa Cosgrove, PhD and Harold J. Bursztajn, MD noted that "the fact that 70% of the task force members have reported direct industry ties—an increase of almost 14% over the percentage of DSM-IV task force members who had industry ties—shows that disclosure policies alone, especially those that rely on an honor system, are not enough and that more specific safeguards are needed".

David Kupfer, chair of the DSM-5 task force, and Darrel A. Regier, MD, MPH, vice chair of the task force, whose industry ties are disclosed with those of the task force, countered that "collaborative relationships among government, academia, and industry are vital to the current and future development of pharmacological treatments for mental disorders". They asserted that the development of DSM-5 is the "most inclusive and transparent developmental process in the 60-year history of DSM". The developments to this new version can be viewed on the APA website. Public input was requested for the first time in the history of the manual. During periods of public comment, members of the public could sign up at the DSM-5 website and provide feedback on the various proposed changes.

In June 2009, Allen Frances issued strongly worded criticisms of the processes leading to DSM-5 and the risk of "serious, subtle, (...) ubiquitous" and "dangerous" unintended consequences such as new "false 'epidemics'". He writes that "the work on DSM-V has displayed the most unhappy combination of soaring ambition and weak methodology" and is concerned about the task force's "inexplicably closed and secretive process". His and Spitzer's concerns about the contract that the APA drew up for consultants to sign, agreeing not to discuss drafts of the fifth edition beyond the task force and committees, have also been aired and debated.

The appointment, in May 2008, of two of the taskforce members, Kenneth Zucker and Ray Blanchard, led to an internet petition to remove them. According to MSNBC, "The petition accuses Zucker of having engaged in 'junk science' and promoting 'hurtful theories' during his career, especially advocating the idea that children who are unambiguously male or female anatomically, but seem confused about their gender identity, can be treated by encouraging gender expression in line with their anatomy." According to The Gay City News, "Dr. Ray Blanchard, a psychiatry professor at the University of Toronto, is deemed offensive for his theories that some types of transsexuality are paraphilias, or sexual urges. In this model, transsexuality is not an essential aspect of the individual, but a misdirected sexual impulse." Blanchard responded, "Naturally, it's very disappointing to me there seems to be so much misinformation about me on the Internet. my views, they completely reversed my views." Zucker "rejects the junk-science charge, saying there 'has to be an empirical basis to modify anything' in the DSM. As for hurting people, 'in my own career, my primary motivation in working with children, adolescents and families is to help them with the distress and suffering they are experiencing, whatever the reasons they are having these struggles. I want to help people feel better about themselves, not hurt them.'"

In 2011, psychologist Brent Robbins co-authored a national letter for the Society for Humanistic Psychology that brought thousands into the public debate about the DSM. Approximately 13,000 individuals and mental health professionals signed a petition in support of the letter. Thirteen other American Psychological Association divisions endorsed the petition. In a November 2011 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. In 2012, a footnote was added to the draft text which explains the distinction between grief and depression.

The DSM-5 has been criticized for purportedly saying nothing about the biological underpinnings of mental disorders. A book-long appraisal of the DSM-5, with contributions from philosophers, historians and anthropologists, was published in 2015.

The financial association of DSM-5 panel members with industry continues to be a concern for financial conflict of interest. Of the DSM-5 task force members, 69% report having ties to the pharmaceutical industry, an increase from the 57% of DSM-IV task force members.

A 2015 essay from an Australian university criticized the DSM-5 for having poor cultural diversity, stating that recent work done in cognitive sciences and cognitive anthropology is still only accepting western psychology as the norm.

Borderline personality disorder controversy

In 2003, the Treatment and Research Advancements National Association for Personality Disorders (TARA-APD) campaigned to change the name and designation of borderline personality disorder in DSM-5. The paper How Advocacy is Bringing BPD into the Light reported that "the name BPD is confusing, imparts no relevant or descriptive information, and reinforces existing stigma." Instead, it proposed the name "emotional regulation disorder" or "emotional dysregulation disorder." There was also discussion about changing borderline personality disorder, an Axis II diagnosis (personality disorders and mental retardation), to an Axis I diagnosis (clinical disorders).

The TARA-APD recommendations do not appear to have affected the American Psychiatric Association, the publisher of the DSM. As noted above, the DSM-5 does not employ a multi-axial diagnostic scheme, therefore the distinction between Axis I and II disorders no longer exists in the DSM nosology. The name, the diagnostic criteria for, and description of, borderline personality disorder remain largely unchanged from DSM-IV-TR.

British Psychological Society response

The British Psychological Society stated in its June 2011 response to DSM-5 draft versions, that it had "more concerns than plaudits". It criticized proposed diagnoses as "clearly based largely on social norms, with 'symptoms' that all rely on subjective judgements... not value-free, but rather reflect current normative social expectations", noting doubts over the reliability, validity, and value of existing criteria, that personality disorders were not normed on the general population, and that "not otherwise specified" categories covered a "huge" 30% of all personality disorders.

It also expressed a major concern that "clients and the general public are negatively affected by the continued and continuous medicalisation of their natural and normal responses to their experiences... which demand helping responses, but which do not reflect illnesses so much as normal individual variation".

The Society suggested as its primary specific recommendation, a change from using "diagnostic frameworks" to a description based on an individual's specific experienced problems, and that mental disorders are better explored as part of a spectrum shared with normality:

a revision of the way mental distress is thought about, starting with recognition of the overwhelming evidence that it is on a spectrum with 'normal' experience, and that psychosocial factors such as poverty, unemployment and trauma are the most strongly-evidenced causal factors. Rather than applying preordained diagnostic categories to clinical populations, we believe that any classification system should begin from the bottom up – starting with specific experiences, problems or 'symptoms' or 'complaints'... We would like to see the base unit of measurement as specific problems (e.g. hearing voices, feelings of anxiety etc.)? These would be more helpful too in terms of epidemiology. While some people find a name or a diagnostic label helpful, our contention is that this helpfulness results from a knowledge that their problems are recognised (in both senses of the word) understood, validated, explained (and explicable) and have some relief. Clients often, unfortunately, find that diagnosis offers only a spurious promise of such benefits. Since – for example – two people with a diagnosis of 'schizophrenia' or 'personality disorder' may possess no two symptoms in common, it is difficult to see what communicative benefit is served by using these diagnoses. We believe that a description of a person's real problems would suffice. Moncrieff and others have shown that diagnostic labels are less useful than a description of a person's problems for predicting treatment response, so again diagnoses seem positively unhelpful compared to the alternatives. - British Psychological Society June 2011 response

National Institute of Mental Health

National Institute of Mental Health director Thomas R. Insel, MD, wrote in an April 29, 2013 blog post about the DSM-5:

The goal of this new manual, as with all previous editions, is to provide a common language for describing psychopathology. While DSM has been described as a "Bible" for the field, it is, at best, a dictionary, creating a set of labels and defining each. The strength of each of the editions of DSM has been "reliability" – each edition has ensured that clinicians use the same terms in the same ways. The weakness is its lack of validity ... Patients with mental disorders deserve better.

Insel also discussed an NIMH effort to develop a new classification system, Research Domain Criteria (RDoC), currently for research purposes only. Insel's post sparked a flurry of reaction, some of which might be termed sensationalistic, with headlines such as "Goodbye to the DSM-V", "Federal institute for mental health abandons controversial 'bible' of psychiatry", "National Institute of Mental Health abandoning the DSM", and "Psychiatry divided as mental health 'bible' denounced". Other responses provided a more nuanced analysis of the NIMH Director's post.

In May 2013, Insel, on behalf of NIMH, issued a joint statement with Jeffrey A. Lieberman, MD, president of the American Psychiatric Association, that emphasized that DSM-5 "... represents the best information currently available for clinical diagnosis of mental disorders. Patients, families, and insurers can be confident that effective treatments are available and that the DSM is the key resource for delivering the best available care. The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) has not changed its position on DSM-5." Insel and Lieberman say that DSM-5 and RDoC "represent complementary, not competing, frameworks" for characterizing diseases and disorders. However, epistemologists of psychiatry tend to see the RDoC project as a putative revolutionary system that in the long run will try to replace the DSM, its expected early effect being a liberalization of the research criteria, with an increasing number of research centers adopting the RDoC definitions.

See also

• Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
• ICD-10

References

1. ^ Cite error: The named reference highlights was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. "A Guide to DSM-5: Paraphilias and Paraphilic Disorders". Medscape.com. Retrieved May 26, 2013.
3. "A Guide to DSM-5: Personality Disorders". Medscape.com. Retrieved May 26, 2013.
4. American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing. pp. 783–808. ISBN 978-0-89042-555-8.
5. First, Michael B. (2002), "A Research Agenda for DSM-V: Summary of the DSM-V Preplanning White Papers Published in May 2002", DSM-V Prelude Project, American Psychiatric Association, archived from the original on April 13, 2008, retrieved May 12, 2012
6. Kupfer, David J.; First, Michael B.; Regier, Darrel A., eds. (2002), A Research Agenda for DSM-5, Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association, ISBN 9780890422922, OCLC 49518977
7. Regier, Darrel A; Narrow, William E; First, Michael B; Marshall, Tina (2002). "The APA classification of mental disorders: future perspectives". Psychopathology. 35 (2–3): 166–170. doi:10.1159/000065139. PMID 12145504.
8. ^ "DSM-5 Research Planning", DSM-V Prelude Project, American Psychiatric Association, DSM-V Research White Papers, archived from the original on April 24, 2008, retrieved May 12, 2012
9. Regier DA (2007). "Somatic Presentations of Mental Disorders: Refining the Research Agenda for DSM-V" (PDF). Psychosomatic Medicine. 69 (9): 827–828. doi:10.1097/PSY.0b013e31815afbe4. PMID 18040087. Retrieved December 21, 2007.
10. "Reliability and Prevalence in the DSM-5 Field Trials" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on January 31, 2012. Retrieved January 13, 2012.
11. Cosgrove, Lisa; Bursztajn, Harold J.; Krimsky, Sheldon (May 7, 2009). "Developing Unbiased Diagnostic and Treatment Guidelines in Psychiatry". New England Journal of Medicine. 360 (19): 2035–2036. doi:10.1056/NEJMc0810237. PMID 19420379.
12. ^ "About DSM-5 Frequently Asked Questions". American Psychiatric Association. Retrieved May 24, 2015.
13. Harold, Eve (March 9, 2010). "APA Modifies DSM Naming Convention to Reflect Publication Changes". No. Release No. 10-17. The American Psychiatric Association.
14. Carey, Benedict (December 17, 2008). "Psychiatrists Revise the Book of Human Troubles". The New York Times.
15. Psychiatrists Propose Revisions to Diagnosis Manual. via PBS Newshour, February 10, 2010 (interviews Frances and Alan Schatzberg on some of the main changes proposed to the DSM-5)
16. Cosgrove, Lisa; Krimsky, Sheldon; Vijayaraghavan, Manisha; Schneider, Lisa (April 2006), "Financial Ties between DSM-IV Panel Members and the Pharmaceutical Industry", Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 75 (3): 154–160, doi:10.1159/000091772, PMID 16636630
17. Cosgrove L, Bursztajn HJ, Kupfer DJ, Regier DA. "Toward Credible Conflict of Interest Policies in Clinical Psychiatry" Psychiatric Times 26:1.
18. "DSM-V Task Force Member Disclosure Report: David J Kupfer, MD" (PDF). American Psychiatric Association. and "DSM-V Task Force Member Disclosure Report: Darrel Alvin Regier M.D" (PDF). American Psychiatric Association. May 2, 2011. Retrieved May 5, 2011.
19. DSM-5 Overview: The Future Manual | APA DSM-5 Archived December 17, 2009, at the Wayback Machine
20. Registration page for DSM-5 public comment Archived May 1, 2011, at the Wayback Machine, page found June 5, 2011.
21. "Suggestions and ideas for members of the work groups were also solicited through the DSM-5 website. The proposed draft revisions to DSM-5 are posted on the website, and anyone can provide feedback to the work groups during periods of public comment."Question 4 on the DSM-5 FAQ Archived September 25, 2011, at the Wayback Machine, page found June 5, 2011.
22. Frances, Allen (June 26, 2009). "A Warning Sign on the Road to DSM-V: Beware of Its Unintended Consequences". Psychiatric Times. Retrieved September 6, 2009.
23. Lane, Christopher (July 24, 2009). "The Diagnostic Madness of DSM-V". Slate.
24. Lou Chibbaro, Jr. (May 30, 2008). "Activists alarmed over APA: Head of psychiatry panel favors 'change' therapy for some trans teens". Washington Blade.
25. ^ Alexander, Brian (May 22, 2008). "What's 'normal' sex? Shrinks seek definition: Controversy erupts over creation of psychiatric rule book's new edition". NBC News. Retrieved June 14, 2008.
26. ^ Osborne, Duncan (May 15, 2008). "Flap Flares Over Gender Diagnosis". Gay City News. Archived from the original on October 24, 2008. Retrieved June 14, 2008.
27. "Professor co-authors letter about America's mental health manual". Point Park University. December 12, 2011. Archived from the original on March 29, 2012. Retrieved March 22, 2012.
28. Erin Allday (November 26, 2011). "Revision of psychiatric manual under fire". San Francisco Chronicle.
29. Carey, Benedict (May 8, 2012), "Psychiatry Manual Drafters Back Down on Diagnoses", The New York Times, nytimes.com, retrieved May 12, 2012
30. New DSM-5 Ignores Biology of Mental Illness; "The latest edition of psychiatry's standard guidebook neglects the biology of mental illness. New research may change that." May 5, 2013 Scientific American
31. Demazeux, Steeves; Singy, Patrick (2015). The DSM-5 in Perspective: Philosophical Reflections on the Psychiatric Babel. Springer. ISBN 978-94-017-9764-1.
32. ^ Cosgrove, Lisa; Drimsky Lisa (March 2012). "A comparison of DSM-iv and DSM-5 panel members' financial associations with industry: A pernicious problem persists". PLoS Medicine. 9 (3): e1001190. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001190. PMC 3302834. PMID 22427747.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
33. Murphy, Dominic (2015). "Deviant deviance": Cultural diversity in DSM-5" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on December 20, 2016. Retrieved December 4, 2016.
34. "TARA4BPD". TARA4BPD.
35. "TARA Association for Personality Disorder". tara4bpd.org. Archived from the original on October 20, 2014. Retrieved January 29, 2015.
36. New, Antonia; Triebwasser Joseph; Charney Dennis (October 2008). "The case for shifting borderline personality disorder to Axis I" (PDF). Biol. Psychiatry. 64 (8): 653–9. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2008.04.020. PMID 18550033. Retrieved May 8, 2013.
37. American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing. pp. 663–6. ISBN 978-0-89042-555-8.
38. "British Psychological Society Response, June 2011" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on April 17, 2016. Retrieved October 24, 2011.
39. "Director's Biography". National Institute of Mental Health. Archived from the original on May 23, 2013. Retrieved May 22, 2013.
40. Insel, Thomas. "Transforming Diagnosis". National Institute of Mental Health. Retrieved May 23, 2013.
41. "NIMH Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) (Draft 3.1)". National Institute of Mental Health. June 2011. Archived from the original on June 1, 2013. Retrieved May 26, 2013.
42. Harbinger, New (May 22, 2013). "Goodbye to the DSM-V". Huffington Post. Retrieved May 23, 2013.
43. "Federal institute for mental health abandons controversial 'bible' of psychiatry". Verge. May 3, 2013. Retrieved May 23, 2013.
44. "National Institute of Mental Health abandoning the DSM". Mind Hacks. May 3, 2013. Retrieved May 23, 2013.
45. "Psychiatry divided as mental health 'bible' denounced". New Scientist. Retrieved May 23, 2013.
46. "Did the NIMH Withdraw Support for the DSM-5? No". PsychCentral. May 7, 2013. Retrieved May 23, 2013.
    "Mental Health Researchers Reject Psychiatry's New Diagnostic 'Bible'". Time. May 7, 2013. Retrieved May 23, 2013.
    "THE RATS OF N.I.M.H." The New Yorker. Retrieved May 23, 2013.
    Belluck, Pam; Carey, Benedict (May 6, 2013). "Psychiatry's Guide Is Out of Touch With Science, Experts Say". New York Times. Retrieved May 23, 2013.
47. ^ "DSM-5 and RDoC: Shared Interests". National Institute of Mental Health and American Psychiatric Association. Archived from the original on April 4, 2014. Retrieved May 23, 2013.
48. Aragona M. (2014) Epistemological reflections about the crisis of the DSM-5 and the revolutionary potential of the RDoC project Dialogues in Philosophy, Mental and Neuro Sciences 7: 11-20

External links

• "DSM-V The Future Manual". American Psychiatric Association. Archived from the original on November 19, 2008.
• "DSM-5 Update: Supplement to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition" (PDF). PsychiatryOnline. American Psychiatric Association Publishing. September 2016.

• Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders