Final day: Submissions to third DSM-5 stakeholder review
Post #183 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-2fn
The third and final stakeholder review is scheduled to close today, Friday, June 15.
I am collating copies of submissions on these pages.
A copy of my own comment is published below in text and PDF format. If you are unable to submit your own letter or short of time, please consider endorsing Mary Dimmock’s submission or one of the other submissions or one from last year with a note to say that although the criteria have been revised since last year, the underlying concerns remain.
Submission from UK advocate Suzy Chapman
Full text in PDF: Chapman DSM-5 submission 2012
For the attention of the Somatic Symptom Disorders Work Group: Chair Joel E. Dimsdale, M.D.
Submission in response to J 00 Somatic Symptom Disorder
I note that at June 14, APA has published no report on the results of the DSM-5 field trials. The majority of stakeholders wishing to provide feedback on this third release of draft proposals have no information on the make-up of the SSD study groups, the numbers studied within each of the three arms or the resulting data.
- Stakeholders have been obliged to submit comment without the benefit of scrutiny of field trial results to inform their submissions. This is not acceptable.
For the first and second release of draft proposals, a 7 page “Disorders Description” document and a 14 page “Rationale/Validity Propositions/Justification of Criteria” document accompanied proposals and expanded on the website Proposals, Criteria, Rationale and Severity content for this category section. In the case of the latter, this included five pages of references to published and unpublished papers, including a number of papers authored or co-authored by members of the SSD Work Group. With the release of this third and final draft, no updated versions of these two documents were published that reflect significant revisions to SSD criteria between the second and third draft. The unrevised versions have been removed from the website.
- Stakeholders have been denied access to the more expansive rationales and validity propositions set out within these two documents, the research papers that have been relied on and more detailed explanations for the revisions made to criteria between the second and third iterations in response to field trial results and internal/external input. If the Work Group considered these documents essential background information for the first and second drafts it is unreasonable not to have provided stakeholders with updated versions for this third draft.
The “Rationale/Validity Propositions/Justification of Criteria” document (as published May 4, 2011, for the second public review) states:
“…It is unclear how these changes would affect the base rate of disorders now recognized as somatoform disorders. One might conclude that the rate of diagnosis of CSSD would fall, particularly if some disorders previously diagnosed as somatoform were now diagnosed elsewhere (such as adjustment disorder). On the other hand, there are also considerable data to suggest that physicians actively avoid using the older 6 diagnoses because they find them confusing or pejorative. So, with the CSSD classification, there may be an increase in diagnosis.”
Continued on Page 2