Three professional organization responses to third and final DSM-5 stakeholder review

Three professional organization responses to the third and final DSM-5 stakeholder review

Post #185 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-2hS

According to DSM-5 Task Force Vice-chair, Darrel Regier M.D., the specific diagnostic categories that received most comments during the second public review of draft proposals (May-June 2011) were the sexual and gender identity disorders, followed closely by somatic symptom disorders and anxiety disorders.

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has yet to report how many comments the DSM-5 Task Force and its 13 Work Groups received during this third and final review period (which closed last Friday), or which categories garnered the most responses, this year.

 

No publication of field trial data

Following posting of the third draft on May 2, it was anticipated APA would publish full results from the DSM-5 field trials “within a month”. [Source: Deborah Brauser for Medscape Medical News: interview with Darrel Regier, May 8, 2012.]

No report emerged and stakeholders had little choice but submit feedback on this latest iteration without the benefit of scrutiny of reliability data to inform their submissions.

APA has yet to account for its failure to place its field trial results in the public domain while the feedback exercise was in progress, other than releasing some Kappa data at its May 5-9 Annual Conference.

American Psychiatric Association CEO and Medical Director, James H. Scully, Jr., M.D., blogs at Huffington Post. Last week, I asked Dr Scully why the field trial report has been withheld; whether Task Force still intends publishing field trial data and when that report might now be anticipated. 

I’ve received no response from Dr Scully and APA has put out no clarification.

 

No publication of list of Written Submissions

These three DSM-5 public reviews of draft proposals for changes to DSM-IV categories and criteria have not been managed as formal stakeholder consultation exercises.

APA publishes no aggregations of key areas of concern identified during public comment periods nor publishes Work Group or Task Force responses to key areas of professional or lay public concern on the DSM-5 Development website  – an issue I raised with the Task Force during both the first and second reviews.

Although some published submissions (ACA, British Psychological Society and the DSM-5 Reform Open Letter and Petition Committee) have received responses from the Task Force and which APA has elected to place in the public domain, submissions from the majority of professional bodies and organizations disappear into a black hole.

In the interests of transparency, APA could usefully publish lists of the names of US and international professional bodies, academic institutions, patient advocacy organizations etc. that have submitted comments, in the way that Written Submissions are listed in the annexes to reports and public inquiries.

That way, interested parties might at least approach organizations to request copies of submissions or suggest that these are placed in the public domain.

APA could not legitimately claim it would require permissions before publishing full lists of the names of professional body, academic institution and organization respondents that tendered formal responses – its legal department’s boilerplate Terms and Conditions of Use gives APA carte blanche to make use of and publish uploaded submissions in any way it sees fit.*

*See Terms and Conditions of Use, under “User Submissions” 

 

The following have released their submissions in response to the third draft:

Submission from The American Mental Health Counselors Association (AMHCA)

The American Mental Health Counselors Association is a nationwide organization representing 6,000 clinical mental health counselors. Their submission includes concerns for the lowering of the “B type” threshold requirement for “Somatic Symptom Disorder” criteria between the second and third drafts.

[In the CSSD field trials, about 15% of the "diagnosed illness" study group (patients with cancer and coronary disease) met the criteria for coding with an additional mental health diagnosis of "SSD" when "one B type" cognition was required; about 10% met the criteria when "two B type" were required. About 26% of the "functional somatic" arm of the study group (patients with irritable bowel and "chronic widespread pain" – a term used synonymously with fibromyalgia) met the criteria for coding with an additional mental health diagnosis of "SSD" when "one B type" cognition was required; about 13% met the criteria when "two B type" were required. AMHCA recommends raising the threshold back to at least two from the three B type criteria, as the criteria for CSSD had stood for the second draft. I consider the category of "SSD" should be rejected in the absence of a substantial body of independent evidence for the reliability, validity and safety of "SSD" as a construct.]

AMHCA Submits Comments on DSM-5 06/19/12

June 18, 2012 – Alexandria, VA – The DSM-5 Task Force of the American Mental Health Counselors Association (AMHCA) has submitted comments for the third period of public comment on the fifth edition of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5).

AMHCA’s comments addressed 12 disorder categories and the Cultural Formulation Interview Guide. Per the site requirements, each was sent separately to the particular disorder site.

    Download compilation of comments submitted by AMHCA DSM-5 Task Force

Somatic Symptom Disorders

“Somatic Symptom Disorder

“A major change in this revision is the merger of Complex Somatic Symptom Disorder and Simple Somatic Symptom Disorder into one disorder, Somatic Symptom Disorder. The increased emphasis placed on cognitive distortions (along with the presence of somatic symptoms ) provides greater clarity about the nature of the disorder. However, the notion that a single B.2 criteria could be used as the sole basis for identifying these cognitive aspects seems to open the door to diagnosing individuals who have legitimate “high anxiety” about their symptoms. We recommend considering “two of three” criteria under B be required.”

 

The British Psychological Society writes:

The British Psychological Society still has concerns over DSM-V

…For all the reasons stated above, the BPS, having reviewed the currently proposed revisions of the new diagnostic criteria in DSM 5, continues to have major concerns. These have, if anything, been increased by the very poor reliabilities achieved in many of the recent field trials (Huffington Post, 2012), especially given the limited time available to attempt to achieve more satisfactory outcomes. Since validity depends, at the very least, on acceptable levels of reliability, the unavoidable conclusion is that many of the most frequently-used categories will be unable to fulfil their purported purposes, i.e. identification of appropriate treatments, signposting to support, providing a basis for research…

Read full submission to third draft here in PDF format.

Response to second draft here.

Christopher Lane comments:

Psychology Today | Side Effects

Arguing Over DSM-5: The British Psychological Society Has Serious Concerns About the Manual

The BPS expresses “serious reservations” about the next DSM.

Christopher Lane, Ph.D. in Side Effects | June 20, 2012

Although the American Psychiatric Association recently closed its window allowing comments on proposed changes to the DSM, the organization has yet to report on the field trials it devised for the next edition of the psychiatric manual, themselves meant to support—indeed, serve as a rationale for—the changes it is proposing in the first place.

While this unhappy outcome points to some of the organization’s chicken-and-egg problems with the manual and the disorders it is seeking to adjust or make official, those wanting to respond to the draft proposals have had to do so in the dark, unaware of the results of the field trials and thus whether the proposals draw from them any actual empirical support…

Read on

 

Submission from American Counseling Association (ACA)

The American Counseling Association (ACA), represents more than 50,000 counselors – one of the largest groups of DSM-5 users in the US.

ACA provides final comments on the DSM-5

ACA President Don W. Locke has sent the American Psychiatric Association a letter providing final comments for the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). Based on comments from ACA members and the ACA DSM Task Force, the letter acknowledges useful changes that had been made to previous drafts of the DSM-5: the development of the Cultural Formulation Outline, reversing the pathologizing of normal bereavement, and limiting the expansion of personality disorder types. ACA also calls for addressing the one-dimensional nature of the new Substance Use Disorder category and rejects the proposed dimensional assessments. Click here to view letter.

This is the third letter ACA has sent to the American Psychiatric Association providing feedback for the DSM-5. Click the links below to read the previous letters and a response from APA:

Letter from President Lynn Linde, April 16, 2010

Letter from President Don Locke, November 8, 2011

Response from APA President John Oldham, November 21, 2011

 

Submission by Coalition for DSM-5 Reform Committee

The Coalition for DSM-5 Reform Open Letter and Petition has garnered support from over 13,700 professionals and concerned stakeholders and the endorsement of nearly 50 organizations, since launching last October.

The DSM-5 Reform Committee continues to call for independent scientific review of draft proposals and submitted the following response during this third and final comment period:

Submission from Coalition for DSM-5 Reform (Society for Humanistic Psychology)Division 32 of the American Psychological Association)

To the DSM-5 Task Force and the American Psychiatric Association

As you know, the Open Letter Committee of the Society for Humanistic Psychology and the Coalition for DSM-5 Reform have been following the development of DSM-5 closely.

We appreciate the opportunity for public commentary on the most recent version of the DSM-5 draft proposals. We intend to submit this brief letter via the dsm5.org feedback portal and to post it for public viewing on our website at http://dsm5-reform.com/

Since its posting in October 2011, the Open Letter to the DSM-5, which was written in response to the second version of the draft proposals, has garnered support from almost 50 mental health organizations and over 13,500 individual mental health professionals and others.

Our three primary concerns in the letter were as follows: the DSM-5 proposals appear to lower diagnostic thresholds, expanding the purview of mental disorder to include normative reactions to life events; some new proposals (e.g., “Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder” and “Attenuated Psychosis Syndrome”) seem to lack the empirical grounding necessary for inclusion in a scientific taxonomy; newly proposed disorders are particularly likely to be diagnosed in vulnerable populations, such as children and the elderly, for whom the over-prescription of powerful psychiatric drugs is already a growing nationwide problem; and the increased emphasis on medico-biological theories for mental disorder despite the fact that recent research strongly points to multifactorial etiologies.

We appreciate some of the changes made in this third version of the draft proposals, in particular the relegation of Attenuated Psychosis Syndrome and Mixed Anxiety-Depression to the Appendix for further research. We believe these disorders had insufficient empirical backing for inclusion in the manual itself. In addition, given the continuing elusiveness of biomarkers, we are relieved to find that you have proposed a modified definition of mental disorder that does not include the phrase “underlying psychobiological dysfunction.”

Despite these positive changes, we remain concerned about a number of the DSM-5 proposals, as well as the apparent setbacks in the development process.

Our continuing concerns are:

 The proposal to include new disorders with relatively little empirical support and/or research literature that is relatively recent (e.g., Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder)

 The lowering of diagnostic thresholds, which may result in diagnostic expansion and various iatrogenic hazards, such as inappropriate treatment and stigmatization of normative life processes. Examples include the newly proposed Minor Neurocognitive Disorder, as well as proposed changes to Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, Pedophilia, and the new behavioral addictions.

The perplexing Personality Disorders overhaul, which is an unnecessarily complex and idiosyncratic system that is likely to have little clinical utility in everyday practice.

 The development of novel scales (e.g., severity scales) with little psychometric testing rather than utilizing established standards.

In addition, we are increasingly concerned about several aspects of the development process. These are:

Continuing delays, particularly in the drafting and field testing of the proposals.

 The substandard results of the first set of field trials, which revealed kappas below accepted reliability standards.

 The cancelation of the second set of field trials.

The lack of formal forensic review.

Ad hominem responses to critics.

The hiring of a PR firm to influence the interpretation and dissemination of information about DSM-5, which is not standard scientific practice.

We understand that there have been recent attempts to locate a “middle ground” between the DSM-5 proposals and DSM-5 criticism. We believe that, given the extremity and idiosyncrasy of some of the proposed changes to the manual, this claim of a “middle ground” is more rhetorical and polemic than empirical or measured. A true middle ground, we believe, would draw on medical ethics and scientific standards to revise the proposals in a careful way that prioritizes patient safety, especially protection against unnecessary treatment, above institutional needs.

Therefore, we would like to reiterate our call for an independent scientific review of the manual by professionals whose relationship to the DSM-5 Task Force and/or American Psychiatric Association does not constitute a conflict of interest.

As the deadline for the future manual approaches, we urge the DSM-5 Task Force and all concerned mental health professionals to examine the proposed manual with scientific and expert scrutiny.

It is not only our professional standards, but also – and most importantly – patient care that is at stake. We thank you for your time and serious consideration of our concerns, and we hope that you will continue to engage in dialogue with those calling for reform of DSM-5.

Sincerely,

The DSM-5 Open Letter Committee of the Society for Humanistic Society, Division 32 of the American Psychological Association

Round-up: Recent commentaries by Allen Frances, MD, on a DSM-5 in distress

Round-up: Recent commentaries by Allen Frances, MD, on a DSM-5 in distress

Post #146 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-1X2

Allen Frances’ Blog at Huffington Post

DSM 5 Freezes Out Its Stakeholders

Allen Frances, MD | February 21, 2012

Scary news. The Chair of the DSM 5 Task Force, Dr. David Kupfer, has indicated that 90 percent of the decisions on DSM 5 have already been made.

Why so scary? DSM 5 is the new revision of the psychiatric diagnosis manual, meant to become official in May 2013. It proposes a radical redefinition of the boundary between mental disorder and normality, greatly expanding the former at the expense of the latter. Understandably, this ambitious medicalization of the human condition has generated unprecedented opposition, both from the public and from mental heath professionals. To top it off, the DSM 5 proposals are poorly written, unreliable, and likely to cause the misdiagnosis and the excessive treatment of millions of people.

Under normal circumstances the DSM 5 team would have taken the many criticisms to heart, gone back to the drawing board, and improved the quality and acceptability of their product. After all, the customer is very often right. But this DSM process has been strangely secretive, unable to self-correct, and stubbornly closed to suggestions coming from outside. As a result, current DSM 5 proposals show very little improvement over poorly done first drafts posted in February 2010.

Is there any hope of a last-minute save? I have gathered opinions from three well-informed DSM 5 watchers. They were asked to assess the current state of DSM 5 and offer suggestions about future prospects. The first comment comes from Suzy Chapman, a public advocate, whose website provides the most comprehensive documentary source on the development of DSM 5 and ICD-11. Ms Chapman writes:

DSM 5 consistently misses every one of its deadlines and then fails to update its website with a new schedule. The Timeline was finally revised a couple of weeks ago, but we are still no nearer to a firm date for the final period of invited public comment. We’ve known since November that DSM 5 is stuffed as far as its planned January-February comment period and that Dr Kupfer now reckons “no later than May” – but all the website says is “Spring.” That’s no use to those of us who need to alert patient groups and their professional advisers…

Psychology Today

DSM5 in Distress
The DSM’s impact on mental health practice and research.
by Allen Frances, M.D.

ICD-10-CM Delay Removes Excuse For Rushing DSM 5 Into Premature Publication: Time needed to avoid harmful document

Allen Frances, MD | February 22, 2012

Until yesterday, there were only two reasons to stick with the projected date of DSM 5 publication (May 2013): 1) the need to coordinate DSM 5 with ICD-10-CM coding, which was scheduled to start Oct 2013; and, 2) the need to protect APA publishing profits in order to meet budget projections.

The first reason just dropped out. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen G. Sebelius has announced that the start date for ICD-10-CM has been postponed. It is not yet clear for how long, but most likely a year (see http://www.dhhs.gov/news/press/2012pres/02/20120216a.html ).

also on Psychiatric Times

Registration required for access

ICD-10-CM Delay Removes Excuse For Rushing DSM-5 Into Premature Publication

and Education Update

Psychology Today

DSM5 in Distress

DSM 5 to the Barricades on Grief

Defending The Indefensible

Allen Frances, MD | February 18, 2012

The storm of opposition to DSM 5 is now focused on its silly and unnecessary proposal to medicalize grief. DSM 5 would encourage the diagnosis of ‘Major Depressive Disorder’ almost immediately after the loss of a loved one—having just 2 weeks of sadness and loss of interest along with reduced appetite, sleep, and energy would earn the MDD label (and all too often an unnecessary and potentially harmful pill treatment). This makes no sense. To paraphrase Voltaire, normal grief is not ‘Major’, is not ‘Depressive,’ and is not ‘Disorder.’ Grief is the normal and necessary human reaction to love and loss, not some phony disease.

All this seems perfectly clear to just about everyone in the world except the small group of people working on DSM 5. The press is now filled with scores of shocked articles stimulated by two damning editorial pieces in the Lancet and a recent prominent article in the New York Times.

The role of public defender of DSM 5 has fallen on John Oldham MD, president of the American Psychiatric Association…

Psychology Today

DSM5 in Distress

Allen Frances, MD | February 17, 2012

Lancet Rejects Grief As a Mental Disorder: Will DSM 5 Finally Drop This Terrible Idea

The Lancet is probably the most prestigious medical journal in the world. When it speaks, people listen. The New York Times is probably the most prestigious newspaper in the world. Again, when it speaks, people usually listen. The Lancet and The New York Times have both spoken on the DSM-5 foolishness of turning grief into a mental disorder. Will DSM-5 finally listen?

Here are some selected quotes from today’s wonderful Lancet editorial
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(12)60248-7/fulltext

Previous DSM editions have highlighted the need to consider, and usually exclude, bereavement before diagnosis of a major depressive disorder. In the draft version of DSM-5 , however, there is no such exclusion for bereavement, which means that feelings of deep sadness, loss, sleeplessness, crying, inability to concentrate, tiredness, and no appetite, which continue for more than 2 weeks after the death of a loved one, could be diagnosed as depression, rather than as a normal grief reaction.”

“Medicalising grief, so that treatment is legitimized routinely with antidepressants, for example, is not only dangerously simplistic, but also flawed…”

Psychology Today

DSM5 in Distress

DSM 5 Minor Neurocognitive Disorder: Let’s Wait For Accurate Biological Tests

Allen Frances, MD | February 16, 2012

Within the next 3-5 years, we will likely have biological tests to accurately diagnose the prodrome of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Much remains to be done in standardizing these tests, determining their appropriate set points and patterns of results, and negotiating the difficult transition from research to general clinical practice. And, given the lack of effective treatment, there are legitimate concerns about the advisability of testing for the individual patient and the enormous societal expense with little tangible benefit. Despite these necessary caveats, there is no doubt that biological testing for prodromal AD will be an important milestone in the clinical application of neuroscience.

How does this impact on the DSM 5 proposal to include a Minor Neurocognitive Disorder as a presumed prodrome to AD…

Psychology Today

DSM5 in Distress

PTSD, DSM 5, and Forensic Misuse: DSM 5 would lead to overdiagnosis in legal cases.

Allen Frances, MD | February 09, 2012

In preparing DSM IV, we worked hard to avoid causing confusion in forensic settings. Realizing that lawyers read documents in their own special way, we had a panel of forensic psychiatrists go over every word to reduce the risks that DSM IV could be misused in the courts. They did an excellent job, but all of us missed one seemingly small mistake– the substitution of an ‘or’ for an ‘and’ in the paraphilia section that lead to serious misunderstandings and the questionably constitutional preventive psychiatric detention of sexual offenders.

DSM 5 is about to make a very different, less crucial, but still consequential forensic mistake. The proposed A criterion for PTSD includes the following wording…

Psychology Today

DSM5 in Distress

Documentation That DSM 5 Publication Must Be Delayed because DSM 5 is so far behind schedule

Allen Frances, MD | February 07, 2012

I wrote last week that DSM 5 is so far behind schedule it can’t possibly produce a usable document in time for its planned publication date in May 2013. My blog stimulated two interesting responses that illustrate the stark contrast between DSM 5 fantasy and DSM 5 reality. Together they document just how far behind its schedule DSM 5 has fallen and illustrate why publication must be delayed if things are to be set right.

The first email came from Suzy Chapman of http://dxrevisionwatch.wordpress.com

also on Psychiatric Times

Registration required for access

Documentation That DSM-5 Publication Must Be Delayed

Additional coverage of DSM-5 controversies

Sidney Morning Herald

About-turn on treatment of the young

Amy Corderoy | February 20, 2012

CONCERNS about the overmedication of young people and rigid models of diagnosis have led the architect of early intervention in Australian psychiatry, Patrick McGorry, to abandon the idea pre-psychosis should be listed as a new psychiatric disorder.

The former Australian of the Year had previously accepted the inclusion of pre-psychosis – a concept he and colleagues developed – in the international diagnostic manual of mental disorders, or DSM, which is being updated this year.

Professor McGorry has been part of a team researching pre- and early-psychosis, and his work in the latter helped secure a massive $222.4 million Commonwealth funding injection for Early Psychosis Prevention and Intervention Centres across Australia…

Sidney Morning Herald

Suffer the children under new rules

Kathryn Wicks | Opinion | February 20, 2012

Canberra Times

A new chapter for psychiatrists’ bible

Amy Corderoy | February 19, 2012

Madness is being redesigned. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) will be updated this year, meaning what counts as a psychiatric disorder will change.

Frances, one of the architects of the current manual, DSM-IV, published in 1994, knows the results of his changes to the definitions of mental illness.

“We were definitely modest, conservative and non-ambitious in our approach to DSM-IV,” he says. “Yet we had three epidemics on our watch…”

American Psychiatric Association rejects call for independent review of DSM-5 proposals

American Psychiatric Association rejects psychologists’ call for independent review of controversial DSM-5 proposals

Post #135 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-1KF

On January 9, 2012, the Coalition for DSM-5 Reform, an ad hoc committee of the Society for Humanistic Psychology (Division 32 of the American Psychological Association), sent another call to the American Psychiatric Association’s Board of Trustees and DSM-5 Task Force to submit controversial proposals for DSM-5 to independent scrutiny.

American Psychiatric Association president, John Oldham, M.D., issued a response last Friday, January 27.

“…There is in fact no outside organization that has the capacity to replicate the range of expertise that DSM-5 has assembled over the past decade to review diagnostic criteria for mental disorders. In addition, the posting of the criteria on the www.dsm5.org Web site for an international review; the ongoing consultation and coordination with the WHO Mental Disorder Advisory Group for ICD-11; and the several internal reviews provided by the Scientific Review Committee, a Clinical and Public Health Committee review, and the Task Force as a whole, collectively provide the most far reaching review ever undertaken for any DSM revision…”   

                        John Oldham M.D. President, on behalf of American Psychiatric Association

For a copy of the Coalition’s letter see Post #126: Psychologists call for independent review of DSM-5    

Full response from John Oldham, M.D., on behalf of the American Psychiatric Association, here:

      APA Response on 01.27.12 to Coalition for DSM-5 Reform letter of 01.09.12

 

Text

American Psychiatric Association

1000 Wilson Boulevard
Suite 1825
Arlington, VA 22209
Telephone 703.907.7300
Fax 703.907.1085
Email apa@psych.org
Internet www.psych.org

David N. Elkins, Ph.D.
President
Society for Humanistic Psychology
750 First Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20002Ͳ4242

January 27, 2012

Dear President Elkins:

We appreciate the January 9, 2012, open letter from you and the members of the Division 32 Open Letter Committee to the American Psychiatric Association and developers of DSM-5 regarding the need for a more thorough external review process in revising the manual.

We echo your desire to ensure that “the proposed DSM-5 is safe and credible.” To that end, the DSM-5 Task Force and Work Groups have been purposefully assembled to include clinicians and researchers with diverse backgrounds and expertise, representing nearly 100 different academic and medical institutions from around the world. Our November 21, 2011, letter to the American Counseling Association provides a more complete listing of the steps we have taken to obtain an independent review of the DSM-5 proposals.

(This can be viewed at: http://dxrevisionwatch.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/apa_letter_to_aca_11-21-11.pdf)

[Ed: URL provided in Dr Oldham's letter returns 404, substituting file from Dx Revision Watch.]

There is in fact no outside organization that has the capacity to replicate the range of expertise that DSM-5 has assembled over the past decade to review diagnostic criteria for mental disorders. In addition, the posting of the criteria on the www.dsm5.org

Web site for an international review; the ongoing consultation and coordination with the WHO Mental Disorder Advisory Group for ICD-11; and the several internal reviews provided by the Scientific Review Committee, a Clinical and Public Health Committee review, and the Task Force as a whole, collectively provide the most far-reaching review ever undertaken for any DSM revision. However, we recognize that there will not be universal agreement with all of the final decisions made in response to these reviews. As with all scientific classifications applied to clinical practice, research will continue to refine our understanding of these disorders, and revisions to the DSM-5 as a living document will be made after publication of DSM-5 in 2013.

Since there is no “gold standard” for defining mental disorders and many other medical disorders without pathognomonic biological markers, each revision of diagnostic criteria has been seen as the best current set of diagnostic criteria that are meant to be used in clinical practice and tested for their validity. Validity criteria first published by Robins and Guze in 1970 for the Feighner criteria have formed the basic framework for testing the Research Diagnostic Criteria, DSM-III, DSM-III-R, DSM-IV, and the ICD-10. The work groups and the review groups have closely attended to these and an expanded set of validity criteria that are contained in the Guidelines for Making Changes to DSM on the http://www.dsm5.org website: (http://www.dsm5.org/ProgressReports/Documents/Guidelines-for-Making-Changes-to-DSM_1.pdf).

The work groups are accessing more than 30 years of research since the DSM-III was first published in making their recommendations. Some of the proposed changes, such as the inclusion of more dimensional components, have been recommended by members of previous Task Forces and by many participants in the National Institutes of Health-sponsored conference series leading up to the Task Force. We will also have empirical data from our field trials on how these and other proposed changes are working. Final decisions about the revisions will only be made after all of these reviews are completed.

We hope that this additional information is responsive to your members, colleagues, and individuals who use mental health services to clarify that we are undertaking an exceptionally extensive review process involving an international and multidisciplinary clinical and scientific group of experts.

As we continue to refine the proposals for DSM-5 and further progress to development of DSM-5.1 and beyond, we look forward to maintaining an open and ongoing dialogue with your organization, colleagues, and the mental health field at large.

Sincerely,

John M. Oldham, M.D.
President

 

Resources

Coalition for DSM-5 Reform on Dx

Open Letter and iPetition

Coalition for DSM-5 Reform on Twitter    @dsm5reform

Coalition for DSM-5 Reform on Facebook

Coalition for DSM-5 Reform website

This initiative is also being covered on

The Society for Humanistic Psychology Blog

The Society for Humanistic Psychology on Twitter    @HumanisticPsych

The Society for Humanistic Psychology on Facebook

Psychologists call for independent review of DSM-5

Psychologists call for independent review of DSM-5

Post #126 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-1DC

The Coalition for DSM-5 Reform is calling on the American Psychiatric Association to submit its draft proposals for new categories and criteria for DSM-5 to independent scientific review.

An Open Letter and Petition sponsored by the Society for Humanistic Psychology (Division 32 of the American Psychological Association), in alliance with several other American Psychological Association Divisions, attracted nearly 7000 signatures in its first three weeks. Since launching the petition, on October 22, over 10,300 mental health and allied professionals have signed up with over 40 organizations publicly endorsing the Open Letter.

You can view the Open Letter and iPetition here

Yesterday, January 09, Division 32 Open Letter Committee sent another call to the American Psychiatric Association Board of Trustees and DSM-5 Task Force to submit controversial proposals for DSM-5 to independent scrutiny.

PSYCHOLOGISTS CALL FOR INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF DSM-5

January 9, 2012

ATTENTION:                                                                                                                                                                                    David J. Kupfer, M.D., Chair of DSM-5 Task Force
Darrel A. Regier, M.D., M.P.H., Vice Chair of DSM-5 Task Force
John M. Oldham, M.D., President of the American Psychiatric Association
Dilip V. Jeste, M.D., President-Elect of the American Psychiatric Association
Roger Peele, M.D., Secretary of the American Psychiatric Association

To the DSM-5 Task Force and the American Psychiatric Association:

We appreciate your opening a dialogue regarding the concerns that the Division 32 Open Letter Committee and others have raised about the proposed DSM-5.  Your willingness to do this suggests that both the Task Force and our committee are in basic agreement that we both want the DSM-5 to be empirically grounded, credible to mental health professionals and the public, and safe to use.  In keeping with this spirit of open dialogue, we are writing in regard to what we view as a critically important issue.

You will recall that the Division 32 Open Letter Committee, along with the American Counseling Association, recently asked the DSM-5 Task Force and the American Psychiatric Association to submit the controversial portions of the proposed DSM-5 for external review by an independent group of scholars and scientists who have no ties to the DSM-5 Task Force or the American Psychiatric Association.

As you know, it is common practice for scientists and scholars to submit their work to others for independent review.  We believe it is time for an independent group of scientists and scholars, who have no vested interest in the outcome, to do an external, independent review of the controversial portions of the DSM-5.  We consider this especially important in light of the unprecedented criticism of the proposed  DSM-5 by thousands of mental health professionals, as well as mental health organizations, in the United States and Europe.

Will you submit the controversial proposals in DSM-5 to an independent group of scientists and scholars with no ties to the DSM-5 Task Force or the American Psychiatric Association for an independent, external  review?  

We respectfully ask that you not respond again with assurances about internal reviews and field trials because such assurances, at this point, are not sufficient.  We believe an external, independent review is critical in terms of ensuring the proposed DSM-5 is safe and credible.  If you are unwilling to submit the controversial proposals for external, independent review, we respectfully ask that you provide a detailed rationale for your refusal.  Because the DSM is used by hundreds of thousands of mental health professionals, we are publicly posting this letter and will also post your response.   We believe mental health professionals, along with concerned mental health organizations, in the United States and Europe will be very interested in this important exchange.

Sincerely,

David N. Elkins, PhD,  Chair of the Division 32 Open Letter Committee   Email:  David Elkins

Frank Farley, PhD, Member of Committee
Jonathan D.  Raskin, PhD, Member of Committee
Brent Dean Robbins, PhD,  Member of Committee
Donna Rockwell, PsyD, Member of Committee

Resources
 
 

Open Letter and iPetition

Coalition for DSM-5 Reform on Twitter    @dsm5reform

Coalition for DSM-5 Reform on Facebook

Coalition for DSM-5 Reform website

This initiative is also being covered on

The Society for Humanistic Psychology Blog

The Society for Humanistic Psychology on Twitter    @HumanisticPsych

The Society for Humanistic Psychology on Facebook

When is the third stakeholder and public review of draft categories and criteria for DSM-5 scheduled?

When is the third stakeholder and public review of draft categories and criteria for DSM-5 scheduled?

Post #119 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-1yz

Most likely not according to the schedule posted on the DSM-5 Development website.

The first stakeholder and public review of draft proposals for changes to DSM-IV categories and criteria ran for ten weeks, from February 10 to April 20, 2010. The APA reported receiving over 8,600 comments [1].

The second public review ran for just six weeks, from May 4 to June 15, 2011 (at which point it was extended a further month, to July 15). During this second review period, Task Force Chair, David Kupfer, MD, told Deborah Brauser for Medscape Medical News, that 2,100 individual comments had been submitted [2].

 

Slip slidin’ away…

According to the current DSM-5 Development Timeline, the final draft is scheduled for release in January–February 2012, although the DSM-5 Development home page states:

“In spring 2012, we will open the site for a third and final round of comments from visitors which will again be systematically reviewed by each of the work groups for consideration of additional changes.”

This article, Patient-Centered Revisions to the DSM-5, co-authored by Emily A. Kuhl, PhD, David J. Kupfer, MD, and Darrel A. Regier, MD, MPH, Virtual Mentor. December 2011, Volume 13, Number 12: 873-879.

states:

“…Given the high utility of patient and public feedback in drafting revisions thus far, a third open commenting period has been scheduled to take place in 2012, following completion of the DSM-5 field trials.”

But completion dates for field trials are slipping targets.

(See: DSM 5 in Distress: Disorganization, Disarray, and Missed Deadlines, Beware The Final Mad Rush, Allen Frances, Psychology Today, December 29, 2011).

In this November 9, 2011 report by Deborah Brauser for Medscape Medical News, DSM-5 Task Force vice-chair, Darrel Regier, MD, predicts a final public feedback period “no later than May 2012.”

APA Answers DSM-5 Critics

“…Although the routine clinical settings field trials were expected to be completed by the end of December, it has been extended to around March 2012. Dr. Regier said that this will probably push back the final public feedback period to no later than May 2012.”

So, April–May? May–June? I will update when a firm release date is published or other information received.

DSM-5 Development Timeline

References

[1] DSM-5 Development website

[2] DSM-5 Task Force Ponders Round 2 of Public Feedback: Deborah Brauser for Medscape Medical News
August 31, 2011 [Registration required to view this Medscape article.]

[3] Current DSM-5 proposals for changes to DSM-IV categories and criteria

[4] DSM-5 Development Timeline

Psychiatric Times Editor invites readership to submit views on DSM-5 for potential publication

Editor of Psychiatric Times invites its readership to submit views on DSM-5 for potential publication

Post #117 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-1sx

Although the current DSM-5 Development Timeline has a third draft scheduled for release in January-February, 2012, for a two month period for public comment, this final draft is expected to be delayed until spring, pending completion of the DSM-5 field trials.

In this November 9, 2011 report by Deborah Brouser for Medcape Medical News, DSM-5 Task Force vice-chair, Darrel Regier, MD, says “no later than May 2012.”

 APA Answers DSM-5 Critics

“…Although the routine clinical settings field trials were expected to be completed by the end of December, it has been extended to around March 2012. Dr. Regier said that this will probably push back the final public feedback period to no later than May 2012.”

When the third and final draft has been published, a notice and links will be posted on my sites with instructions on how to register with the DSM-5 Development site for submitting feedback to the Task Force and 13 work groups.

According to Darrel Regier, Vice-Chair of the DSM-5 Task Force, the specific diagnostic categories that received most comments in the second public review of draft proposals, in May-July, 2011, were sexual and gender identity disorders, followed closely by somatic symptom disorders and anxiety disorders.

December 16, 2011

In a brief Editorial entitled The Debate Over DSM-5: We Invite Your Views, James L. Knoll IV, MD, Editor, Psychiatric Times, clarifies Psychiatric Times’s position with regard to the journal’s intent behind posting the many blogs about DSM-5 that appear on its web site.

Dr Knoll encourages and invites readers to submit their viewpoints on DSM-5 “in the spirit of collegial and scientific investigation.”

Dr Knoll writes that manuscripts and letters sent to editor@PsychiatricTimes.com will be reviewed for possible publication either in print or on www.PsychiatricTimes.com.

Read Editorial here

(Free registration is required for access to Pyschiatric Times Editorial.)

 

Related content:

DSM-5 on Psychiatric Times January 3 – December 16, 2011

December 16, 2011
The Debate Over DSM-5: We Invite Your Views

November 23, 2011
DSM-5: APA Responds to American Counseling Association Concerns

November 21, 2011
DSM-5: Petitions, Predictions, and Prescriptions

November 17, 2011
Counselors Turn Against DSM-5: Can APA Ignore 120,000 Users?

November 11, 2011
DSM-5: Living Document or Dead on Arrival?

November 10, 2011
The User’s Revolt Against DSM-5: Will It Work?

November 8, 2011
APA Responds Lamely to the Petition to Reform DSM-5

November 7, 2011
The Great DSM-5 Personality Bazaar

November 4, 2011
Why Psychiatrists Should Sign The Petition To Reform DSM-5

November 3, 2011
Why Doesn’t DSM-5 Defend Itself? Perhaps Because No Defense Is Possible

November 2, 2011
DSM-5 Will Not Be Credible Without An Independent Scientific Review

November 1, 2011
DSM-5 Against Everyone Else: Research Types Just Don’t Understand The Clinical World

October 31, 2011
What Would A Useful DSM-5 Look Like? And An Update On The Petition Drive

October 26, 2011
Petition Against DSM-5 Gets Off To Racing Start: A Game Changer?

October 24, 2011
Psychologists Petition Against DSM-5: Users Revolt Should Capture APA Attention
Several divisions of the American Psychological Association have just written an open letter highly critical of DSM-5.

October 13, 2011
Should Temper Tantrums Be Made Into A DSM-5 Diagnosis?

October 12, 2011
Do We Need a DSM-V?

September 30, 2011
PTSD, DSM-5, and Forensic Misuse

September 29, 2011
An Alternative To The DSM-5 Personality Proposals

September 21, 2011
Why Psychiatry Is Wonderful—Even If DSM-5 Isn’t

September 14, 2011
DSM-5 Proposals Should Undergo An Independent Cochrane Review Of Scientific Evidence

September 13, 2011
Warning to DSM-5: Mental Health Clinicians Can Use ICD-10-CM

August 23, 2011
The Leaders’ Report on DSM-5

August 10, 2011
DSM-5 Stubbornly Circles The Wagons Against Opposition From The Field
Bob Spitzer was prophetic 4 years ago when he warned that the closed DSM-5 process would lead to a flawed DSM-5 product…

August 5, 2011
Scandalous Off Label Use Of Antipsychotics: Another Warning For DSM-5

July 27, 2011
DSM-5 Will Further Inflate the ADD Bubble: Child Work Group Fails to Learn From Experience

July 25, 2011
The British Psychological Society Condemns DSM-5

June 8, 2011
Who Needs DSM-5? A Strong Warning Comes From Professional Counselors

May 12, 2011
DSM-5 Rejects Coercive Paraphilia: Once Again Confirming That Rape Is Not A Mental Disorder

April 28, 2011
Marijuana Withdrawal Syndrome: Should Cannabis Withdrawal Disorder Be Included in DSM-5?

April 15, 2011
The Constant DSM-5 Missed Deadlines And Their Consequences: the Future is Closing In
Aside from its reckless proposals for dangerous new diagnoses, the most characteristic thing about DSM-5 has been its remarkably poor planning…

April 13, 2011
DSM-5 and the NIMH Research Domain Criteria Project

April 11, 2011
DSM-5 Will Medicalize Everyday Worries Into Generalized Anxiety Disorder

February 25, 2011
DSM-5: When To Change and When Not to Change

February 22, 2011
Temper Tantrums, Mental disorder, and DSM-5: The Case for Caution

January 25, 2011
DSM-5 Promotes A 60% Jump In The Rate Of Alcohol Use Disorders

January 20, 2011
An Independent View of DSM-5

January 19, 2011
DSM-5: A Year End Summary

January 11, 2011
DSM-5 and Practical Consequences

January 10, 2011
Does Research Support “Craving” as a Core Symptom of Substance Use Disorders in DSM-5?

January 3, 2011
DSM-5: Dissent From Within

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 134 other followers

%d bloggers like this: