Cosgrove, Sheldon: 69% of DSM-5 task force members report pharmaceutical industry ties – review identifies potential COIs
Post #151 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-1ZM
“Board of Trustee Principles” here:
“DSM-V Task Force and Work Group Acceptance Form” here:
Approved by BOT July2006 Amended and Approved by BOT October 2007
DSM-5 Task Force members’ bios and disclosures here: http://www.dsm5.org/MeetUs/Pages/TaskForceMembers.aspx
DSM-5 Work Group members’ bios and disclosures here: http://www.dsm5.org/MeetUs/Pages/WorkGroupMembers.aspx
(All 13 DSM-5 Work Group Chairs are members of the Task Force, which totals 29 members.)
A number of stories following publication of PLoS Medicine Essay by Linda Cosgrove and Sheldon Krimsky:
A Comparison of DSM-IV and DSM-5 Panel Members’ Financial Associations with Industry: A Pernicious Problem Persists
Full text available on PLoS site under “Open-access”
Or open PDF here
Citation: Cosgrove L, Krimsky S (2012) A Comparison of DSM-IV and DSM-5 Panel Members’ Financial Associations with Industry: A Pernicious Problem Persists. PLoS Med 9(3): e1001190. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001190
Published: March 13, 2012
DSM-5 Criticized for Financial Conflicts of Interest
Katie Moisse | March 13, 2012
Controversy continues to swell around the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, better known as DSM-5. A new study suggests the 900-page bible of mental health, scheduled for publication in May 2013, is ripe with financial conflicts of interest.
The manual, published by the American Psychiatric Association, details the diagnostic criteria for each and every psychiatric disorder, many of which have pharmacological treatments. After the 1994 release of DSM-4, the APA instituted a policy requiring expert advisors to disclose drug industry ties. But the move toward transparency did little to cut down on conflicts, with nearly 70 percent of DSM-5 task force members reporting financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies – up from 57 percent for DSM-4.
“Organizations like the APA have embraced transparency too quickly as the solution,” said Lisa Cosgrove, associate professor of clinical psychology at the University of Massachusetts-Boston and lead author of the study published today in the journal PLoS Medicine. “Our data show that transparency has not changed the dynamic.”…
Many authors of psychiatry bible have industry ties
Peter Aldhous | March 13, 2012
Just as many authors of the new psychiatry “bible” are tied to the drugs industry as those who worked on the previous version, a study has found, despite new transparency rules…
…”Transparency alone can’t mitigate bias,” says Lisa Cosgrove Havard University of Harvard University, who along with Sheldon Krimsky of Tufts University in Medford, Massachusetts, analysed the financial disclosures of 141 members of the “work groups” drafting the manual. They found that just as many contributors – 57 per cent – had links to industry as were found in a previous study of the authors of DSM-IV and an interim revision, published in 1994 and 2000 respectively.
Cosgrove also points out that the $10,000-per-year limit on payments excludes research grants. “Nothing has really changed,” she says…
Journal reference: PLoS Medicine, DOI: 10.1371/ journal.pmed.1001190
Please note that the petition launched in October by an ad hoc committee of the Society for Humanistic Psychology (Division 32 of the American Psychological Association) referred to in this article is intended for signing by mental health professionals.
Nature | News
Industry ties remain rife on panels for psychiatry manual
Review identifies potential conflicts of interest among those drawing up DSM-5.
Heidi Ledford | March 13, 2012
Potential conflicts of interest among the physicians charged with revising a key psychiatric manual have not declined despite changes to the rules on disclosing ties to industry, says a study published today1.
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is used to diagnose patients, shape research projects and guide health-insurance claims. The fifth edition of the manual, DSM-5, currently being prepared by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) in Arlington, Virginia, is scheduled for publication in May 2013. But some of the suggested revisions are proving to be contentious. In particular, some psychiatrists worry that the broader diagnostic criteria for selected psychiatric conditions would encroach into the realm of the normal, thereby pathologizing ordinary behaviour and expanding the market for drug prescriptions (see ‘Diagnostics tome comes under fire’ and ‘Mental health guide accused of overreach’)…
From TIME Magazine:
What Counts As Crazy?
John Cloud | Online March 14, 2012
Print edition | March 19, 2012
…The mind, in our modern conception, is an array of circuits we can manipulate with chemicals to ease, if not cure, depression, anxiety and other disorders. Drugs like Prozac have transformed how we respond to mental illness. But while this revolution has reshaped treatments, it hasn’t done much to help us diagnose what’s wrong to begin with. Instead of ordering lab tests, psychiatrists usually have to size up people using subjective descriptions of the healthy vs. the afflicted.
…Which is why the revision of a single book is roiling the world of mental health, pitting psychiatrists against one another in bitter…
Full article available to subscribers
From last week’s New Scientist:
Should we rewrite the autism rule book?
Fred Volkmar and Francesca Happé | March 7, 2012
Magazine issue 2855.
AN EFFORT is under way to update the American Psychiatric Association’s diagnostic guide – the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). In particular, changes suggested for diagnosis of autism are the focus of much debate.
There are clear reasons for changing and tweaking DSM categories and criteria in the light of new research, but the impact in this case is likely to be major…
Full article available to subscribers
International society removes ‘schizophrenia’ from its title
March 13, 2012
A statement from the ISPS today reveals that the society has voted to remove the word ‘schizophrenia’ from its title due to the term being deemed ‘unscientific and stigmatizing':
“Members of the International Society for the Psychological Treatments of the Schizophrenias and Other Psychoses ( www.isps.org ) have just voted, by an overwhelming majority, to change the society’s name to the International Society for Psychological and Social Approaches to Psychosis. The new logo and letterhead are to be adopted by the end of March…”