Two proposed changes dropped from DSM-5: Media round-up
May 10, 2012
Two proposed changes dropped from DSM-5: Media round-up
Post #169 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-28a
Ed Silverman | May 15, 2012
…Frances proposes that a federal agency ought to assume the job of developing the DSM, although he believes a new organization would be required, one that could be housed in the US Department of Health and Human Services, the Institute of Medicine or the World Health Organization. An equivalent of the FDA is needed to “mind the store,” as he puts it.
This may raise a different set of objections, of course. To what extent, for instance, should a federal agency delve deeply into determining diagnoses and definitions? On the other hand, perhaps this would remove the concerns over self-interest and conflict that have tainted the process. What do you think?
Should a Federal Agency Run The DSM?
John M. Grohol, PsyD, Founder & Editor-in-Chief | May 15, 2012
Ronald W. Pies, MD | May 1, 2012
Epidemic: (from epidēmos, prevalent : epi-, epi- + dēmos, people) “…an epidemic refers to an excessive occurrence of a disease.”–from Friis & Sellers, Epidemiology for Public Health Practice, 4th ed, 2010
If claims in the non-professional media can be believed, there is a “raging epidemic of mental illness” in the US¹, if not world-wide—and, in one version of this narrative, psychiatric treatment itself is identified as the culprit. There are several formulations of the “epidemic narrative,” depending on which of psychiatry’s critics is writing. In the most radical version, it is psychiatric medication that is fueling the supposed burgeoning of mental illness, particularly depression and schizophrenia.² More subtle variants suggest that there is a “false epidemic” of some psychiatric disorders, driven by dramatically rising rates of “false positive” diagnoses.³…
Maia Szalavitz | May 14, 2012
Most college binge drinkers and drug users don’t develop lifelong problems. But new mental-health guidelines will label too many of them addicts and alcoholics…
Side Effects at Psychology Today
DSM-5 Is Diagnosed, with a Stinging Rebuke to the APA
The regrettable history of the DSM
Christopher Lane, Ph.D. | May 14, 2013
…Among the fiercest critics quoted is Mark Rapley, a clinical psychologist at the University of East London, who puts it this way: “The APA insists that psychiatry is a science. [But] real sciences do not decide on the existence and nature of the phenomena they are dealing with via a show of hands with a vested interest and pharmaceutical industry sponsorship.” Despite commending the DSM-5 authors for “reconsidering some of their most unfortunate mistakes,” clinical psychologist Peter Kinderman of the University of Liverpool adds that the manual remains, at bottom, a bad and faulty system. “The very minor revisions recently announced do not constitute the wholesale revision that is called for,” he is quoted as saying. “It would be very unfortunate if these minor changes were to be used to suggest that the task force has listened in any meaningful way to critics….”
The New American
Alex Newman | May 13, 2012
Allen J Frances lecture
Published on 11 May 2012 by tvochannel
Psychiatrist and author, Allen J. Frances, believes that mental illnesses are being over-diagnosed. In his lecture, Diagnostic Inflation: Does Everyone Have a Mental Illness?, Dr. Frances outlines why he thinks the DSM-V will lead to millions of people being mislabeled with mental disorders. His lecture was part of Mental Health Matters, an initiative of TVO in association with the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.
57:36 mins | 19 MB
As part of Mental Health Matters Week, Big Ideas presents a lecture by Allen J Frances, MD, who had chaired the DSM-IV Task Force.
May 6, 2012 University of Toronto
Produced in collaboration with the Center for Addiction and Mental Health
Allen J Frances lecture
Diagnostic inflation. Does everyone have a mental illness?
Big Ideas – May 12 and 13 at 5 pm ET
TVO’s lecture series will present special guest speaker Dr. Allen J. Frances, who will outline why he believes that mental illnesses are being over-diagnosed these days and why he thinks the fifth and latest version of the psychiatrist’s bible, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders will lead to millions of people being mislabeled with mental disorders.
The lecture will be recorded May 6 at University of Toronto’s Hart House.
1 Boring Old Man | May 12, 2012
Margaret Soltan | May 13, 2012
BMJ 2012; 344 doi: 10.1136/bmj.e3357 (Published 11 May 2012)
The authors of the 5th edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), due to be published in May 2013, have responded to previous criticisms of their text by announcing a further series of changes.1
But far from mollifying their critics, these concessions have served to ignite a further and still more vituperative barrage of dissent.
The list of topics under reconsideration or already subject to change can be found on the DSM-5 website.2 It includes the proposed “attenuated psychosis syndrome,” which is slated for further study, and also major depressive disorder. Here the authors have added a footnote “to …
Access to the full text of this article requires a subscription or payment
Scientific American Blogs
By Ingrid Wickelgren | May 11, 2012 | 2
Part 5 of a 5-part series Allen Frances
New York Times
Allen Frances | May 11, 2012
“…All mental-health disciplines need representation — not just psychiatrists but also psychologists, counselors, social workers and nurses. The broader consequences of changes should be vetted by epidemiologists, health economists and public-policy and forensic experts. Primary care doctors prescribe the majority of psychotropic medication, often carelessly, and need to contribute to the diagnostic system if they are to use it correctly. Consumers should play an important role in the review process, and field testing should occur in real life settings, not just academic centers.
Psychiatric diagnosis is simply too important to be left exclusively in the hands of psychiatrists. They will always be an essential part of the mix but should no longer be permitted to call all the shots…”
John Gever, Senior Editor, MedPage Today | May 10, 2012
…The final drafts are to be completed by August, then they must be approved by a scientific review committee and the task force leadership, and finally by the APA’s governing bodies.
Kupfer said the final version has to be completed by December, when it’s set to go to the printer. Its formal release is planned for the APA’s annual meeting next May in San Francisco.
Here’s a brief overview of the changes you can expect…
WHAT’S IN (or STILL IN)
WHAT DIDN’T MAKE IT
WHAT TO LOOK FORWARD TO
Julie Steenhuysen | Reuters CHICAGO | May 9, 2012
CHICAGO (Reuters) – Two proposed psychiatric diagnoses failed to make the last round of cuts in the laborious process of revising the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders — an exhaustive catalog of symptoms used by doctors to diagnose psychiatric illness.
Gone from the latest revision are “attenuated psychosis syndrome,” intended to help identify individuals at risk of full-blown psychosis, and “mixed anxiety depressive disorder”, a blend of anxiety and depression symptoms. Both performed badly on field tests and in public comments gathered by the group in its march toward the May 2013 publication deadline.
Both have been tucked into Section III of the manual — the place reserved for ideas that do not yet have enough evidence to make the cut as a full-blown diagnosis.
What has survived, despite fierce public outcry, is a change in the diagnosis of autism, which eliminates the milder diagnosis of Asperger syndrome in favor of the umbrella diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder.
But that, too, could still be altered before the final manual is published, the group says. The APA opened the final comment period for its fifth diagnostic manual known as DSM-V on May 2, and it will accumulate comments through June 15.
Dr. David Kupfer, who chairs the DSM-5 Task Force, said in a statement that the changes reflect the latest research and input from the public.
Dr. Wayne Goodman, professor and chairman of the department of psychiatry at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York, said he’s glad the task force is responding to feedback from professionals and the public.
“I think they are trying to listen,” he said.
Goodman agrees with the decisions to drop both of the two disorders in the latest revision.
With the “mixed anxiety and depressive disorder,” he said there was a risk that it would capture a number of people who did not qualify under a diagnosis of depression or anxiety alone.
“It could lead to overdiagnosis,” Goodman said.
He said the “attenuated psychosis syndrome” diagnosis would have been useful for research purposes to help identify those at risk of psychosis, but there was a concern that it might label people who were just a bit different as mentally ill.
“The predictive value is not clear yet,” he said. “I think it’s reasonable not to codify it until we have better definition of its predictive value.”
Goodman, who worked on DSM-4, the last revision of the manual published in 1994, and is working on the Obsessive Compulsive Disorder section of the current revision of DSM-5, said the strength of the process is that it can offer a reliable way for psychiatrists across the country to identify patients with the same sorts of disorders.
The weakness, he said, is that it largely lacks biological evidence — blood tests, imaging tests and the like — that can validate these diagnoses.
“DSM-5 is a refinement of our diagnostic system, but it doesn’t add to our ability to understand the underlying illness,” he said.
Dr. Emil Coccaro, chairman of the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience at the University of Chicago Medicine, said typically changes in the DSM occur because of new data.
Coccaro, who is contributing to the new section in the DSM-5 on Intermittent Explosive Disorder, said there is no question that many people aren’t convinced that some of the diagnoses need to be changed, or that there need to be new ones added.
“This also happened the last time when they did DSM-4,” he said, but that was nearly 20 years ago.
“You can keep waiting but at certain point you have to fish or cut bait and actually come out with a new edition. That is what is happening now,” he said.
Comments to the manual can be submitted at www.DSM5.org
(Reporting By Julie Steenhuysen)
Kate Kelland | Reuters LONDON | May 10, 2012
(Reuters) – Many psychiatrists believe a new edition of a manual designed to help diagnose mental illness should be shelved for at least a year for further revisions, despite some modifications which eliminated two controversial diagnoses.
The new edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM 5) is due out this month, the first full revision since 1994 of the renowned handbook, which is used worldwide and determines how to interpret symptoms in order to diagnose mental illnesses.
But more than 13,000 health professionals from around the world have already signed an open letter petition (at dsm5-reform.com) calling for DSM 5 to be halted and re-thought.
“Fundamentally, it remains a bad system,” said Peter Kinderman, a professor of clinical psychology at Britain’s Liverpool University.
“The very minor revisions…do not constitute the wholesale revision that is called for,” he said in an emailed comment.
The American Psychiatric Association (APA), which produces the DSM, said on Wednesday it had decided to drop two proposed diagnoses, for “attenuated psychosis syndrome” and “mixed anxiety depressive disorder”.
The former, intended to help identify people at risk of full-blown psychosis, and the latter, which suggested a blend of anxiety and depression, had been criticized as too ill-defined.
With these and other new diagnoses such as “oppositional defiant disorder” and “apathy syndrome”, experts said the draft DSM 5 could define as mentally ill millions of healthy people – ranging from shy or defiant children to grieving relatives, to people with harmless fetishes.
“SIMPLY NOT USABLE”
Robin Murray, a professor of psychiatric research at the Institute of Psychiatry at Kings College London, said it was a great relief to see the changes in the draft, particularly to the attenuated psychosis diagnosis.
“It would have done a lot of harm by diverting doctors into thinking about imagined risk of psychosis (and) it would have led to unnecessary fears among patients that they were about to go mad,” he said in a statement.
But Allen Frances, emeritus professor at Duke University in the United States, said: “This is only a first small step toward desperately needed DSM 5 reform. Numerous dangerous suggestions remain.”
Frances, who chaired a committee overseeing the DSM 4, added that the DSM 5 “is simply not usable” and should be delayed for a year “to allow for independent review, to clean up its obscure writing, and for retesting”.
Diagnosis is always controversial in psychiatry, since it defines how patients will be treated based on a cluster of symptoms, many of which occur in several different types of mental illness.
Some argue that the whole approach needs to be changed to pay more attention to individual circumstances rather than slotting them into predefined categories.
“(The DSM) is wrong in principle, based as it is on redefining a whole range of understandable reactions to life circumstances as ‘illnesses’, which then become a target for toxic medications heavily promoted by the pharmaceutical industry,” said Lucy Johnstone, a consultant clinical psychologist for the Cwm Taf Health Board in Wales.
“The DSM project cannot be justified, in principle or in practice. It must be abandoned so that we can find more humane and effective ways of responding to mental distress.”
Others, however, are pushing more for the manual to be reviewed more thoroughly to allow for more accurate diagnosis and, in theory, more appropriate treatment.
One of the proposed changes that has survived in the draft DSM 5 – despite fierce public outcry – is in autism. The new edition eliminates the milder diagnosis of Asperger syndrome in favor of the umbrella diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder.
(Editing by Myra MacDonald)
New York Times
Benedict Carey | May 8, 2012
In a rare step, doctors on a panel revising psychiatry’s influential diagnostic manual have backed away from two controversial proposals that would have expanded the number of people identified as having psychotic or depressive disorders.
The doctors dropped two diagnoses that they ultimately concluded were not supported by the evidence: “attenuated psychosis syndrome,” proposed to identify people at risk of developing psychosis, and “mixed anxiety depressive disorder,” a hybrid of the two mood problems.
They also tweaked their proposed definition of depression to allay fears that the normal sadness people experience after the loss of a loved one, a job or a marriage would be mistaken for a mental disorder.
But the panel, appointed by the American Psychiatric Association to complete the fifth edition of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or D.S.M., did not retreat from another widely criticized proposal, to streamline the definition of autism. Predictions by some experts that the new definition will sharply reduce the number of people given a diagnosis are off base, panel members said, citing evidence from a newly completed study.
Both the study and the newly announced reversals are being debated this week at the psychiatric association’s annual meeting in Philadelphia, where dozens of sessions were devoted to the D.S.M., the standard reference for mental disorders, which drives research, treatment and insurance decisions.
Dr. David J. Kupfer, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh and the chairman of the task force making revisions, said the changes came in response mainly to field trials — real-world studies testing whether newly proposed diagnoses are reliable from one psychiatrist to the next — and also public commentary. “Our intent for disorders that require more evidence is that they be studied further, and that people work with the criteria” and refine them, Dr. Kupfer said…
Michelle Castillo | May 10, 2012
(CBS News) – A panel of doctors reviewing the much-debated Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5 (DSM-5) have recommended to drop two controversial diagnoses.
The panel announced that attenuated psychosis syndrome — which identifies people at risk of developing psychosis — and mixed anxiety depressive disorder — a diagnosis which combines both anxiety and depression — should not be included in the manual’s upcoming version, the New York Times reported.
Proposed changes to autism definition may mean new diagnoses for people with Asperger’s
However, a controversial definition for autism, which will delete diagnoses for Asperger’s syndrome and pervasive developmental disorder and combine severe cases into the broader definition of autism, will remain…
John Gever, Senior Editor | May 08, 2012
PHILADELPHIA — The head of the American Psychiatric Association committee rewriting the diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorders took on the panel’s critics here, accusing them of bad science.
Susan Swedo, MD, of the National Institute of Mental Health, said a review released earlier this year by Yale University researchers was seriously flawed. That review triggered a wave of headlines indicating that large numbers of autism spectrum patients could lose their diagnoses and hence access to services…
Benefits of catching psychosis early are deemed to come at too high a price.
Amy Max | May 9, 2012
A controversial category of mental illness will not be included in the revised fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), the American Psychiatric Association (APA) has said. Attenuated psychosis syndrome, also known as psychosis risk syndrome, had been intended mainly for young adults who have heard whispers in their heads, viewed objects as threatening or suffered other subtly psychotic symptoms…
Scientific American Blogs
Ingrid Wickelgren | May 9, 2012
Part 3 in a series
Huffington Post | Allen Frances Blog
Allen Frances, MD | May 9, 2012