WordPress glitch when viewed in Internet Explorer IE8 and IE9

WordPress glitch when viewed in Internet Explorer IE8 and IE9

Post #192 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-2la

Update at July 16: WordPress has now fixed these issues with Garland theme.

This site (and ME agenda site) run on the WordPress theme (template) Garland with the Custom Design upgrade which means I can modify Garland theme’s CSS.

On Thursday or Friday, WordPress implemented changes to some blog templates that enabled “infinite scrolling” – a site wide change being applied to WordPress themes that are suitable for its implementation.

Instead of displaying (in my case) the ten most recent posts, with the need to click for the next ten posts, “infinite scroll” automatically loads more posts.

I have deselected for this feature – I don’t like it and I don’t want it – so you won’t see many changes to the way in which the site functions.

You will see a button at the end of the tenth post for Load more posts and a link for Older posts and Newer posts. You can continue to access archived posts from the monthly Archive links in the right hand column.

There should be no problem when viewing the site in Chrome or Firefox. But there is currently a problem with Internet Explorer 8 and 9 (IE8 and IE9) which may be related to these recent changes or may be a separate issue.

This issue is affecting users of Garland theme and possibly some other themes.

If you are viewing this site in Internet Explorer 8 or 9 you are likely to see the following issues:

The site title Dx Revision Watch may be slow to load, may not load at all or unless the page is refreshed.

You may see no links at the bottom of the tenth post for Older posts and Newer posts though you should see a button for Load more posts.

Down the right hand column, the Search box, Twitter feed, Recent Posts, Links, Archives and Meta are all displaying over in the left side column, and right at the bottom of the page, so you’ll need to scroll right down to locate these.

The default font for posts on this site is Verdana. Occasionally, a post has been uploaded in Georgia and this may display for you in a larger font size than intended, for example this post Somatic Symptom Disorder criteria could capture millions more under mental health diagnosis.

Unfortunately WordPress Support appears to be closed until Monday, July 23, so this may take some time to get sorted. I have moved the Twitter feed over to the left column.

In the meantime, if you have Chrome or Firefox browsers loaded please consider using these.

Links for WordPress users seeking more information

WordPress Support notice about “infinite scroll”:

http://en.forums.wordpress.com/topic/to-infinity?replies=137
http://en.blog.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/to-infinity-and-beyond/

Blogger timethief:

http://onecoolsitebloggingtips.com/2012/03/16/disabling-infinite-scroll-on-your-wordpress-com-blog/

Blogger wordpress tips:

http://wpbtips.wordpress.com/2012/06/05/disabling-infinite-scrolling/

(A very useful site for WordPress.com users on themes, html, formatting, tweaks and workarounds.)

WordPress Forums:

http://en.forums.wordpress.com/topic/problems-with-viewing-blog-in-internet-explorer?replies=19#post-942283

Two resign from DSM-5 Personality Disorders Work Group over “seriously flawed” proposals

Two resign from DSM-5 Personality Disorders Work Group over “seriously flawed” proposals

Post #191 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-2kN

Update at July 24, 2012: Additional reporting from Straight.com, Vancouver, on the resignations of two members of the DSM-5 Personality Disorders Work Group:

UBC prof emeritus John Livesley and Dutch expert quit DSM-V committee defining personality disorders

Charlie Smith | July 23, 2012

Update at July 16, 2012:

In the July issue of Clinical Psychology & Psychology there is an Editorial and two Commentaries around DSM-5 proposals for Personality and Personality Disorders.

Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1099-0879/earlyview

Commentary

No abstract is available for this article.

Personality Disorder Proposal for DSM-5: A Heroic and Innovative but Nevertheless Fundamentally Flawed Attempt to Improve DSM-IV

Roel Verheul

Article first published online: 12 JUL 2012 | DOI: 10.1002/cpp.1809

Editorials

No abstract is available for this article.

DSM-5 Personality Disorders: Stop Before it is Too Late

Paul Emmelkamp and Mick Power

Article first published online: 3 JUL 2012 | DOI: 10.1002/cpp.1807

Commentary

No abstract is available for this article.

Disorder in the Proposed DSM-5 Classification of Personality Disorders

W. John Livesley

Article first published online: 3 JUL 2012 | DOI: 10.1002/cpp.1808

Roel Verheul, Ph.D. and W. John Livesley, M.D., Ph.D. resigned as members of the DSM-5 Personality and Personality Disorders Work Group in April.

Dr Roel Verheul is CEO of de Viersprong, Netherlands Institute for Personality Disorders.

Dr. John Livesley is Professor Emeritus at the University of British Columbia.

Allen Frances, M.D. who chaired the DSM-IV Task Force blogs at DSM 5 in Distress. Drs Verheul and Livesley have written to Dr Frances setting out their concerns for what they believe to be “seriously flawed proposals” and “a truly stunning disregard for evidence.”

DSM5 in Distress
The DSM’s impact on mental health practice and research.

by Allen Frances, M.D.

Two Who Resigned From DSM-5 Explain Why
They spell out the defects in the personality section

Allen Frances, M.D. | July 11, 2012

Roel Verheul and John Livesley both felt compelled to resign from the DSM-5 Personality Disorders Work Group. Here is an email from them describing what went wrong in the preparation of this section:

“…Regrettably, the Work Group has been unable to capitalize on the opportunity and has advanced a proposal that is seriously flawed. It has also demonstrated an inability to respond to constructive feedback both from within the Work Group and from the many experts in the field who have communicated their concerns directly and indirectly. We also regret the need to resign because we were the only International members of the Work Group which is now without representation from outside the US…”

“…Early on in the DSM-5 process, we developed major concerns about the Work Group’s mode of working and its emerging recommendations that we communicated to the Work Group and Task Force… We considered the current proposal to be fundamentally flawed and decided that it would be wrong of us to appear to collude with it any longer…As we see it, there are two major problems with the proposal…”

Read full article here

Proposals for the DSM-5 Personality Disorders as issued for the third and final stakeholder review can be read here on the DSM-5 Development site.

Changes to ICD-11 Beta drafting platform: Bodily Distress Disorders (1)

Changes to ICD-11 Beta drafting platform: Bodily Distress Disorders (1)

Post #190 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-2jB


+++

This four page post is a revised version of content first published on July 2, 2012.

Information in this report relates to proposals for the World Health Organization’s forthcoming ICD-11, currently scheduled for pilot dissemination in 2015+; it does not relate to the existing ICD-10 or to the forthcoming US specific “clinical modification” of ICD-10, known as ICD-10-CM.

Caveat: The ICD-11 Beta drafting process is a work in progress over the next two to three years. The Beta draft is updated on a daily basis. Parent terms, category terms and sorting codes assigned to categories are subject to change as work on chapter reorganization progresses. Images and text in this posting may not reflect the most recently assigned categories and codes. This post reflects the Beta draft as it stood at July 24, 2012. Please also read the ICD-11 Beta Draft Caveats.

This report updates on recent changes to the Somatoform Disorders section of the ICD-11 Beta drafting platform. The Beta drafting platform can be accessed here:

Beta draft Foundation view:

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/f/en

Beta draft Linearization view:

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/l-m/en
+++

How do the Somatoform Disorders categories currently stand in ICD-10?

ICD-10 Tabular List Version: 2010 can be accessed here: http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2010/en

ICD-10 Chapter V “Somatoform Disorders”

This is the section of ICD-10 that corresponds with the Somatoform Disorders section in DSM-IV. There is a degree of correspondence between current categories for this section of ICD-10 and for DSM-IV, as set out in the (simplified) table, below.

For clinical descriptions and diagnostic guidelines for ICD-10 Somatoform Disorders see Page 129 of the “Blue book”:

ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders: Clinical descriptions and diagnostic guidelines: http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/bluebook.pdf

Current DSM-IV Codes and Categories for Somatoform Disorders and ICD-10 Chapter V Equivalents

[Ed: Neurasthenia is not categorized within DSM-IV.]

Source: Mayou R, Kirmayer LJ, Simon G, Kroenke K, Sharpe M: Somatoform disorders: time for a new approach in DSM-V. Am J Psychiat. 2005;162:847–855.
+++
+++
This screenshot shows how the ICD-11 Beta draft had stood at June 24, 2012:

ICD-11 Beta Draft: Morbidity Linearization view


+++

For ICD-11 Beta draft, the proposal in June 2012 had been to rename ICD-10’s F45 Somatoform Disorders parent category to Bodily Distress Disorders.

Three new proposed terms: 9R0 Mild bodily distress disorder; 9R1 Moderate bodily distress disorder; 9R2 Severe bodily distress disorder were inserted above the 9R3 thru 9R8 legacy categories imported from ICD-10.

ID : http://who.int/icd#F45

05 Mental and behavioural disorders [Chapter V in ICD-10]

[…]

BODILY DISTRESS DISORDERS  [F45 Somatoform Disorders > F40-F48 Neurotic, stress-related and somatoform disorders in ICD-10]

9R0 Mild bodily distress disorder  [New term to ICD]
9R1 Moderate bodily distress disorder   [New term to ICD]
9R2 Severe bodily distress disorder  [New term to ICD]
9R3 Somatization disorder  [F45.0 in ICD-10]
9R4 Undifferentiated somatoform disorder  [F45.1 in ICD-10]
9R5 Somatoform autonomic dysfunction   [F45.3 in ICD-10]
9R6 Persistent somatoform pain disorder  [F45.4 in ICD-10] 
    ›  9R6.1 Persistent somatoform pain disorder
      9R6.2 Chronic pain disorder with somatic and psychological factors  [Not in ICD-10]
9R7 Other somatoform disorders  [F45.8 in ICD-10]
9R8 Somatoform disorder, unspecified  [F45.9 in ICD-10]

+++

Hypochondriacal disorder, coded at F45.2 in ICD-10, is currently renamed to Illness Anxiety Disorder for ICD-11 Beta draft and relocated under ANXIETY AND FEAR-RELATED DISORDERS:

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/l-m/en#/http%3a%2f%2fwho.int%2ficd%23F45.2

ID : http://who.int/icd#F45.2

9C5  ANXIETY AND FEAR-RELATED DISORDERS

      ›  9C5.6 Illness Anxiety Disorder

Continued on Page Two

Changes to content on DSM-5 Development site (1)

Changes to content on DSM-5 Development site (1)

Post #189 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-2jn

 

Content embargo

According to American Psychiatric Association’s recently published, highly restrictive DSM-5 Permissions Policy – following closure of the third and final public review, the content of DSM-5 will be under strict embargo until the manual is published.

DSM-5 is expected to be finalized by December 31 for publication in May 2013.

APA closed its third stakeholder review of draft proposals for DSM-5 categories and criteria on June 15 and issued a Press Release on June 26 – write-up from Deborah Brauser for Medscape Medical News, below.

Between closure of the final review and Wednesday, June 27, the DSM-5 Development site stated that although comments on proposals could no longer be submitted through the website the site would remain viewable with the draft proposals until DSM-5’s publication.

That line of text was deleted from the DSM-5 Development site home page yesterday, Thursday, June 28.

It remains unconfirmed whether it is now APA’s intention to remove the draft as it stood at the third review from the DSM-5 Development site at some point between now and the slated publication date.

 

Categories and criteria text frozen during final revisions

According to DSM-5 Development home page text, revisions to categories and criteria will continue to be made between now and the end of 2012 in response to stakeholder feedback; continued analysis of DSM-5 Field Trial results; scrutiny by the DSM-5 Scientific Review Committee which will review scientific validating evidence for revisions; an extensive peer review process; review by an Assembly DSM-5 committee and an overall final review by the DSM-5 Task Force.

Disorder categories and criteria texts as they currently stand on the website are now frozen and the site content will not be updated to reflect any further revisions and edits made between June 15 and submission of final texts, later this year, for approval by APA Board of Trustees.

None of the manual’s extensive textual content that will accompany the new categories has been out on public review.

The remainder of the development process is set out on the Home Page under “Next Steps” and in the APA Board Materials Packet – December 10-11, 2011. This document sets out the DSM-5 Development program from December 2011 until May 2013:

Open here: Item 11.A – DSM Task Force Report

 

From Medscape Medical News > Psychiatry

Last DSM-5 Public Review Period Ends With 2000 Comments

Deborah Brauser | June 26, 2012

June 26, 2012 — The latest and final public comment period for the upcoming Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) ended on June 15 — but not before logging 2298 responses from around the world, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) reports.

This was the third public comment period that has been opened for online feedback regarding the manual’s proposed criteria changes. To date, there have been a total of 15,000 public comments posted…

Read full report

Ed: Free registration required for access to most parts of Medscape site.

 

Comment on closure of third and final draft review from 1 Boring Old Man

1 Boring Old Man

missed opportunity…

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

 

Related material

1] APA News Release June 26, 2012

2] DSM-5 Development Timeline

3] DSM-5 Development Permissions Policy

4] DSM-5 Terms and Conditions of Use

NAPPP launches Petition to Endorse ICD-10-CM for Diagnosis of Mental Disorders

National Alliance of Professional Psychology Providers (NAPPP) launches Petition to Endorse ICD-10-CM for Diagnosis of Mental Disorders

Post #188 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-2jf

The National Alliance of Professional Psychology Providers (NAPPP) has launched a petition for psychologists to endorse the forthcoming ICD-10-CM for Diagnosis of Mental Disorders.

The NAPPP mission is “to promote and advocate for the clinical practice of psychology. NAPPP welcomes licensed, doctoral level psychologists who provide healthcare related services. Retired psychologists, and students also are eligible for membership.”

Professionals can sign the Petition here:

http://www.nappp.org/ICD.html

Petition to Endorse ICD-10-CM for Diagnosis of Mental Disorders

The purpose of this petition is to establish a national policy for psychological practitioners to use the standards of the World Health Organization (WHO) for the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders. The International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 10th Revision (ICD-10) Version 10 presents worldwide standards for the diagnosis and treatment of mental and physical disorders as adopted by WHO. The advantages for psychology of using ICD-10 include ensuring that psychologists and all other doctoral healthcare providers will use the same diagnostic system. Consistent use of ICD-10 will simplify both establishment of consistent diagnosis and reimbursement for services. Workload counting of practitioners will also be better standardized for organization use.

Use of ICD-10 will also eliminate the political controversies that encumber frequent revisions to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). Finally, psychologists, using the ICD-10-CM to diagnose and treat mental conditions, will advance collaboration and integration of psychological and medical practices. Use of the same ICD-10 system by all health professions could also facilitate a comprehensive understanding of patients and their needs. Failure to use ICD-10-CM by psychologists would marginalize their services in the health care reform movement. All the advantages listed above will aid in implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Cooperative integration of the various health care professions is a prime goal of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The US Department of Health and Human Services adopted a Rule April 17, 2012 that postponed compliance with ICD-10 codes until October 1, 2014.* This prime goal had originally been set for January 1, 2012. This delay will allow the Center for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) to amend its 5010-CM coding system to comply with the ICD-10 Edition of diagnostic and procedure codes. This delay allows psychological practitioners to integrate their coding for reimbursement during the transitions of health care reform. This delay also provides psychology an opportunity to point out deficiencies in the present reimbursement system and to recommend corrective modifications to CMS as it amends its 5010-CM diagnostic and procedure coding system.

To read a comprensive statement on the rationale for the advantages to psychologists to support this petition, go HERE    (http://www.nappp.org/pdf/ICD.pdf  )

Petitioners strongly urge American Psychological Association Practice Organization and the APA Practice Directorate to expend all possible efforts to implement use of ICD-10 by all practicing psychologists. This action is petitioned and asked to receive priority attention because the clear advantages listed above. Expediting this request needs to be done to achieve these advantages and to circumvent unacceptable developments in the proposed edition of DSM-V**.

*Ed: This is a proposed postponement. No final rule to postpone compliance to October 1, 2014 has yet been issued by CMS.

**Ed: The forthcoming revision of the DSM will be known as “DSM-5” not “DSM-V.”

DSM; DSM-IV; DSM-IV-TR; DSM-IV-PC; DSM-V; DSM V; DSM-5; DSM 5 are registered trademarks of the American Psychiatric Association.

DSM-5 draft criteria draws nearly 2,300 responses in final public comment period

DSM-5 draft criteria draws nearly 2,300 responses in final public comment period

Post #187 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-2j0

According to a Press Release issued yesterday by the American Psychiatric Association (APA), the final public comment period on draft diagnostic criteria for the forthcoming Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) drew 2,298 responses.

APA previously reported receiving around 8,600 comments in the first stakeholder comment period and around 2,100 submissions in the second review.

During the second public comment period (May-June 2011), the specific diagnostic categories that received the most comments had been the sexual and gender identity disorders, followed closely by somatic symptom disorders and anxiety disorders.  (As reported by DSM-5 Task Force Vice-chair, Darrel Regier M.D.)

For this final review that closed on June 15, APA reports, “Although each disorder area drew a wide range of comments, the two Work Groups with the highest number were the Neurodevelopmental Work Group (397 comments) and the Anxiety, Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum, Posttraumatic Stress and Dissociative Disorders Work Group (545 comments). APA also received more than 800 comments focused broadly on DSM-5.”

 

No publication of field trial data

What the News Release fails to address is APA’s withholding of its field trial results while the third and final feedback exercise was in progress, other than releasing some Kappa data to press and conference at its Annual Meeting, in May. Professional stakeholders, advocacy organizations and lay public have been obliged to submit feedback on the third draft without the benefit of scrutiny of reliability and prevalence data to inform their submissions.

[See: Deborah Brauser for Medscape Medical News: interview with Darrel Regier, May 8, 2012 and reports by 1 Boring Old Man]

APA has given no indication of whether it still intends placing Kappa results and other field trial findings in the public domain or whether reports on its field trial findings will only be accessible at some point in the future published in subscription only or pay by the paper peer review journals, from which many stakeholders would be disenfranchised.

On June 17, I asked American Psychiatric Association’s CEO and Medical Director, Dr James H. Scully, why the field trial report was withheld; whether Task Force still intends placing field trial data in the public domain and when a report might be anticipated. I’ve received no response.

 

Collating submissions

I continue to collate copies of submissions from patient organizations, patients and advocates on these pages in response to the proposals of the Somatic Symptom Disorders Work Group. If professional body submissions include comment on this specific section of DSM-5, I would be interested in receiving copies with a view to publication of extracts or links to full submissions.

Given that thresholds for the Somatic Symptom Disorder criteria have been lowered for the third draft and given the implications for their constituencies, the response of US, UK and international patient organizations to calls for submissions in this third and final review was abysmal.

I’d like to thank patients, advocates and those organizations that did submit comment in response to the proposals of the Somatic Symptom Disorders Work Group.  I’d also like to thank Maarten Maartensz for his commentaries on DSM-5 proposals over the past two years.

 

APA News Release June 26, 2012 appended:

Open PDF Press Release No. 12-30

DSM-5 Draft Criteria Draws Nearly 2,300 Responses

Mental health diagnostic manual closes final public comment period

ARLINGTON, Va. (June 26, 2012) – The final public comment period for the draft diagnostic criteria of the upcoming Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) drew 2,298 responses from across the country and abroad. The six-week comment period ended June 15.

This feedback, submitted online to the American Psychiatric Association (APA), adds to the extensive responses submitted during the two other open comment periods. In total, more than 15,000 comments about the proposed DSM-5 criteria have been received since 2010 from mental health clinicians and researchers, the overall medical community, and patients, families and advocates. As was the case following the other comment periods, the DSM-5 Task Force and Work Groups will now review and consider each response as they begin final revisions to the criteria.

“Every comment period has provided valuable perspective from a wide range of professionals, consumers and advocates,” said APA President Dilip V. Jeste, MD. “We are grateful for their participation and willingness to review the draft proposals and to share their opinions and experiences. The Work Groups consider the feedback a huge asset as they shape the final DSM-5 proposals.”

Although each disorder area drew a wide range of comments, the two Work Groups with the highest number were the Neurodevelopmental Work Group (397 comments) and the Anxiety, Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum, Posttraumatic Stress and Dissociative Disorders Work Group (545 comments). APA also received more than 800 comments focused broadly on DSM-5.

After the Work Groups make their last revisions to the draft diagnostic criteria, the proposals will receive multi-level reviews by the entire DSM-5 Task Force, a separate Scientific Review Committee and a Clinical and Public Health Committee. The latter two committees will be working to evaluate the strength of scientific evidence supporting significant changes and to assess the impact of changes for clinicians and public health.

The Task Force will make recommendations to the APA Board of Trustees for its final decisions on the manual’s fifth edition late this year.

The American Psychiatric Association is a national medical specialty society whose more than 36,000 physicians specialize in the diagnosis, treatment prevention and research of mental illnesses, including substance abuse disorders. Visit the APA at www.psych.org  and www.healthyminds.org.