DSM-5 Round up: February #1

DSM-5 Round up: February #1

Post #225 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-2F7

Update: More recent coverage:

The first in a series of three commentaries by Allen Frances, MD, on the Somatic Symptoms Disorder issue has received over 25,000 page views on Psychology Today, alone. It was also published at Huffington Post and on “Education Update,” and now also at Psychiatric Times.

Mislabeling Medical Illness As Mental Disorder

Allen Frances, MD | February 13, 2013

Fox Health News

A psychiatrist’s take on the DSM-5 Somatic Symptom Disorder diagnosis, Dr Keith Ablow, for Fox News Health:

Does somatic symptom disorder really exist?

Keith Ablow, MD |  for Fox News Health | February 14, 2013

Currents An interactive newsletter of NASW-WA

(Washington State Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers is a membership organization.)

DSM 5 Changes

DSM-5: A Summary of Proposed Changes

Carlton E. Munson, PhD, LCSW-C | February 12, 2013

The Health Care Blog

Mislabeling Medical Illness

Allen Frances, MD | February 12, 2013

Huffington Post Blogger

Bruce E. Levine
Practicing clinical psychologist, writer

DSM-5: Science or Dogma? Even Some Establishment Psychiatrists Embarrassed by Newest Diagnostic Bible

Bruce E. Levine | February 10, 2013

Earlier coverage:

Huffington Post

DSM-5: Science or Dogma? Even Some Establishment Psychiatrists Embarrassed by Newest Diagnostic Bible

Bruce E. Levine | February 10, 2013

Practicing clinical psychologist, writer

+++

DIE WELT/Worldcrunch All news is global

Translated (and possibly abridged) from original article in German

Worldcrunch All news is global

Psychiatrists Not Crazy About The Revised Manual Of Mental Disorders

Fanny Jiménez and Christiane Löll | February 5, 2013

+++

Allen Frances, MD, now blogs at Saving Normal.

Archive posts at DSM 5 in Distress will remain accessible and open for new comments.

Saving Normal
Mental health and what is normal.
by Allen Frances, M.D.

DSM 5 Boycotts and Petitions
Too many, too sectarian

Allen Frances, MD | February 8, 2013

There are already about a dozen different DSM 5 petitions and boycotts out there. This is completely understandable – there is lots in DSM 5 to be angry at or frightened about.

Unfortunately, though, this is not a case of more the merrier. Fragmentation into a number of small protests will greatly reduce their aggregate impact…

+++

David J. Kupfer, MD, chairs the DSM-5 Task Force. On February 8, Dr Kupfer published in defence of the SSD construct on Huffington Post. Part Three in the Allen Frances and Suzy Chapman series of commentaries on the SSD criteria was published earlier, last week, Saving Normal on Psychology Today:

Huffington Post

David J. Kupfer, M.D.
Chair, DSM-5 Task Force

Somatic Symptoms Criteria in DSM-5 Improve Diagnosis, Care

David J. Kupfer, MD | February 8, 2013

While the goal of the upcoming fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) is clear, accurate criteria for diagnosing mental disorders, the motivation behind the book’s revision was the improvement of diagnosis and clinical care. Somatoform disorders are one area where definitive progress was made.

Somatoform disorders are characterized by symptoms suggesting physical illness or injury, but which may not be fully explained by a general medical condition, another mental disorder, or by medication or substance side effects. The symptoms are either very distressing or result in significant disruption of an individual’s ability to function in daily life. People suffering from somatoform disorders are often initially seen in general medical settings as opposed to psychiatric settings…

+++
This new post from Christopher Lane on the DSM-5 ‘Somatic Symptom Disorder’ controversy has been designated a Psychology Today “Essential Read” editor pick:

Side Effects
From quirky to serious, trends in psychology and psychiatry
by Christopher Lane, Ph.D.

DSM-5 Has Gone to Press Containing a Major Scientific Gaffe
The APA declined to correct the error, despite multiple warnings.

Christopher Lane, PhD | February 8, 2013

When DSM-5 is published three months from now, in the middle of May, it will contain at least one major scientific gaffe. The Trustees of the American Psychiatric Association voted to include a definition of Somatic Symptom Disorder (SSD) so broad and over-inclusive that it is certain to include medical patients with an outsized concern about their health, as well as those who are merely vigilant in trying to maintain it…

+++
Lightweight feature in UK Times Magazine, Saturday, February 9, 2013:

The Asperger’s effect

Louise Carpenter | February 9 2013

Once it was a taboo. Now, in Silicon Valley, it’s almost a job qualification. So has the diagnosis lost its stigma, wonders Louise Carpenter…

+++

Article on mental health diagnosis and DSM-5 co-authored by Dr Raj Persaud, Consultant Psychiatrist, and Professor Sir Simon Wessely, Professor of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London.

http://www.simonwessely.com/dsm5.html

DSM-5 and the future of psychiatry
Did 2012 prove that psychiatric disease doesn’t exist?

From doctors.net.uk 1.2.2013

+++
At the end of this article is a link to a forthcoming CPD Certified conference at the Wolfson Lecture Theatre, Institute of Psychiatry, June 4-5, 2013:

Conference:

DSM-5 and the Future of Psychiatric Diagnosis: Where is the roadmap taking us?

A two day international conference following the publication of the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) will take place at the Institute of Psychiatry on the 4th and 5th of June 2013.

Mental health practitioners and researchers around the world anticipate the DSM-5 that is due to published by the American Psychiatric Association within the first few months of 2013.

Discussions about the DSM-5 have stretched well beyond the world of academic psychiatry having become a matter of intense public interest and media coverage.

The aim of this conference is to have a rigorous and comprehensive discussion of the clinical, research, and public health implications of the DSM-5. The perspective is international and speakers will include top scientists, key policy makers, patient representatives, and front-line clinicians.

Speakers include:

Professor David Kupfer, Head of DSM-5 Planning Committee and Professor at the University of Pittsburgh

Professor William Carpenter, DSM-5 Task Force Member and Professor at the University of Maryland

Professor David Clark, Professor of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford

Dr Clare Gerada, General Practitioner and Chair of the Council of the Royal College of General Practitioners

Professor Catherine Lord, Director of the Center for Autism and the Developing Brain and Professor at the University of Michigan

Professor Vikram Patel, Professor of International Mental Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine

Professor Nikolas Rose, Head of the Department of Social Science, Health and Medicine, Kings College London

Sir Michael Rutter, First Professor of child psychiatry in the UK and Professor of Developmental Psychopathology at Kings College London

Professor Norman Sartorius, Former director of the World Health Organization’s Division of Mental Health, and a former president of the World Psychiatric Association

Price: £350 (including lunches and an evening reception)

Dates:

* Tuesday 4th June | 09:45- 17:30 (evening reception to follow)

* Wednesday 5th June | 09:45 – 17:15

Venue: Wolfson Lecture Theatre, Institute of Psychiatry

This event is CPD Certified

DSM-5 Round up: January #2

DSM-5 Round up: January #2

Post #220 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-2Ce

Round up of recent media coverage of DSM-5 issues from US and UK spanning January 18 to January 28:

Scientific American

The Newest Edition of Psychiatry’s “Bible,” the DSM-5, Is Complete

The APA has finished revising the DSM and will publish the manual’s fifth edition in May 2013. Here’s what to expect

Ferris Jabr | January 28, 2013

For more than 11 years, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) has been laboring to revise the current version of its best-selling guidebook, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) (see “Psychiatry’s Bible Gets an Overhaul” in Scientific American MIND). Although the DSM is often called the bible of psychiatry, it is not sacred scripture to all clinicians—many regard it more as a helpful corollary to their own expertise. Still, insurance companies in the U.S. often require an official DSM diagnosis before they help cover the costs of medication or therapy, and researchers find it easier to get funding if they are studying a disorder officially recognized by the manual. This past December the APA announced that it has completed the lengthy revision process and will publish the new edition—the DSM-5—in May 2013, after some last (presumably minor) rounds of editing and proofreading. Below are the APA’s final decisions about some of the most controversial new disorders as well as hotly debated changes to existing ones, including a few surprises not anticipated by close observers of the revision process…

Update: New material above

New York Times | New Old Age Blogs | Medical Issues

Time to Recognize Mild Cognitive Disorder?

Paula Span| January 25, 2013

Dr. Allen Frances, chairman of the task force that developed the previous Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, predicts inclusion of Mild Neurocognitive Disorder in the new version will lead to “wild overdiagnosis.”

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, published and periodically updated by the American Psychiatric Association, is one of those documents few laypeople ever read, but many of us are affected by…

Medscape Medical News Psychiatry

No Impact of DSM-5 Criteria on Alcohol Disorder Prevalence

Deborah Brauser | January 25, 2013

Although criteria used to assess serious alcohol problems will be revised in the upcoming fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), these changes will not likely affect the prevalence of these disorders, new research suggests…

Huffington Post Blogs | Allen Frances, MD

Why Will DSM-5 Cost $199 a Copy?

Allen Frances, MD | January 25, 2013

DSM-5 has just announced its price — an incredible $199 (and the paperback is also no bargain at a hefty $149). Compare this to $25 for a DSM III in 1980; $65 for a DSM IV in 1994; and $84 for a DSM-IV-TR in 2000. The price tag on a copy of DSM is escalating at more than twice the rate of inflation.

What’s going on?

Huffington Post Blogs | Allen Frances, MD

Terrible News: DSM-5 Refuses to Reduce Overdiagnosis of ‘Somatic Symptom Disorder’

Allen Frances, MD | January 18, 2013

Many of you will have read a previous blog prepared by Suzy Chapman and me that contained alarming information about the new DSM-5 diagnosis “somatic symptom disorder” (SSD).

DSM-5 defines SSD so over-inclusively that it will mislabel one in six people with cancer and heart disease, one in four with irritable bowel syndrom and fibromyalgia, and one in 14 who are not even medically ill.

I hoped to be able to influence the DSM-5 work group to correct this in two ways: 1) by suggesting improvements in the wording of the SSD criteria set that would reduce mislabeling, and 2) by letting them know how much opposition they would face from concerned professionals and an outraged public if DSM-5 failed to slam on the brakes while there was still time…

New York Times | New Old Age Blogs | Medical Issues

Grief Over New Depression Diagnosis

Paula Span | January 24, 2013, 6:40 am

The next edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders will not only abandon the Roman numerals, but will also leave grief considerations out of diagnoses for depression.
When the American Psychiatric Association unveils a proposed new version of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the bible of psychiatric diagnoses, it expects controversy. Illnesses get added or deleted, acquire new definitions or lists of symptoms. Everyone from advocacy groups to insurance companies to litigators — all have an interest in what’s defined as mental illness — pays close attention. Invariably, complaints ensue…

TIME | Alcohol

Revisions to Mental Health Manual May Turn Binge Drinkers into ‘Mild’ Alcoholics

Maia Szalavitz | January 23, 2013

Are you an alcoholic— or just a problem drinker? It may not matter, according to the latest version of the DSM, psychiatry’s diagnostic manual.

And now, in a new study of the different levels of alcohol misuse, scientists say the changes made to the DSM-5 may not even represent a significant improvement in the diagnosis of alcoholism. In fact, the revised definition collapses the medical distinction between problem drinking and alcoholism, potentially leading college binge drinkers to be mislabeled as possible lifelong alcoholics. The changes take effect in May, when the DSM-5 will be released…

EurekAlert! Press Release | January 22, 2013

Will Proposed DSM-5 Changes to Assessment of Alcohol Problems Do Any Better?

Proposed changes to the upcoming fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) will affect the criteria used to assess alcohol problems. One change would collapse the two diagnoses of alcohol abuse (AA) and alcohol dependence (AD) into a single diagnosis called alcohol use disorder (AUD). A second change would remove “legal problems,” and a third would add a criterion of “craving.” A study of the potential consequences of these changes has found they are unlikely to significantly change the prevalence of diagnoses…

Medpage Today

Psych Group Posts Glimpses of Final DSM-5

John Gever, Senior Editor, MedPage Today | January 21, 2013

Peeks into the final DSM-5, the controversial new edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s diagnostic manual, are now available from the group prior to the guide’s official May 22 debut…

British Psychological Society

Professor Peter Kinderman writes on DSM-5 for the BBC News website

January 18, 2013

People diagnosed with a mental illness need help and understanding, not labels and medication. That is the message of an article published on the BBC News Health pages today by Professor Peter Kinderman from the University of Liverpool, a former chair of our Division of Clinical Psychology…

[BBC News Health report below]

BBC News Health

‘Grief and anxiety are not mental illnesses’

Peter Kinderman, Professor of Clinical Psychology | January 18, 2013

The forthcoming edition of an American psychiatric manual will increase the number of people in the general population diagnosed with a mental illness – but what they need is help and understanding, not labels and medication.

Many people experience a profound and long-lasting grieving process following the death of a loved one. Many soldiers returning from conflict suffer from trauma. Many of us are shy and anxious in social situations or unmotivated and pessimistic if we’re unemployed or dislike our jobs…

Psychiatric Times

DSM-5 Field Trials: What Was Learned

James Phillips, MD | January, 8 2013

With DSM-5 now approved by the APA Board of Trustees—and, to the dismay of this reader, all discussion removed from the DSM-5 Web site—how are we to evaluate the results of the field trials for the end product? I suggest beginning with the short piece published in Psychiatric News, “What We Learned from DSM-5 Field Trials.”1 Authors David Kupfer and Helena Kraemer wrote, “We ultimately tested the criteria for 23 disorders. The question we asked was a straightforward one: In the hands of regular clinicians, assessing typically symptomatic patients in no different way than they would during everyday practice, was a particular disorder reliable?”

DSM-5 Round up: January #1

DSM-5 Round up: January #1

Post #218 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-2Bs

American Journal of Psychiatry

Editorials | January 01, 2013

The Initial Field Trials of DSM-5: New Blooms and Old Thorns

Robert Freedman, M.D.; David A. Lewis, M.D.; Robert Michels, M.D.; Daniel S. Pine, M.D.; Susan K. Schultz, M.D.; Carol A. Tamminga, M.D.; Glen O. Gabbard, M.D.; Susan Shur-Fen Gau, M.D., Ph.D.; Daniel C. Javitt, M.D., Ph.D.; Maria A. Oquendo, M.D., Ph.D.; Patrick E. Shrout, Ph.D.; Eduard Vieta, M.D., Ph.D.; Joel Yager, M.D.

Am J Psychiatry 2013;170:1-5. 10.1176/appi.ajp.2012.12091189

View Author and Article Information
Copyright © 2013 by the American Psychiatric Association

Article
Figures
References

“A rose is a rose is a rose” (1). For psychiatric diagnosis, we still interpret this line as Robins and Guze did for their Research Diagnostic Criteria—that reliability is the first test of validity for diagnosis (2). To develop an evidence-based psychiatry, the Robins and Guze strategy (i.e., empirically validated criteria for the recognizable signs and symptoms of illness) was adopted by DSM-III and DSM-IV. The initial reliability results from the DSM-5 Field Trials are now reported in three articles in this issue (3–5). As for all previous DSM editions, the methods used to assess reliability reflect current standards for psychiatric investigation (3). Independent interviews by two different clinicians trained in the diagnoses, each prompted by a computerized checklist, assessment of agreement across different academic centers, and a pre-established statistical plan are now employed for the first time in the DSM Field Trials. As for most new endeavors, the end results are mixed, with both positive and disappointing findings…

Full free text

Washington Post

Antidepressants to treat grief? Psychiatry panelists with ties to drug industry say yes

Peter Whoriskey | December 27, 2012

It was a simple experiment in healing the bereaved: Twenty-two patients who had recently lost a spouse were given a widely used antidepressant.

The drug, marketed as Wellbutrin, improved “major depressive symptoms occurring shortly after the loss of a loved one,” the report in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry concluded.

When, though, should the bereaved be medicated? For years, the official handbook of psychiatry, issued by the American Psychiatric Association, advised against diagnosing major depression when the distress is “better accounted for by bereavement.” Such grief, experts said, was better left to nature.

But that may be changing…

Medscape Medical News > Psychiatry

APA Answers Criticism of Pharma-Influenced Bias in DSM-5

Deborah Brauser | January 4, 2013

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has fired back a strong response to a recent article by the Washington Post questioning the possibility of pharmaceutical industry influence on decisions regarding the upcoming fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5)…

Ed: Note for watchers of DSM-5’s Timeline. Although the Timeline has the final texts schedule for submission to the publishers by December 2012, in his commentary below, Dr Frances discloses that DSM-5 will go to press at the end of January. The new edition of DSM is slated for release at the APA’s 166th Annual Meeting, May 18-22, 2013, San Francisco.

Psychology Today

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

Last Plea to DSM 5: Save Grief From the Drug Companies
Let us respect the dignity of love and loss.

Allen J. Frances, M.D. | January 3, 2013

Psychiatric News
Psychiatric News | January 04, 2013
Volume 48 Number 1 page 7-7
10.1176/appi.pn.2013.1a14
American Psychiatric Association
Professional News

Eating-Disorders Guideline Still Current and Valid, Panel Finds

Mark Moran | January 4, 2013

A review of the 2006 APA practice guideline on eating disorders finds that it is substantially current and is not affected by changes in diagnostic criteria in DSM-5.

Huffington Post

‘Eating Disorders Not Otherwise Specified’: What’s Changing With EDNOS In DSM-5?

Catherine Pearson | January 4, 2013

It took Autumn Whitefield-Madrano more than 20 years to seek treatment for her eating disorder. The writer was 9 when she started having symptoms, primarily binging, and 33 when she finally got help. When she did, the diagnosis surprised her. Whitefield-Madrano had EDNOS, or an “Eating Disorder Not Otherwise Specified…”

Important changes to DSM-5 Development website: Draft proposals and criteria removed

Important changes to DSM-5 Development website: Draft proposals and criteria removed

Post #208 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-2wk

Update: November 16: Webpages on the DSM-5 Development site that were no longer accessible, yesterday, via the home page or a Proposals tab menu but were still accessible via their URLs have today been placed behind a log  in.

Following closure of the third and final DSM-5 stakeholder review, revisions made by the 13 Work Groups and Task Force to proposals and criteria for DSM-5 subsequent to June 15 are subject to embargo.

You can read the DSM-5 Permissions Policy here  (Updated: 5/30/2012).

The DSM-5 Development site Terms and Conditions of Use can be read here (Effective Date: June 21, 20120).

The Terms and Conditions of Use page has not been updated to reflect very recent changes to the website.

+++

Removal of proposals for DSM-5 categories and criteria

I have a webpage change detection service set up for the home page and selected pages of the DSM-5 Development site.

Today, November 15, I was notified that the DSM-5 Development home page text has been recently edited.

The home page text has been revised and the 20 links towards the foot of the home page text to Proposed Revisions have been removed, as has the drop-down tab menu for Proposed Revisions, Rationales, Severity Specifiers for the 20 DSM-5 category sections.

The revised home text can be read here.

The home page text as it had stood prior to recent editing can be reviewed (for a while) on this Google cache page.

[…Google’s cache of http://www.dsm5.org/ . It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on 4 Nov 2012 21:50:47 GMT…]

The DSM manual and its clinical and research criteria sets are a major cash cow for the publishing arm of the APA.

APA is protecting its intellectual property rights by removing draft criteria as they had stood at June 15, 2012 and in placing an embargo on interim revisions to the texts, prior to publication of the final categories, criteria sets and associated textual content, next year.

Consequently, draft proposals, criteria, rationales, severity specifiers and for some categories, PDF files expanding on proposals and rationales, as they had stood at the time of the third draft, are no longer available for review or for comparison with earlier iterations of the draft directly from links on the site’s home page text or from links in a Proposals tab drop-down menu along the top of the home page.

According to the DSM-5 Development home page and recent commentary from Task Force Chair, David J Kupfer, MD, DSM-5 remains on target for release in May 2013.

No recent projections for the date by which an online version of the DSM-5 is expected to be available, post publication of the print edition, have come to my attention but it is anticipated that access to any online version of the manual would be available via subscription – not as a freely accessible public domain version, as ICD-10-CM and ICD-11 will be when they are published and implemented.

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

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

%d bloggers like this: