Update on ICD-11 Beta draft: Bodily Distress Disorder

Updates on ICD-11 Beta draft: Bodily Distress Disorder (proposed for ICD-11 Chapter 5: Mental and behavioural disorders); Chronic fatigue syndrome; Postviral fatigue syndrome; Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis (Chapter 6: Diseases of the nervous system)

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

Dr Elena Garralda presentation slides:

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/Garralda%20E.pdf

or open here: Click link for PDF document    Garralda presentation Somatization in Childhood

Slide 1

Somatization in childhood

The child psychiatrist’s concern?

Elena Garralda

CAP Faculty Meeting, RCPsych Manchester, September 2012

Slide 11

New ICD-11 and DSM-V classifications

. Somatoform disorders >>>
– Bodily distress syndrome (ICD-11)
– Complex Somatic symptom disorder (DSM-V)

[Preceded by downward pointing arrow]

“Unexplained” or “functional” medical symptoms (CFS, fibromyalgia, irritable bowel syndrome)

[Preceded by upward pointing arrow]

Physical complaint (s)
with subjective distress/preoccupation ++,
illness beliefs impairment
health help seeking

+++

Notes on ICD-11 Beta drafting platform and DSM-5 draft by Suzy Chapman for Dx Revision Watch:

These notes may be reposted, if reposted in full, source credited, link provided, and date of publication included.

January 6, 2013

1] The publicly viewable version of the ICD-11 Beta drafting platform can be accessed here:
Foundation view: http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/f/en
Linearization view: http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/l-m/en

2] The various ICD-11 Revision Topic Advisory Groups are developing the Beta draft on a separate, more complex platform accessible only to ICD-11 Revision.

3] The ICD-11 Beta draft is a work in progress and not scheduled for completion until 2015/16. When viewing the public version of the Beta draft please note the ICD-11 Revision Caveats. Note also that not all proposals may be retained following analysis of the field trials for ICD-11 and ICD-11-PCH, the abridged Primary Care version of ICD-11:
http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/Help/Get/caveat/en

4] The Bodily Distress Disorders section of the ICD-11 Beta draft Chapter 5 can be found here:
http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/f/en#/http%3a%2f%2fwho.int%2ficd%23F45
http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/l-m/en#/http%3a%2f%2fwho.int%2ficd%23F45

According to the public version of the ICD-11 Beta drafting platform, the existing ICD-10 Somatoform Disorders are currently proposed to be replaced with Bodily Distress Disorders, and Psychological and behavioural factors associated with disorders or diseases classified elsewhere, not with Bodily distress syndrome as Dr Garralda has in her slide presentation.

The following proposed ICD-11 categories are listed as child categories under parent, Bodily Distress Disorders, and Psychological and behavioural factors associated with disorders or diseases classified elsewhere:

EC5 Mild bodily distress disorder
EC6 Moderate bodily distress disorder
EC7 Severe bodily distress disorder
EC8 Psychological and behavioural factors associated with disorders or diseases classified elsewhere

There are no Definitions nor any other descriptors populated for the proposed, new ICD categories EC5 thru EC7.

EC8 is a legacy category from ICD-10 and has some populated content imported from ICD-10.

+++
These earlier ICD-11 Beta draft Somatoform Disorders categories appear proposed to be eliminated and replaced with the four new categories EC5 thru EC8, listed above:

Somatization disorder [F45.0 in ICD-10]
Undifferentiated somatoform disorder [F45.1 in ICD-10]
Somatoform autonomic dysfunction [F45.3 in ICD-10]
Persistent somatoform pain disorder [F45.4 in ICD-10]
    > Persistent somatoform pain disorder
    > Chronic pain disorder with somatic and psychological factors [Not in ICD-10]
Other somatoform disorders [F45.8 in ICD-10]
Somatoform disorder, unspecified [F45.9 in ICD-10]

5] The existing ICD-10 Chapter V category Neurasthenia [ICD-10: F48.0] is no longer accounted for in the public version of the ICD-11 Beta draft. I have previously reported that for ICD-11-PHC, the Primary Care version of ICD-11, the proposal is to eliminate the term Neurasthenia.

(I cannot confirm whether the currently omission of Neurasthenia from the Beta draft is due to oversight or because ICD-11 Revision’s intention is that Neurasthenia is also eliminated from the main ICD-11 classification.)

+++
6] I have previously reported that for ICD-11-PHC, the abridged, Primary Care version of ICD-11, the proposal, last year, was for a disorder section called Bodily distress disorders, under which would sit Bodily stress syndrome [sic].

This category is proposed for ICD-11 Primary Care version to include “milder somatic symptom disorders” as well as “DSM-5’s Complex somatic symptom disorder” and would replace “medically unexplained somatic symptoms.”

7] Dr Garralda lists Complex Somatic symptom disorder (DSM-V) on Slide 11 of her presentation.

The manual texts for the next edition of DSM are in the process of being finalized for a projected release date of May 2013. The next edition of DSM will be published under the title DSM-5 not DSM-V . The intention is that once published, updates and revisions to DSM-5 will be styled: DSM-5.1, DSM-5.2 etc.

When the third draft of DSM-5 was released in May 2012, the proposal was to merge Complex Somatic Symptom Disorder with Simple Somatic Symptom Disorder and to call this hybrid category Somatic Symptom Disorder.

This would mean that this new disorder has the same name as the overall disorder section it sits under, which replaces DSM-IV’s Somatoform Disorders.

As any subsequent changes to draft criteria sets following closure of the third stakeholder review are embargoed, I cannot confirm whether the SSD Work Group has decided to rename this category to Somatic symptom Disorder or retain the original term, Complex Somatic Symptom Disorder, the term used by Dr Garralda in her presentation.

+++
8] Turning from ICD-11 Beta draft Chapter 5 Mental and behavioural disorders to Chapter 6 Diseases of the nervous system:

As previously reported, Chronic fatigue syndrome is listed under Diseases of the nervous system in the Foundation View. There is no listing for Chronic fatigue syndrome in the Linearization View nor is the term listed in the PDF for Chapter 6, that is available to those who are registered with ICD-11 Beta draft for access to additional content:

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/f/en#http%3a%2f%2fwho.int%2ficd%23G93.3

Documentation from the ICD-11 iCAT Alpha draft dating from May 2010, implies that the intention for ICD-11 is a change of hierarchy for the existing ICD-10 Title term Postviral fatigue syndrome.

In the ICD-11 Beta draft, Chronic fatigue syndrome (which was listed only within the Index volume of ICD-10 and not listed in Volume 2: The Tabular List) appears to be elevated to ICD Title term status, with potentially up to 12 descriptive parameters yet to be completed and populated in accordance with the ICD-11 “Content Model”.

But the current proposed hierarchical relationship between PVFS and CFS for ICD-11 remains unconfirmed.

See image for documentation from the iCAT Alpha drafting platform, from May 2010:

https://dxrevisionwatch.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/change-history-gj92-cfs.png

There is no discrete ICD Title term displaying for Postviral fatigue syndrome in either the ICD-11 Beta Foundation View or Linearization View.

Neither is there any discrete ICD Title term displaying for Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis in either the Foundation View or Linearization View.

Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis appears at the top of a list of terms under “Synonyms” in the CFS description. [The hover text over the asterisk at the end of “Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis” reads, “This term is an inclusion term in the linearizations.”]

Postviral fatigue syndrome is also listed under “Synonyms” along with a number of other terms imported from other classification systems.

Included in this list under “Synonyms” are “chronic fatigue syndrome nos” and “chronic fatigue, unspecified,” both of which appear to have been sourced from the as yet to be implemented, US specific, ICD-10-CM.

+++
At some recent, unspecified date, a Definition has been inserted for ICD-11 Title term Chronic fatigue syndrome into the previously empty Definition field. An earlier Definition was removed when the Alpha draft was replaced with the Beta draft but can be seen in this screenshot, here, from June 2010:

https://dxrevisionwatch.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/2icatgj92cfsdef.png

The current Definition reads (and be mindful of the ICD-11 Caveats):

“Chronic fatigue syndrome is characterized by extreme chronic fatigue of an indeterminate cause, which is disabling andt [sic] does not improve with rest and that is exacerbated by physical or mental activity.”

There are no Definition fields for Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis or Postviral fatigue syndrome as these terms are listed under “Synonyms” to ICD-11 Title term, Chronic fatigue syndrome.

+++
Since one needs to be mindful of the ICD-11 Caveats and as the Chair of Topic Advisory Group for Neurology has failed to respond to a request for clarification of the intention for these three terms and the proposed ICD relationships between them, I am not prepared to draw any conclusions from what can currently be seen in the Beta drafting platform.

I shall continue to monitor the Beta draft and report on any significant changes.

For definitions of “Synonyms,” “Inclusions,” “Exclusions” and other ICD-11 terminology see the iCAT Glossary:
http://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icatfiles/iCAT_Glossary.html

+++
Related material:

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/8%20Ash%20IC2012.pdf

Presentation slides: Medically Unexplained Symptoms pages

Dr Graham Ash, Lancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust

Website pages featured in the slide presentation:

Medically Unexplained Symptoms

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/expertadvice/improvingphysicalandmh/aboutthissite.aspx

Dx Revision Watch Post, June 26, 2012: ICD-11 Beta drafting platform: Update (2): Neurasthenia, Postviral fatigue syndrome (PVFS), Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME), Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), Fibromyalgia (FM), Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS): http://wp.me/pKrrB-2mC

Advertisements

Three days left before the second DSM-5 stakeholder review period closes

Three days left before the second DSM-5 stakeholder review period closes

Post #97 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-1eA

On June 16, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) announced an extension to its second public stakeholder review of draft proposals for categories and criteria for the next edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which will be known as “DSM-5”.

The closing date for submissions is now Friday, July 15.

There are just three more days left in which to submit letters of concern in response to potentially damaging proposals being put forward by the Work Group for “Somatic Symptom Disorders” – the DSM-5 committee charged with the revision of existing DSM-IV “Somatoform Disorders” categories. 

Today, patient advocate, Caroline Davis, has sent me a copy of her letter for inclusion on this site. Ms Davis tells me she has made her submission available for other patients to use.

If you haven’t already submitted a comment, please do, however brief. You’ll find  information on making submissions in this post: http://tinyurl.com/DSM-5-register-to-comment.

Proposed criteria and two key documents are posted here: http://wp.me/pKrrB-13z.

For examples of other letters of concern, you’ll find copies of this year’s submissions, including the Coalition4ME/CFS’s resource materials and template letter, collated here: http://wp.me/PKrrB-19a. These include letters of concern from international patient organizations, professional stakeholders, patients, patient advocates and professional bodies.

If you have already submitted but have other points to make, please submit a second response. 

If you know an informed professional please alert them today to the implications for patients with ME, CFS, IBS, FM, CI, CS, Gulf War illness and other illnesses that are bundled under the “Functional Somatic Syndromes” and “Medically Unexplained” umbrellas.

If the Work Group’s current proposals are approved, these illnesses will be sitting ducks for an additional mental health diagnosis of a “Somatic Symptom Disorder”.

If you haven’t yet registered your concerns, please get a letter in before the feedback period closes on July 15!

Submission by patient advocate, Caroline Davis

J 00 Complex Somatic Symptom Disorder

I would like to express my deep concern about the proposed new category of Complex Somatic Symptom Disorder (CSSD) in DSM-5 scheduled for release in 2013.

CSSD proposes to add a mental health diagnosis to any condition where the sufferer has been ill for more than six months, and has developed ‘excessive’ concern about his or her health.

Since most good employers have a sick leave scheme which pays full or most-of-full pay for six months, this timeframe coincides most unhealthily with:

a) The individual’s realisation that their illness might not resolve, and/or might possibly be a disability and

b) A concerted effort to research their condition and seek more tests and treatments in order to get well and

c) The looming possibility of job loss, financial penury and the imminent need to make insurance or disability claims.

A patient in such a situation is likely to fall slap-bang within the CSSD criteria of:

(2) Disproportionate and persistent concerns about the medical seriousness of one’s symptoms and

(3) Excessive time and energy devoted to these symptoms or health concerns

The effect is to automatically deliver a diagnosis for an Axis I psychiatric disorder, simply for finding out what is causing one’s symptoms after such a long time of being ill, and wanting to do the best one can in order to get well and save one’s job and prospects for the future.

There is no empirical data to support the existence of ‘CSSD’. I believe that it is neither clinically safe nor morally right to force through un-researched, untried, untested (and possibly entirely inaccurate) diagnostic criteria for an entirely un-researched, untested (and possibly false) psychiatric condition. As your paper itself says, CSSD is merely ‘a construct’. There is no empirical evidence to support this ‘construct’ but plenty of circumstantial and factual evidence for why this ‘construct’ has been proposed and is being pushed forward with such unseemly speed.

Most patients are sick, but not stupid. We were managers, scientists, teachers, medical people, civil servants and business people in our former lives, and we still have functioning brains. We can see that names on the DSM committee considering CSSD include those in the pay of insurance companies and Governments (including the UK medical establishment). We also know that the implications of DSM-5 will extend to the next version of WHO.

There are those on your committee who wish only to do the bidding of their financial paymasters, and they are doing this by creating diagnoses such as ‘CSSD’ which will allow insurance companies and Government agencies to deny the claims of the genuinely sick and disabled. I urge the rest of the committee members not to allow them to do this, and to remain faithful to the objectives of WHO classifications as an excellent source of unbiased medical knowledge for the guidance of medical practitioners across the world.

Please do not let the DSM – and by implication the WHO classifications – become the vehicle of Governments and insurance companies to get their financial needs met.

I urge the committee to see past the claim that: a ‘diagnosis of CSSD could be applied to any patient with any diagnosis’. In clinical practice, as well as in your own discussions, it is already clear that this ‘diagnosis’ would be applied far more readily to patients already vilified for having conditions for which there is no objective medical test, eg: IBS, ME/CFS, FM, Gulf War Syndrome, interstitial cystitis, long-term pain and others. I urge the committee to examine the level of medical research funding dedicated to these conditions: they will find that funding for biomedical research has been restricted to bare, minimal levels for the past thirty years, which goes a long way toward explaining why there are no differential medical tests for these conditions yet. The solution is more and better biomedical research, not to create a new ‘bucket’ classification to financially manage-away these conditions.

I urge the committee to consider the consequences of moving too fast to approve a classification which is likely to be immediately pejorative to patients. The inclusion of ‘CSSD’ as a possibility for diagnosis will tap into the already hysterical media and ‘biopsychosocial’ research claims and pronouncements about these misunderstood and underestimated conditions.

The consequences – unintended by those whose moral conscience on DSM-5 is clear, and jauntily dismissed by those for whom recognition of these conditions would be financially and politically injurious – are likely to be catastrophic. They include: sceptical medical practitioners who will increasingly believe that it is OK not to test and treat, nor to provide appropriate care, nor to support disability benefit claims; and insurance companies who continue to charge huge premiums and would (with CSSD in place) be free to dismiss valid claims for some of the sickest people they serve.

Not only is this not an appropriate route to management or cure for such patients, but the consequences will quickly spiral into poverty, physical distress and in some cases preventable death.

Even if a patient should subsequently recover, the stigma of a mental health diagnosis is likely to legislate against the possibility of future employment and full reconstruction of a career at pre-illness levels. Thus it would have a direct economic effect on both the individual and the economy.

How much is CSSD really about the management of sickness and disability in patients by doctors and health service professionals, and how much is it the product of financial machinations by insurance companies and Governments seeking to minimise liability for medical care and disability?

While there is such a dearth of properly-conducted research (by non-partisan medical scientists) into the medical validity, applicability and usefulness of CSSD as a diagnosis; and while the likelihood of rushing into including it is likely to have such potentially dire consequences for patients (and, through effects on reputation and liability, also for medical practitioners) I request and appeal for CSSD to be omitted from the DSM-5.

Yours sincerely

Caroline Davis

Patient, advocate

  

Second DSM-5 public review of draft criteria

The closing date for comments in the second DSM-5 public review has been extended to July 15.

Register to submit feedback via the DSM-5 Development website here: http://tinyurl.com/Somatic-Symptom-Disorders

Once registered, log in with username and password and go to page: http://tinyurl.com/DSM-5-CSSD

Copies of this year’s submissions are being collated here: http://wp.me/PKrrB-19a

Coalition4ME/CFS issues Call to Action on DSM-5 proposals

Coalition4ME/CFS issues Call to Action on DSM-5 proposals

Post #88 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-1aJ

On June 2, the Coalition4ME/CFS, which comprises eight US 305c registered patient organizations, issued a Call to Action for submissions to the DSM-5 Somatic Symptom Disorders Work Group.

Full Coalition4ME/CFS announcement: http://www.coalition4mecfs.org/News.html

Position paper (PDF): http://www.coalition4mecfs.org/DSM-5_Position_Paper_-_FInal2.pdf

Letter to the DSM-5 Task Force – Letter available for use to the public for submit to the task force: http://www.coalition4mecfs.org/DSM5letter.html

The Coalition4ME/CFS – a coalition of US ME/CFS non-profit organizations – has issued a Call to Action on the impending DSM-5 proposal and provided information to assist organizations and patients in writing their own letter to the American Psychiatric Association. The submission period ends June 15th.

THE COALITION ANNOUNCEMENT

DSM-5 Background:

Why this call to action is important to you:

Among other changes, the DSM-5 proposal includes the establishment of a new category called Complex Somatic Symptom Disorder (CSSD). The criteria for a CSSD diagnosis include somatic symptoms that last more than 6 months and significantly disrupt life combined with the doctor’s assessment that the patient has a disproportionate concern about the medical seriousness of his symptoms. The guidelines also include recommendations of Cognitive Behavior Therapy (CBT) and antidepressants as the appropriate therapies.

CSSD could prove disastrous for the ME/CFS patient and for patients with other diseases like Fibromyalgia, Gulf War Illness and IBS that are misunderstood, misdiagnosed and mistreated by the medical community at large. For doctors who view the ME/CFS patient as ‘just depressed’, it will be a small leap to decide that the patient has “disproportionate and persistent concerns about the medical seriousness of one’s symptoms” and, as a result, inappropriately diagnose CSSD. Once diagnosed with CSSD, the implications for diagnosis, treatment, disability and insurance will be profound.

The background and associated issues with the DSM-5 and CSSD can be found in the attached “Complex Somatic Symptom Disorders Position Paper” developed by the Coalition 4 ME/CFS.

What you can do:

The Coalition 4 ME/CFS has sent a response to the APA on this issue, which you can find here. (Feel free to use this letter as a template for your response). The DSM-5 team also needs to hear from as many of you as possible about your concerns. Feel free to draw from the Coalition 4 ME/CFS letter for your own comments. Remember, this must be done by June 15, 2011.

Here are the steps to follow to provide your input:

1. Register on the DSM-5 web site to make comments. The “Register Now” site is in the upper right hand corner of the DSM-5 home page. You will receive a confirmation email with a temporary password that you will have to click on to complete registration. If you have registered previously, you should still have an account and can log in in the same box.

2. Provide your comments directly on the CSSD page. It is probably easiest to create your comments outside of the interface and then copy them in. Bolding and other formatting appear to be lost when you copy your document in.

Thank you,

Coalition 4 ME/CFS

• Other Resources – Suzy Chapmans is an extensive resource for these issues; see Dx Revision Watch

Check out other organizations letters in the comments below and on this page

The Coalition4ME/CFS consists of the

• CFS/Fibromyalgia Organization of Georgia, Inc.
• CFS Knowledge Center
• CFS Solutions of West Michigan
• PANDORA Inc. – Patient Alliance for Neuroendocrineimmune Disorders Organization for Research & Advocacy, Inc.
• Phoenix Rising
• Rocky Mountain CFS/ME & FM Association (RMCFA)
• Vermont CFIDS Association Inc.
• Wisconsin ME/CFS Association, Inc.

US ME/CFS Non-profit organizations are invited to join the Coalition.

Get on the Coalitions email list here: http://www.coalition4mecfs.org/contact.html

Registering to submit comment in the second DSM-5 public review of draft criteria

Registering to submit comment in the second DSM-5 public review of draft criteria

Post #78 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-15q

Second public review of draft proposals for DSM-5 criteria now open and runs from May to 15th June

 

Under the guise of “eliminating stigma” and eradicating “terminology [that] enforces a dualism between psychiatric and medical conditions” the American Psychiatric Association (APA) appears hell bent on colonising the entire medical field by licensing the application of a mental health diagnosis to all medical diseases and disorders.

If the most recent proposals of the  “Somatic Symptom Disorders” Work Group gain DSM Task Force approval, all medical diseases and disorders, whether “established general medical conditions or disorders” like diabetes or conditions presenting with “somatic symptoms of unclear etiology” will have the potential for a bolt-on diagnosis of “somatic symptom disorder”.

CFS and ME patients, diagnosed or awaiting diagnosis, may be especially vulnerable to highly subjective criteria and difficult to quantify constructs such as “disproportionate distress and disability”, “catastrophising”, “health-related anxiety”, “[appraising] bodily symptoms as unduly threatening, harmful, or troublesome” with “health concerns [that] may assume a central role in the individual’s life, becoming a feature of his/her identity and dominating interpersonal relationships.”

There may be considerable implications for these highly subjective classifications for the diagnoses assigned and the treatments offered to US patients, for the provision of social care and payment of medical and disability insurance.

Who can submit comment?

The APA is inviting all stakeholders to submit comment and feedback on the draft framework for DSM-5 and the latest proposed revisions to diagnostic criteria – patients and families, patient advocates and patient organizations as well as clinicians, researchers, allied health professionals, lawyers and other end users.

It’s important that patients who are able to submit comment do so, but please also encourage patient organizations, informed clinicians, researchers, psychiatrists, psychologists and allied health professionals to submit feedback, too.

Last year, the APA received over 8000 comments from stakeholders across all DSM categories.

Where can I read examples of last year’s submissions?

Copies of last year’s submissions by patient organizations and advocates can be read here: http://tinyurl.com/DSM5submissions

I shall be opening a new page for copies of this year’s patient organization and patient advocate submissions.

How do I register to submit comment?

1. Go to the DSM-5 Development website: http://www.dsm5.org/Pages/Default.aspx

2. Look for the “Participate” box (right hand side of Home Page) and click on “Register Now”. (Log in names and passwords from last year’s public review do appear to have been retained.)

3. Complete the “Register to Make Comments” form: http://www.dsm5.org/Pages/Registration.aspx

Having registered a username, name, email address and country, and entered the “Captcha” code, a confirmation email with a temporary password will be auto generated. The Registration form is also accessible from each of the category Criteria pages, as well as from the Home Page.

You can register in advance, if you wish, then prepare and upload your submission at a later date, but remember the feedback period closes on 15 June.

4. To comment on the proposals of the “Somatic Symptom Disorders” Work Group, Login in and go to this page:

http://www.dsm5.org/proposedrevision/Pages/SomaticSymptomDisorders.aspx

You can submit comment, on that page, for one or more categories, or click on a specific category, for example,

http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevision/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=368

J 00 Complex Somatic Symptom Disorder

Login in and you will be presented with a WYSIWYG editor.

I would strongly recommend composing your comment in a draft email or word processor first and saving a copy, as last year, there were complaints that Captcha characters were hard to read and the uploading procedure glitchy – so please save a copy first. External links and references can be included but there is no facility for including attachments. There appears to be no maximum word or character length specified. I would also suggest that you head your submission with “For the attention of the Somatic Symptom Disorders Work Group” or similar.

What are the latest proposals for the “Somatic Symptom Disorders” categories?

The latest proposals are set out here, where the two key “Disorder Descriptions” and “Rationale” documents can also be downloaded: http://wp.me/pKrrB-13z 

I’ll be posting extracts from the two key documents in the next post.

More Q and As on and around the public review, here: http://wp.me/pKrrB-12P

 

Related material:

On the subject of the use of the word “somatic” and “somatic symptom” , Angela Kennedy published this note, in June 2009:

I’ve noticed for some time that various people have been using the term ‘somatic’ as if it signified a ‘psychosomatic’ or ‘psychogenic’ condition.

This is incorrect. The OED definition of ‘somatic’ is “of or relating to the body, especially as distinct from the mind” (my italics). The word comes from the Greek ‘soma’ meaning ‘body’.

Even when proponents of ‘psychogenic’ explanations (it’s in your mind, you’re imagining it, misinterpreting it, faking it, caused it by your own beliefs etc. etc. etc.) use the term ‘somatic illness’ they actually do mean an illness of the body. They may then claim this somatic (or bodily illness) is caused by psychological dysfunction, but the word ‘somatic’ does not mean “illness caused by psychological dysfunction”. It merely means illness of a body, or a bodily illness.

It is important that this word is used correctly, especially when people write to the media, government, the medical establishment etc. Otherwise we are in danger of seeing apparent objections published, from advocates, to saying ME/CFS is a bodily illness, purely because someone has used the word ‘somatic’ incorrectly!

APA announces second public review of DSM-5 draft criteria and structure

American Psychiatric Association (APA) announces second public review of DSM-5 draft criteria and structure

Post #73 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-12k

Second public stakeholder review and feedback period now 4 May to 15 June

APA News Release No: 11-27 PDF: http://tinyurl.com/APAnewsrelease4may11 

or open PDF on this site here: New Framework Proposed for Manual of Mental Disorders

Online posting of draft disorders and criteria proposed by the 13 DSM-5 Work Groups for new and existing mental disorders had originally been scheduled for May-June, this year. According to a revised Timeline on the APA’s DSM-5 Development site, in March, this second public review exercise had been rescheduled for August-September:

“August-September 2011: Online Posting of Revised Criteria. Following the internal review, revised draft diagnostic criteria will be posted online for approximately one month to allow the public to provide feedback. This site will be closed for feedback by midnight on September 30, 2011.”

But yesterday, 4 May, the APA announced that the second public review period is now open and will run from May to 15 June.

The DSM-5 site was updated yesterday with announcements and revised proposals (dated May 4, 2011) across all categories. The current review period closes on 15th June – just six weeks away.

Note that this is a public and stakeholder review and feedback exercise and is not restricted to professionals or members of the American Psychiatric Association.

There is a Task Force announcement here: http://www.dsm5.org/Pages/Default.aspx

[Extracts]

What Specifically Has Changed on This Site?

“You will notice several changes to this Web site since we first launched in February 2010. Numerous disorders contain updated criteria…

” ...Is There Opportunity to Provide Further Comments?

“At this time, we are asking visitors to review and comment on the proposed DSM-5 organizational structure and criteria changes. Please note that the current commenting period will end on June 15, 2011. It is important to remember that the proposed structure featured here is only a draft. These proposed headings were reviewed by the DSM-5 Task Force in November 2010…

“…The content on this site will stay in its current form until after completion of the DSM-5 Field Trials, scheduled to conclude later this year. Following analysis of field trial results, we will revise the proposed criteria as needed and, after appropriate review and approval, we will post these changes on this Web site. At that time, we will again open the site to a third round of comments from visitors, which will be systematically reviewed by each of the work groups for consideration of additional changes. Thus, the current commenting period is not the final opportunity for you to submit feedback, and subsequent revisions to DSM-5 proposals will be jointly informed by field trial findings as well as public commentary.

“We look forward to receiving your feedback during the coming weeks and appreciate your participation in this important process.”      [Source: http://www.dsm5.org/Pages/Default.aspx]

There are brief notes on the proposed DSM-5 Organizational Structure here:

http://www.dsm5.org/proposedrevision/Pages/proposed-dsm5-organizational-structure.aspx

The “Recent updates” page for “DSM changes” and “Disorder-specific changes” is here:

http://www.dsm5.org/Pages/RecentUpdates.aspx

 

Registration for submitting feedback

Last year, registration was required in order to submit comment via the DSM-5 Development website. You can register to submit feedback on the DSM-5 Development site home page or on the individual pages for specific category proposals (right hand side under “Participate”).

The revised Timeline can be read here: http://www.dsm5.org/about/Pages/Timeline.aspx

According to the Timeline, a third review and feedback is currently scheduled for January-February 2012, for two months.

 

Latest revisions for “Somatic Symptom Disorders”

http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevision/Pages/SomaticSymptomDisorders.aspx

I will post  information in the next posting specific to the proposals of the DSM-5  Work Group for “Somatic Symptom Disorders”

 

Media coverage of APA’s 4 May DSM-5 announcement

MedPage Today

CNN Blog

Washington Examiner: Corrupting Psychiatry by Max Borders

Washington Examiner: Corrupting Psychiatry by Max Borders

Post #58 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-TU

Interesting commentary from writer Max Borders, last week, on the website of the Washington Examiner around the revision of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM):

Washington Examiner

Corrupting Psychiatry

By Max Borders 01/18/11 10:22 AM

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has gone crazy — like a fox.

“There was a time when we could be more charitable about the vagaries in the APA’s Bible, the DSM. But not anymore. If you’ve never heard of the DSM, it’s the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual series the APA publishes. Psychiatrists all over the world use the DSM as a guidebook for treating people with some form of mental illness. But the APA may test credulity with its upcoming edition.

“I refer specifically to proposed changes in the DSM-V due out in 2013. It’s no accident these changes reflect new political realities about how psychiatric medicine gets paid for and by whom…”

Read rest of article at the Washington Examiner

Commentary in response to “Corrupting Psychiatry” from Dutch philosopher and psychologist, Maarten Maartensz, on Nederlog here More on the APA’s mockery of medicine and morality and here More on the APA and the DSM-5

Comments on Washington Examiner to article “Corrupting Psychiatry” by Max Borders

By: Skeeter
Jan 21, 2011 9:55 PM

Good article, that says things that need to be said, long and loud.

Both the APA, and the broader psychiatric profession, are currently indulging in a seriously unjustified power grab, and they and their claims are in desperate need of much closer and tougher (and ongoing) external scrutiny then they have been subject to date.

Generally speaking, I would have to agree that the profession is becoming much too closely aligned with and mutually reliant on both state and corporate interests, as opposed to the interests of the patient and the science on which they base their claims to authority.

One small point: I would not invoke British psychiatry as any counterbalance to the excesses of their American colleagues. The Brits have their own serious problems. Not least of which is that they are mired deep in the methodological and ethical swamp of somatoform disorders (aka conversion or psychosomatic disorders, and their related ‘treatments’), and a lot of patients are paying a very heavy price indeed for this obsession by certain influential members of the British psych establishment.

By: Suzy Chapman
Jan 22, 2011 7:28 AM

Erasing the interface between psychiatry and medicine

The previous commenter cautions against invoking members of the “British psych establishment”. Two very influential members of the British psychiatry and psychosomatics establishment, Professors Michael Sharpe and Francis Creed, have seats on the DSM-5 “Somatic Symptom Disorders” Work Group.

While many column inches by rightly perturbed journalists and a stream of often acerbic critiques from former DSM Task Force chairs, Allen Frances and Robert Spitzer, have focussed on the implications for introducing new additions into the DSM and broadening the definitions of existing diagnostic criteria, the DSM-5 “Somatic Symptom Disorders” Work Group (Chair, Joel E Dimsdale) has been quietly redefining DSM’s “Somatoform Disorders” categories with proposals that if approved would legitimise the application of an additional diagnosis of “Somatic Symptom Disorder” to all medical diseases and disorders.

Radical proposals for renaming the “Somatoform Disorders” category “Somatic Symptom Disorders” and combining a number of existing categories under a new umbrella, “Complex Somatic Symptom Disorder (CSSD)” and a more recently suggested “Simple Somatic Symptom Disorder (SSSD)”, have the potential for bringing millions more patients under a mental health banner and expanding markets for psychiatric services, antidepressants, antipsychotics and behavioural therapies such as Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) for all patients with somatic symptoms, irrespective of cause.

Professor Creed is co-editor of The Journal of Psychosomatic Research. In a June ’09 Editorial, titled “The proposed diagnosis of somatic symptom disorders in DSM-V to replace somatoform disorders in DSM-IV – a preliminary report”, which expanded on a brief DSM-5 Work Group progress report published on the DSM-5 Development website that April, Joel E Dimsdale and fellow DSM-5 Work Group member, Francis Creed, reported that by doing away with the “controversial concept of medically unexplained symptoms”, their proposed classification might diminish the “dichotomy, inherent in the ‘Somatoform’ section of DSM IV, between disorders based on medically unexplained symptoms and patients with organic disease.”

If the most recent “Somatic Symptom Disorders” Work Group proposals gain DSM Task Force approval, all medical conditions, whether “established general medical conditions or disorders” like diabetes or conditions presenting with “somatic symptoms of unclear etiology” will have the potential for a bolt-on diagnosis of “somatic symptom disorder”.

Under the guise of “eliminating stigma” and eradicating “terminology [that] enforces a dualism between psychiatric and medical conditions” the American Psychiatric Association (APA) appears hell bent on colonising the entire medical field by licensing the application of a mental health diagnosis to all medical diseases and disorders.

By: KAL
Jan 23, 2011 1:36 PM

Who else might benefit? Disability Insurance. If you can be shown to have a “mental illness” then disability insurance only pays a maximum of two years of payments vs. a lifetime of payments for an organic disease.

Check the APA website for conflicts of interest for members of the working group for Somatic Disorders.

References:

DSM-5 Development website: Somatoform Disorders
http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/SomatoformDisorders.aspx

Proposal: Complex Somatic Symptom Disorder
http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=368

Proposal: Simple Somatic Symptom Disorder
http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=491

The most recent versions of the two key documents associated with the proposals of the “Somatic Symptom Disorders” Work Group are:

Update @ 7 February 2011

The Justification of Criteria document was revised again by the SSD Work Group on 1/31/11 to incorporate the new proposal for SSSD and other revisions and is replaced by:

DRAFT 1/31/11  Justification of Criteria – Somatic Symptoms

Descriptions document version 1/14/11 Revised Disorder Descriptions: Version 1/14/11

Rationale document version 10/4/10 Previous revised Justification of Criteria: Version 10/4/10

%d bloggers like this: