My Debate With The DSM 5 Chair: More Translations From ‘Newspeak’ by Allen Frances

June 26, 2012 by

My Debate With The DSM 5 Chair: More Translations From ‘Newspeak’ by Allen Frances, M.D.

Post #186 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-2iI

Allen Frances, M.D. is professor emeritus at Duke University and chaired the task force that had oversight of the development of DSM-IV.

My Debate With The DSM 5 Chair
More Translations From ‘Newspeak’

Allen Frances M.D. | June 25, 2012

Recently, I voiced my concerns about DSM 5 in a Medscape interview with Dr Stephen Strakowski. DSM-5 Task Force Chair David Kupfer then entered the debate and provided his defense.

Here is my reply to Dr Kupfer:

I think ‘Newspeak’ is the best way to characterize the APA defense of DSM 5. For those who haven’t read George Orwell’s ‘1984’ lately, ‘Newspeak’ was his term for the kind of bureaucratic upside-down language that attempts to turn night into day. The idea is that if you say something enough times, the repetition will magically make it so.

Let’s do a quick back-translation from APA ‘newspeak’ to DSM 5 reality.

APA Newspeak: DSM 5 has been open and “transparent to an unprecedented degree.”

DSM 5 Reality: APA forced work group members to sign confidentiality agreements; has kept its ‘scientific’ review committee report secret; tries to censor the internet using bullying threats of trademark litigation; keeps secret the content of public input; and has not, as promised, provided more complete data sets from its failed field testing.

APA Newspeak: DSM 5 has been an “inclusive” process.

DSM 5 Reality: APA has rejected the input of 51 mental health associations requesting an open and independent scientific review of the controversial DSM 5 proposals; has not responded to highly critical editorials in the Lancet, New England Journal, New York Times, and many other publications; has ignored the unanimous opposition by the leading researchers in the field to its unusable personality disorder section; has ignored the opposition of sexual disorder researchers and forensic experts to its forensically dangerous paraphilia section; has brushed off outrage by consumer groups representing the bereaved and the autistic; has not made any changes in DSM 5 that can be associated with outside input- professional or public; and is unresponsive even to its own APA members, dozens of whom have told me they can’t get a straight (or any) answers from a staff whose salaries come from their dues.

APA Newspeak: “The stakes are far reaching: the first full revision since 1994 of the DSM, a document that influences the lives of millions of people around the world.”

DSM 5 Reality: APA quietly cancelled its own planned Stage 2 of field testing. Stage 2 was to provide quality control with much needed editing and retesting to demonstrate improved reliability. Canceling quality control was a crucial mistake and was done for one reason only-money. Because Stage 1 of the field trial was completed 18 months late, DSM 5 was running out of time in meeting its arbitrarily imposed publishing deadline. Given the choice of striving for quality or cashing in on publishing profits, APA went for the cash. Definitely dispiriting, but not surprising. APA is in deficit, has a budget that is totally dependent on the huge publishing profits from its DSM monopoly; and has wasted an absolutely remarkable $25 million in producing DSM 5 (DSM IV cost only one fifth as much). The simple reality is that APA is rushing a poor quality and unreliable DSM 5 to press purely for financial reasons and totally heedless of the detrimental effect this will have on “the lives of millions of people around the world.

APA Newspeak: “Charges that DSM-5 will lower diagnostic thresholds and lead to a higher prevalence of mental disorders are patently wrong. Results from our field trials, secondary data analyses, and other studies indicate that there will be essentially no change in the overall rates of disorders once DSM-5 is in use.”

DSM 5 Reality: DSM 5 made a fatal and unaccountable error in its field testing- it failed to measure the impact of any of its changes on rates and APA therefore has no meaningful data on this most important question. With the exception of autism, all of the suggested DSM 5 changes will definitely raise rates, some dramatically. Adding Binge Eating Disorder by itself would add more than ten million new ‘patients’; adding Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder and Minor Neurocognitive Disorder would add millions; as would removing the bereavement exclusion to MDD and lowering thresholds for ADHD and GAD.

Read the full Medscape exchange for more Newspeak from Dr Kupfer, but you get the idea. It is not at all clear to me if APA talks Newspeak cynically, because of naivete, or because Newspeak is the language its expensive public relations consultants put in its mouth.

It doesn’t really matter why. Newspeak is devastating- not because anyone outside DSM 5 believes it (DSM 5 defenses are too transparently out of touch with reality to fool outsiders), but because APA may believe its own Newspeak or at least acts as if it does. Reflexive Newspeak, substituting for insight, has prevented DSM 5 from the serious self correction that would have saved it from itself. Bob Spitzer presciently predicted five years ago that a secretive, closed, defensive DSM 5 process would lead inevitably to this failed DSM 5 product.

Medscape has opened a physician-only discussion on the proposed DSM revision. If you are an MD and want to add your thoughts, you can do this at:

http://boards.medscape.com/forums/.2a3285ea/39

If you are a non-MD health care worker with an interest in psychiatric diagnosis, please add your thoughts at:

http://boards.medscape.com/forums/.2a32ceea

The public has a big stake in the outcome and can participate by commenting below. DSM 5 is very close to being set in stone. It may or may not do any good to speak up now, but this is a last chance for people to have their say.

Ed: Free registration is required for access to most areas of Medscape Medical News

Filed under Allen Frances, American Psychiatric Association (APA), Criticism of DSM-V, DSM-5, David Kupfer, DSM revision process, DSM-5, DSM-5 draft proposals, DSM-5 field trials, DSM-5 third draft, DSM-V Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

APA closes third and final comment period: fails to publish field trial results

June 16, 2012 by

APA closes third and final comment period: fails to publish field trial results

Post #184 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-2gs

So that’s it.

The third and final review of draft proposals for DSM-5 categories and criteria wrapped up last night.

APA closed the DSM-5 Development site for feedback around midnight without publishing its promised report on the DSM-5 field trial results.

Stakeholders have been obliged to submit feedback without the benefit of scrutinizing reliability data or any other information about the field trials APA had intended/may still intend/does not intend publishing.

James H. Scully, Jr., M.D., American Psychiatric Association CEO and Medical Director, blogs at Huffington Post.

I’ve asked Dr Scully why the report has been withheld; whether the Task Force still intends to publish field trial data and when that report might be anticipated.

If APA is so confidence about its field trial results, why the reluctance to place this data in the public domain?

In his Huff Po commentary of May 31, Dr Scully claimed:

“…DSM-5, unlike DSM-IV, invited comments from the world, and the work groups and task force considered every one of the more than 25,000 comments received and conducted further research where indicated.”

Following the first posting of draft proposals, out on review for ten weeks in spring 2010, APA reported receiving around 8,600 submissions; for the second review, around 2,120. I’m curious about this figure of “25,000 comments.”

I’ve asked Dr Scully, will he account for that figure of a total of 25,000 comments so far? I’ll update if Dr Scully responds.

According to Task Force Vice-Chair, Darrel Regier, M.D., the specific diagnostic categories that received the most comments during the second public review and feedback exercise had been the sexual and gender identity disorders, followed closely by somatic symptom disorders and anxiety disorders.

Following closure of the two previous public reviews, APA issued statements and articles. I will update with any statements that are released.

 

What now?

Content on the DSM-5 Development site (proposals for changes to categories, criteria, rationales, severity specifiers etc) is now frozen.

The site will not be updated to reflect any revisions and edits made between June 15 and submission of final texts, later this year, for approval by APA Board of Trustees.

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

According to APA’s newly published and highly restrictive DSM-5 Permissions Policy – following closure of this third and final public review and comment period, content of DSM-5 will be under strict embargo until the manual is published.

Final text is expected to be presented to APPI, the APA’s publishing arm, by December 31 for May 2013 publication.

I shall continue to update this site with any developments and with media coverage and commentary.

 

DSM-5 Round up

At DSM 5 in Distress, Allen Frances challenges “APA Newspeak”:

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

Top 10 Indicators Of DSM-5 Openness
Challenging APA newspeak.

Allen Frances, M.D. | June 15, 2012

In ‘1984’, George Orwell introduced the term ‘Newspeak’ – the abuse of language by totalitarian bureaucracies to create an upside down, looking glass world of misinformation. He was probably inspired by ‘Pravda,’ the Soviet Union’s propaganda paper that literally means ‘truth’ in Russian but was famous for publishing everything but.

This brings us to the American Psychiatric Association. Its medical director recently justified the astounding $25 million APA has already spent on DSM 5 (5 times the cost of DSM IV) with a curious claim- DSM 5 was so exorbitantly expensive because it was so unprecedentedly open. This classic Newspeak kills two truth birds with one stone — DSM 5 didn’t waste a huge amount of money and DSM 5 didn’t fail because it was a closed shop. The futile hope is that black will become white if only you say it enough times.

In fact, it is very cheap to run an open process — and very expensive to run a PR disinformation campaign. It cost me nothing but an hour’s time to write this blog. How much, I wonder, will it cost APA to pay off GYMR (its high powered public relations producer of newspeak pravda) to defend its indefensible claims that DSM 5 is an open process and that it can meet its unrealistic timetable with a reliable manual?

Here is a top 10 list of great moments in the history of APA ‘openness’.

1) APA forces work group members to sign confidentiality agreements to protect DSM 5 ‘intellectual property’.

2) DSM 5 does a confidential and super-secret ‘scientific’ review of itself- real science is never secret.

3) APA rebuffs calls from 51 mental health associations for an open and independent scientific review.

4) APA’s legal office tries to stifle criticism and censor the internet using inappropriate and bullying threats of trademark litigation.

5) APA plans to steeply jack up licensing costs for use of DSM criteria sets in order to recoup its unaccountably huge investment on its ‘intellectual property’.

6) DSM 5 only reluctantly engages on the issues and instead stonewalls criticism with offensive and defensive tactics.

7) The original DSM 5 plan for field trials included no prior public viewing of criteria sets and no period for public comment. These are added only under heavy outside pressure.

8) DSM 5 publishes no aggregations of key areas of concern identified during public reviews; doesn’t respond publicly to them and there is no indication that public input has had any impact whatever on DSM 5.

9) The APA ‘charitable’ foundation (meant to provide open public education) is named by a watchdog group as the 7th worst charity in all of the US.

10) APA promises to post a complete set of DSM 5 reliability data in time to allow comments during the final period of public review- but fails to do so.

And this is just a taster. At least a dozen reporters have spontaneously mentioned to me that never in their careers have they encountered anything so byzantine as the APA press office. And dozens of APA members have emailed their frustration at not being able to get a straight (or any) answer from a staff whose salaries are paid by their membership dues.

It requires lots of time, money, and brain power to create ‘pravda.’ Perhaps this explains why everything connected with DSM 5 is always so late and so expensive and why a high flying hired gun like GYMR is needed to run its interference. The real truth is fast, cheap, and very simple to explain.

Additional research is available at Suzy Chapman’s website. She monitors DSM-5 development at https://dxrevisionwatch.wordpress.com

 

On June 13, the American Counseling Association, representing 50,000 US counselors, published its submission to DSM-5:

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:

 
 
 

The DSM-5 Open Letter Committee of the Society for Humanistic Psychology, Division 32 of the American Psychological Association is publishing its response to the third draft :

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

Filed under Allen Frances, American Psychiatric Association (APA), David Kupfer, DSM revision process, DSM-5 consultation, DSM-5 draft proposals, DSM-5 field trials, DSM-5 in the media, DSM-5 third draft, DSM-5 timeline Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

DSM-5 controversy: Lane on “SAD”, Frances Follows the Money, Spitzer et al on Kappa reliability

June 12, 2012 by

DSM-5 controversy round up:

Lane on “SAD”; Frances “Follows the Money”; Spitzer et al on Kappa reliability; A Closer Look at Pending Changes to the Future of Psychiatric Diagnosis June issue The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease

Post #178 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-2em

Side Effects at Psychology Today

From quirky to serious, trends in psychology and psychiatry.

Christopher Lane, Ph.D. | June 11, 2012

Naming an Ailment: The Case of Social Anxiety Disorder”

“Social phobia” vs. “Social anxiety disorder”: What’s in a name?

…“Using data collected from a telephone survey of residents of New York State,” the letter writers continue, “we investigated whether the disorder name affects the perceived need for treatment. Random-digit dialing was used to obtain phone numbers … In total, 806 people participated.”

“Respondents heard a brief vignette describing a person who experiences discomfort in social situations and often avoids social events. These symptoms were labeled as either social phobia or social anxiety disorder, and respondents indicated whether the person should seek mental health treatment.”

The results are dubious to say the least…

Read full commentary

Psychology Today

DSM 5 in Distress | Allen Frances

Follow The Money
APA puts publishing profits above public trust

Allen Frances MD | June 11, 2012

…APA treats DSM-5 like a valuable publishing property, not as a public trust that importantly impacts on people’s lives and public policy. It is excellent at protecting its “intellectual property” with confidentiality agreements and at protecting its trademark and copyright with bullying threats of law suits. But APA has been sadly incompetent and wildly profligate in the day-to-day work of actually producing a safe and scientifically sound DSM-5.

Dr Scully is asking us to believe ten very unbelievable things. My view – if you want to understand why an unreliable and unsafe DSM-5 is being rushed prematurely to market – is to “follow the money…”

Read full commentary at DSM-5 in Distress

Newswire

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleid=1109031

The American Journal of Psychiatry, VOL. 169, No. 5

Letters to the Editor | May 01, 2012

Standards for DSM-5 Reliability

Robert L. Spitzer, M.D.; Janet B.W. Williams, Ph.D.; Jean Endicott, Ph.D.
Princeton, N.J. New York City

Am J Psychiatry 2012;169:537-537. 10.1176/appi.ajp.2012.12010083

TO THE EDITOR: In the January issue of the Journal, Helena Chmura Kraemer, Ph.D., and colleagues (1) ask, in anticipation of the results of the DSM-5 field trial reliability study, how much reliability is reasonable to expect. They argue that standards for interpreting kappa reliability, which have been widely accepted by psychiatric researchers, are unrealistically high…

A Closer Look at Pending Changes to the Future of Psychiatric Diagnosis

Released: 6/7/2012 9:00 AM EDT
Source: Wolters Kluwer Health: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Articles Have Potential to Affect Final DSM-5 Standards as Public comment Period Ends

Newswise — New York, NY (June 7, 2012) – The June issue of The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease (JNMD) features a special section focused on the impending release of the revised Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), an update to psychiatric diagnosis standards. JNMD is published by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, part of Wolters Kluwer Health.

The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease Editor-in-Chief John A. Talbott, MD, (a past APA president and DSM-III collaborator) comments in his editorial, “The timing of this special section on DSM-5, therefore, is particularly auspicious because it provides the potential for these articles to affect the final DSM-5 decisions.” The DSM-5 manual, currently scheduled for publication in May 2013, is going through its final public comment period through June 15, 2012.

Many articles within the section present criticisms of DSM-5 proposals. Specifically, several authors worry that the new DSM-5 standards may open up more opportunities for false-positives – a doctor diagnosing a condition when it is not present, or providing medication when it is not needed.

• “Diagnostic Inflation: Causes and Suggested Cure” by Batstra and Frances displays the authors’ concern that the proposed changes to DSM-5 will result in diagnostic inflation and inappropriate use of medication. They suggest “stepped diagnosis,” which includes a watch-and-wait period before beginning medication, to combat false-positives.

• In “Recurrence of Bereavement-Related Depression: Evidence for the Validity of the DSM-IV Bereavement Exclusion From the Epidemiological Catchment Area Study,” Wakefield and Schmitz contend that the DSM-5 proposal to remove the bereavement exclusion from the definition of a major depressive episode would cause those who are experiencing normal grief after the death of a loved one to be mislabeled as clinically depressed.

Other articles respond to DSM-5 proposals to include new disorders and diagnostic constructs. For example, DSM-5 proposes to reclassify pathological gambling as a behavioral addiction, which may pave the way for other excessive behaviors to be included in this construct in the future.

• Mihordin takes a look at the potential consequences of this change in his article, “Behavioral Addiction V Quo Vadis?” in which he presents hypothetical criteria for the diagnosis of pathological model railroading disorder.

• Good and Burstein respond to the DSM-5 proposal to include a hebephilic subtype to the diagnosis of pedophilia in “Hebephilia and the Construction of a Fictitious Diagnosis”. Additionally, Wakefield examines two DSM-5 proposals on classifying pathological forms of grief as mental disorders in “Should Prolonged Grief Be Reclassified as a Mental Disorder in DSM-5? Reconsidering the Empirical and Conceptual Arguments for Complicated Grief Disorder.”

Included in the special section, “Psychotropic Marketing Practices and Problems: Implication for DSM-5” by Raven and Perry looks at how certain aspects of DSM-5 could be used by the pharmaceutical industry as marketing tools, especially with a wider customer base resulting from false-positive patients. In “A Critique of the DSM-5 Field Trials,” Jones examines problems that may have compromised the usefulness of the DSM-5 field trials.

It is important to note that the articles in the special section of JNMD were written at various points since February 2010 based on the criteria sets posted on the DSM-5 website. Many of these criteria sets have been updated since their initial posting. “Thus, the critiques of certain proposals contained in these articles may no longer be fully relevant to what is actually being proposed for DSM-5,” Dr. Talbott states in his editorial. Visit the DSM-5 website at http://www.dsm5.org/  for the most accurate information on what is being considered for inclusion in DSM-5.

# # #

About The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease
Founded in 1874, The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease is the world’s oldest, continuously published independent scientific monthly in the field of human behavior. Articles cover theory, etiology, therapy, social impact of illness, and research methods

Filed under Allen Frances, American Psychiatric Association (APA), Christopher Lane, Criticism of DSM-V, DSM-5, DSM revision process, DSM-5 draft proposals, DSM-5 field trials, DSM-5 in the media, DSM-5 third draft, Robert Spitzer Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

Allen Frances: “Follow the Money”

June 10, 2012 by

Allen Frances writing on Huffington Post: “Follow the Money”

Post #177 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-2e3

Allen Frances, who had oversight of the development of DSM-IV, responds to DSM-5 Inaccuracies: Setting the Record Straight by James H Skully, CEO and Medical Director to the American Psychiatric Association.

Huffington Post Blogs | Allen Frances

Follow the Money

Allen Frances MD | June 9, 2012

…The APA budget depends heavily on the huge publishing profits generated by its DSM monopoly. APA needs the money badly. It is losing paying members; other sources of funding are also on a downward trend; and its budget projections require a big May 2013 injection of DSM-5 cash…

…APA treats DSM-5 like a valuable publishing property, not as a public trust that importantly impacts on people’s lives and public policy. It is excellent at protecting its “intellectual property” with confidentiality agreements and at protecting its trademark and copyright with bullying threats of law suits. But APA has been sadly incompetent and wildly profligate in the day-to-day work of actually producing a safe and scientifically sound DSM-5.

Dr Scully is asking us to believe ten very unbelievable things. My view – if you want to understand why an unreliable and unsafe DSM-5 is being rushed prematurely to market – is to “follow the money…”

Read full commentary on Huff Po

Filed under Allen Frances, American Psychiatric Association (APA), DSM revision process, DSM-5, DSM-5 draft proposals, DSM-5 field trials, DSM-5 in the media, DSM-5 third draft, DSM-V, SLAPP suit Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

DSM-5 round-up: Lane on “DSM-5 Facts” site, Frances on DSM-5, Kupfer on Frances

June 5, 2012 by

DSM-5 round-up: Lane on new “DSM-5 Facts” site, Frances on DSM-5, Kupfer on Frances

Post #176 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-2cQ

What we were waiting for were the “full results” of the reliability data from the DSM-5 field trials.

What we got was a public relations sticking plaster.

Christopher Lane reported in Side Effects on the American Psychiatric Association’s new platform DSM-5 Facts – a website launched, last week, to “correct the record, highlight key omissions – and provide essential perspective so that the public has a complete and accurate view…“

Side Effects

Christopher Lane, Ph.D. | June 4, 2012

The APA’s PR Problem
Why is the American Psychiatric Association hiring a PR company to market DSM-5?

As the news tumbled out last week that the American Psychiatric Association had hired GYMR, an expensive PR company, to help the organization “execute strategies that include image and alliance building, public education campaigns or media relations to harness the formidable forces of Washington and produce successful results for clients” (services that GYMR brags about in its mission statement), it became clearer than ever that the APA has more than an image-problem with DSM-5…

Read on

In a long interview with Allen Frances, Stephen M. Strakowski asks: What’s wrong with DSM-5 and what needs to be done to put it right?

Medscape Psychiatry

What’s Wrong With DSM-5?

Stephen M. Strakowski, MD; Allen J. Frances, MD | June 1, 2012

Addressing Prescription Drug Abuse: Introduction
The Biggest Problems With DSM-5?
What Would Dr. Frances Do?
A Safe, Credible DSM-5 by 2013?

…The reliability-test results for stage 1 show that DSM-5 badly flunked and that stage 2 is desperately needed. The leadership lowered expectations with statements indicating that they are willing to accept diagnostic agreements far below historical levels and include proposals achieving diagnostic agreements that are little better than chance. This is simply not acceptable and should not be accepted…

…it is discouraging that DSM-5 has not accepted the need for external review, is going forward with poorly written and unreliable criteria sets, and still contains so many unsafe and scientifically unsound proposals. It remains to be seen whether DSM-5 will be responsive to what is certain to be increasing external pressure to trim its sails and improve its quality. If it attempts to hang tough, I think DSM-5 will no longer be used much (if at all) overseas and will also lose much of its following in the United States…

Task Force Chair, David J. Kupfer, MD, responds:

Medscape Psychiatry

Dr. Kupfer Defends DSM-5

David J. Kupfer, MD | June 1, 2012

Editor’s Note:
In a recent Medscape interview with Dr. Stephen Strakowski, DSM-IV Task Force Chair Dr. Allen J. Frances expressed serious concerns about a number of proposals being considered for inclusion in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), scheduled for release in May 2013. Below, DSM-5 Task Force Chair Dr. David Kupfer defends the proposed revision.

A DSM-5 Defense
Will DSM-5 Inflate Prevalence?

A third Medscape report from the APA’s Annual Conference by Nassir Ghaemi, MD:

Medscape Psychiatry

DSM-5: Finding a Middle Ground

Nassir Ghaemi, MD | June 1, 2012

Professor of Psychiatry, Tufts University School of Medicine; Director, Mood Disorders Program, Psychiatry Department, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts

DSM-5: Validity vs Reliability
But DSM-IV Has Limitations, Too

Two more commentaries from 1 Boring Old Man on DSM-5 process and field trial Kappa results:

the APA Trustees must intervene in the DSM-5…

1 Boring Old Man | June 4, 2012

and will…

1 Boring Old Man | June 3, 2012

Filed under Allen Frances, American Psychiatric Association (APA), Criticism of DSM-V, DSM-5, David Kupfer, DSM revision process, DSM-5, DSM-5 draft proposals, DSM-5 field trials, DSM-5 in the media, DSM-5 third draft Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

Welcome to DSM-5 Facts (The APA’s new PR site)

May 31, 2012 by

Welcome to DSM-5 Facts (The APA’s new PR site)

Post #175 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-2cm

There’s just a couple of weeks left until the deadline for receipt of stakeholder comments in the third and final review of DSM-5 proposals but still no sign of the promised “full results of the field trials” from the Task Force.

In the meantime, something else from the APA, or rather its PR firm. A spanking new DSM-5 Facts site launched this week “to correct the record” and provide the public with “a complete and accurate view of this important issue.”

http://dsmfacts.org/

Welcome to DSM-5 Facts

The American Psychiatric Association believes strongly in the work that is being done to revise the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). In preparation for the release of DSM-5, experts from psychiatry, psychology, social work, neuroscience, pediatrics and other fields have committed much of the last five years to reviewing scientific research and clinical data, analyzing the findings of extensive field trials and reviewing thousand of comments from the public.

We welcome scrutiny, not only of this process but of its results.

Regrettably, news reports and commentators alike are filling the discourse with inaccurate, biased or misinformed criticism of DSM-5. Such information undermines the important changes that are being made to the manual, and provokes unwarranted confusion and fear among the individuals and families who stand to benefit most from essential care based on the strongest available diagnostic criteria.

The APA has created this forum to ensure observers of the DSM-5 development process have the facts.

Posted below are recent news stories, articles and opinion pieces, along with our responses, to correct the record, highlight key omissions — and provide essential perspective so that the public has a complete and accurate view of this important issue….

 

On the DSM-5 Facts Issue Accuracy page you’ll find responses to recent articles and Op-Eds by Allen Frances, Paula Caplan, NYT journalist, Benedict Carey, and Cosgrove and Krimsky.

In a counterpoint to Frances’ May 12, New York Times Op-Ed piece, APA responds:

APA Responds to Allen Frances New York Times Op-Ed

…There are actually relatively few substantial changes to draft disorder criteria. Those that have been recommended are based on the scientific and clinical evidence amassed over the past 20 years and then are subject to multiple review processes within the APA.

Unfortunately there is no comment facility on this DSM-5 Fact site.

One section for which substantial changes to disorder criteria are being proposed is the Somatoform Disorders.

The Somatic Symptom Disorder Work Group proposes radical changes to this category: to rename the Somatoform Disorders section to “Somatic Symptom Disorders”; eliminate four existing DSM-IV categories: somatization disorder, hypochondriasis, pain disorder, and undifferentiated somatoform disorder; replace these discrete categories and their criteria with a single new category – “[Complex] Somatic Symptom Disorder” and apply new criteria.

“…To receive a diagnosis of complex somatic symptom disorder, patients must complain of at least one somatic symptom that is distressing and/or disruptive of their daily lives. Also, patients must have at least two [Ed: now reduced to “at least one from the B type criteria” since evaluation of the CSSD field trials] of the following emotional/cognitive/behavioral disturbances: high levels of health anxiety, disproportionate and persistent concerns about the medical seriousness of the symptom(s), and an excessive amount of time and energy devoted to the symptoms and health concerns. Finally, the symptoms and related concerns must have lasted for at least six months.

“Future research will examine the epidemiology, clinical characteristics, or treatment of complex somatic symptom disorder as there is no published research on this diagnostic category.”

“…Just as for complex somatic symptom disorder, there is no published research on the epidemiology, clinical characteristics, or treatment of simple somatic symptom disorder.”

Source: Woolfolk RL, Allen LA. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Somatoform Disorders. Standard and Innovative Strategies in Cognitive Behavior Therapy.

And from the SSD Work Group  Rationale/Validity Document  (as published on May 4, 2011 for the second public review of draft proposals but not revised or reissued for the third review):

“…The presence of CSSD complicates management of all disorders and must be addressed in the treatment plan.

“It is unclear how these changes would affect the base rate of disorders now recognized as somatoform disorders. One might conclude that the rate of diagnosis of CSSD would fall, particularly if some disorders previously diagnosed as somatoform were now diagnosed elsewhere (such as adjustment disorder). On the other hand, there are also considerable data to suggest that physicians actively avoid using the older 6 diagnoses because they find them confusing or pejorative. So, with the CSSD classification, there may be an increase in diagnosis.

“The B-type criteria are crucial for a diagnosis of CSSD. These criteria in essence reflect disturbance in thoughts, feelings, and/or behaviors in conjunction with long standing distressing somatic symptoms. Whilst an exact threshold is perhaps arbitrary, considerable work suggests that the degree of functional impairment is associated with the number of such criteria. Using a threshold of 2 or more such criteria results in prevalence estimates of XXXX in the general population, XXXX in patients with known medical illnesses, and XXXX in patients who may previously have been considered to suffer from a somatoform illness. {text in development concerning impact of different thresholds for criteria B- from Francis [Creed]}…”

No data on prevalence estimates available for the second review and no data on impact of different thresholds for the B type criteria and prevalence estimates available for the third review.

I will update if a report on the field trials is released.

Commentary from Allen Frances on the launch of this new DSM-5 Fact site.

Huffington Post Blogs | Allen Frances

Public Relations Fictions Trying to Hide DSM 5 Facts

Allen Frances MD | May 31, 2012

Recently APA recruited a public relations guy from the Department of Defense to respond to my concerns that DSM 5 is way off track. He immediately went on the offensive and (in an interview for Time magazine) made the obvious PR mistake of calling me “a dangerous man.” This provided me the opportunity to pose yet again the troubling questions about DSM 5 that APA repeatedly refuses to answer. The DOD guy hasn’t surfaced since.

Instead, APA has adopted a much smoother, soft sell approach. It has hired GYMR — an expensive PR firm. GYMR actually brags in its mission statement that it can “execute strategies that include image and alliance building, public education campaigns or media relations to harness the formidable forces of Washington and produce successful results for clients.”

We now have the first fruits of GYMR’s “image building” misinformation campaign. It has launched a PR website with the claim it will provide “the facts on DSM-5 development process. Read recent news stories & opinion pieces, along with our responses, to correct the record, highlight key omissions — and provide essential perspective, so that the public has a complete and accurate view of this important issue.”

Unfortunately, the site is very short on accurate facts, very long on misleading (or just plain wrong) “image building” fiction. It is all pure PR fluff — a way to avoid answering the substantive questions that need addressing before DSM 5 is prematurely rushed to press. Let’s compare GYMR fiction versus DSM 5 fact:

GYMR Fiction: “We have extensive data from the field trials that on average there is a slight decrease in the overall rates of DSM-5 in comparison to DSM-IV disorders.”

DSM 5 Fact: This is simply wrong — APA has no such data. Except for autism, all of the DSM 5 changes will dramatically raise the rates of mental disorder and mislabel normal people as psychiatrically sick. The field trial provided no data on this crucial question because it made an unforgivable error — not including head to head prevalence comparisons between DSM IV and DSM 5. This makes it impossible to estimate how explosive will be the DSM 5 rate jumps. Moreover, false epidemics are often nurtured in the primary care settings that were untested in the DSM 5 field trials.

GYMR Fiction: The PR claim is that DSM 5 has provided a transparent process.

DSM 5 Fact: DSM 5 has been peculiarly and self-destructively secretive from its early confidentiality agreements (meant to protect intellectual property) to its current failure to make public any of the results of its ‘scientific’ reviews. Real science can never be confidential. None of this secrecy makes any sense.

GYMR Fiction: “APA takes very seriously its responsibility in developing and maintaining DSM and has devoted $25 million to the DSM-5 update process thus far.”

DSM 5 Fact: The $25 million has been a colossal waste of poorly spent money. We did DSM IV for one-fifth the price and never missed a deadline or stirred much controversy. The difference in expenditure and outcome has nothing to do with us being especially competent. It has everything to do with DSM 5 being poorly conceived and organized and spending lavishly on silly things like public relations.

GYMR Fiction: “There are several proposals in DSM-5 that aim to more accurately describe the symptoms and behaviors of disorders that typically present in children.”

DSM 5 Fact: The epidemics of excessive diagnosis in children will be muddled further by DSM 5. The threshold for ADHD is being lowered despite the tripling of rates. Temper Dyregulation (AKA DMDD) is being suggested based on just a few years of work by just one research group — despite the risk it will exacerbate the already inappropriate and dangerous use of antipsychotic drugs in kids. And DSM 5 somehow persists in not understanding how its suggestions will necessarily have a profound impact on rates of autism.

GYMR Fiction: “There are actually relatively few substantial changes to draft disorder criteria.”

DSM 5 Fact: Dead wrong — how did GYMR ever come up with this one? My guess is that the DSM 5 changes would affect the diagnosis of tens of millions of people. APA has no way of refuting this estimate since it unaccountably failed to ask the crucial prevalence question in its $3 million field trial.

GYMR Fiction: “Those that have been recommended are based on the scientific and clinical evidence amassed over the past 20 years and then are subject to multiple review processes within the APA.”

DSM 5 Fact: Most of the reviews are poorly done and none of the suggestions would stand up to the kind of impartial, independent scientific review demanded by a petition supported by 51 mental health associations. The APA internal review lacks any credibility because it is done in secret and has somehow found a way to approve DMDD and the removal of the bereavement exclusion — both of which have little or no scientific support. To be credible, APA must both make public its own scientific reviews and also contract for external and independent reviews on all the most controversial topics.

GYMR Fiction: “The APA governance attention to this is far greater than anything that ever occurred with DSM III or DSM-IV.”

DSM 5 Fact: Absurd on the face of it. If there had ever been anything resembling proper internal supervision, DSM 5 would not be in this deep mess and would not require expensive PR fig leaves to try to cover it up.

There is more, but you get the idea. DSM 5 is in a paradoxical position. Publishing profits pressure it toward premature publication, but its close to final draft is the object of almost universal opposition. On one side we have APA and its new hired gun GYMR — on the other side we have 51 professional organizations, the Lancet, the New England Journal of Medicine, the international media and outraged segments of the public. It is far too late for any superficial “image building,” however clever, to restore DSM 5 credibility. Saving DSM 5 requires radically reforming its mistakes, not covering them up with a PR smokescreen of misinformation.

The last and only hope for a safe and credible DSM 5 now resides in the new APA leadership — it is within its power to thoroughly reform DSM 5 before it is too late.

The stakes are high. A DSM 5 at war with its users will wind up losing many of them. Disillusioned members (each of whom has involuntarily sunk almost $1,000 in this lavish but misdirected DSM 5 effort) will speed up the already rapid exodus of APA members. APA will eventually lose its monopoly on psychiatric diagnosis. Psychiatry will be unfairly discredited. And, worst of all, the patients who need our help will suffer.

DSM 5 is in such public trouble now because it heedlessly missed every prior private opportunity to self-correct. The solution is not the production of more public relations pablum. Instead, DSM 5 needs to regroup, solve its problems, and avoid racing over a cliff.

Filed under American Psychiatric Association (APA), Criticism of DSM-V, DSM-5, DSM revision process, DSM-5, DSM-5 consultation, DSM-5 draft proposals, DSM-5 field trials, DSM-5 in the media, Somatic Symptom Disorder, Somatoform Disorders Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →