DSM-5 Round up: March #1

DSM-5 Round up: March #1

Post #229 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-2H2

New York Times

Letter to the Editor

RONALD PIES
Lexington, Mass., March 18, 2013

The writer is a professor of psychiatry at SUNY Upstate Medical University and Tufts University.

Letter
Invitation to a Dialogue: Psychiatric Diagnoses

Published: March 19, 2013

+++
Macleans Canada

Normal behaviour, or mental illness?

Temper tantrum, or ‘disruptive mood dysregulation disorder’? A look at the new psychiatric guidelines that are pitting doctors against doctors

Anne Kingston | Tuesday, March 19, 2013

…Under the new “somatic symptom disorder” (SSD), for instance, people who express any anxiety about physical symptoms could also be saddled with a mental illness diagnosis, which could thwart their attempts to have their physical issues taken seriously. To meet the definition one only needs to report a single bodily symptom that’s distressing and/or disruptive to daily life and have just one of the following three reactions for at least six months: “ ‘disproportionate’ thoughts about the seriousness of their symptom(s); a high level of anxiety about their health; devoting excessive time and energy to symptoms or health concerns.”

Read more of this post

Advertisements

DSM-5 Round up: February #2

DSM-5 Round up: February #2

Post #226 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-2FC

Front page National Post, syndicated to Ottawa Citizen, Vancouver Sun, Montreal Gazette, Edmonton Journal and others. With contributions from Allen Frances, MD, Professor Frank Farley, Suzy Chapman.

New “catch all” psychiatric disorder could label people who worry about their health as mentally ill

Sharon Kirkey | February 18, 2013

A controversial new mental diagnosis could label thousands of people with legitimate medical illnesses as psychiatrically sick and in need of treatment if they worry “excessively” about their symptoms, observers says.

The newest version of psychiatry’s official catalogue of mental disorders, due to be published in May, will contain a newly expanded definition of “somatic symptom disorder,” or SSD.

Under the previous edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders — an influential guidebook used by doctors around the globe — somatoform disorders applied to people with medically unexplained health complaints. The diagnosis required that physical, bodily symptoms couldn’t be traced to any identifiable, underlying medical cause.

In the fifth and latest edition of the manual, known as DSM-5, that proviso has been removed.

The new diagnosis doesn’t distinguish between “medically unexplained” symptoms or symptoms related to an actual underlying medical problem…

The Hindu

In search of a revolutionary road

K.S. Jacob | February 16, 2013

UK Times

Anna Maxted | February 19, 2013

In America, the bereaved may now be diagnosed with depression.

Experts here are appalled, says Anna Maxted (with contributions from Professor Peter Kinderman, head of the Institute of Psychology, Health and Society at the University of Liverpool, Debbie Kerslake, chief executive, Cruse Bereavement Care, Kathleen Walton).

Psychomédia

Accueil

DSM-5 : une catégorie controversée de troubles de symptôme somatique remplace les troubles somatoformes

Soumis par Gestion le 18 février 2013

DSM-5
Actualités
Troubles de symptôme somatique (somatoformes)

La prochaine édition du Manuel diagnostique et statistique des troubles mentaux (1) (DSM-5) dont la publication par l’American Psychiatric Association (APA) est prévue pour mai 2013, remplace la catégorie des troubles somatoformes par la catégorie troubles de symptômes somatiques.

Les troubles somatoformes du DSM-IV incluent la somatisation, la conversion, le trouble douloureux, l’hypocondrie et la peur d’une dysmorphie corporelle. Ces troubles, explique le psychiatre David J. Kupfer, qui a dirigé les travaux de révision, sont caractérisés par la présence de symptômes évocateurs d’une maladie ou d’une blessure physique, mais qui ne peuvent être entièrement être expliqués par une affection médicale générale, un autre trouble mental, ou par des effets secondaires de médicaments ou de substances. Les symptômes entraînent une grande détresse ou d’importantes perturbations de la capacité à fonctionner dans la vie quotidienne…

Psychomédia avec sources:
– David J. Kupfer,
Somatic Symptoms Criteria in DSM-5 Improve Diagnosis, Care
– Allen Frances, DSM-5 Refuses to Reduce Overdiagnosis of ‘Somatic Symptom Disorder’

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

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.

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

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

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

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

%d bloggers like this: