DSM-5 Round up: January #2

DSM-5 Round up: January #2

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

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

Scientific American

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

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

Ferris Jabr | January 28, 2013

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

Update: New material above

New York Times | New Old Age Blogs | Medical Issues

Time to Recognize Mild Cognitive Disorder?

Paula Span| January 25, 2013

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

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

Medscape Medical News Psychiatry

No Impact of DSM-5 Criteria on Alcohol Disorder Prevalence

Deborah Brauser | January 25, 2013

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

Huffington Post Blogs | Allen Frances, MD

Why Will DSM-5 Cost $199 a Copy?

Allen Frances, MD | January 25, 2013

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

What’s going on?

Huffington Post Blogs | Allen Frances, MD

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

Allen Frances, MD | January 18, 2013

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

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

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

New York Times | New Old Age Blogs | Medical Issues

Grief Over New Depression Diagnosis

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

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

TIME | Alcohol

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

Maia Szalavitz | January 23, 2013

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

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

EurekAlert! Press Release | January 22, 2013

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

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

Medpage Today

Psych Group Posts Glimpses of Final DSM-5

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

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

British Psychological Society

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

January 18, 2013

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

[BBC News Health report below]

BBC News Health

‘Grief and anxiety are not mental illnesses’

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

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

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

Psychiatric Times

DSM-5 Field Trials: What Was Learned

James Phillips, MD | January, 8 2013

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

DSM-5 Round up: January #1

DSM-5 Round up: January #1

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

American Journal of Psychiatry

Editorials | January 01, 2013

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

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

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

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

Article
Figures
References

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

Full free text

Washington Post

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

Peter Whoriskey | December 27, 2012

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

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

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

But that may be changing…

Medscape Medical News > Psychiatry

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

Deborah Brauser | January 4, 2013

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

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

Psychology Today

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

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

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

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

Eating-Disorders Guideline Still Current and Valid, Panel Finds

Mark Moran | January 4, 2013

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

Huffington Post

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

Catherine Pearson | January 4, 2013

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

Flyer: DSM-5 Core titles from American Psychiatric Publishing

Flyer: DSM-5 Core titles from American Psychiatric Publishing

Post #211 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-2×5

The third stakeholder review and comment period on proposals for revisions to categories and criteria for the next edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, to be known as DSM-5, was launched on May 4.

Following closure of this final public review, revisions made by the DSM-5 Work Groups to criteria and disorder descriptions subsequent to June 15 are subject to embargo.

Final criteria sets and accompanying texts won’t be released until the DSM-5 is published, next year.

The release of DSM-5 is slated for May 18-22, 2013, during the APA’s 2013 Annual Meeting in San Francisco, CA.

A couple of days ago, the third draft was removed in its entirety from the DSM-5 Development website.

In advance of release of DSM-5, the publishing arm of the American Psychiatric Association has issued a promotional flyer for its DSM-5 CORE TITLES:

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5)

American Psychiatric Association

Desk Reference to the Diagnostic Criteria from DSM-5

American Psychiatric Association

DSM-5 Clinical Cases

John W. Barnhill, M.D., David J. Kupfer, M.D., and Darrel A. Regier, M.D., M.P.H.

DSM-5 Guidebook

Donald W. Black, M.D., and Jon E. Grant, M.D., M.P.H., J.D.

Study Guide to DSM-5

Laura Weiss Roberts, M.D., M.A.

DSM-5 Handbook of Differential Diagnosis

Michael B. First, M.D.

DSM-5 Self-Exam Questions

Test Questions for the Diagnostic Criteria

Philip R. Muskin, M.D.

Note that the flyer states:

• New disorders include, but are not limited to, somatic symptom disorder, hoarding disorder, mild and major neurocognitive disorder, anxiety illness disorder, and premenstrual dysphoric disorder…

According to DSM-5 draft three, the proposed name for the disorder that replaces “Hypochondriasis” in DSM-IV is intended to be “J01 Illness Anxiety Disorder” not “anxiety illness disorder,” as the flyer has it. It is to be hoped that proofs of the manual will be subject to closer scrutiny than this flyer evidently underwent.

The flyer can be opened here 

   DSM-5 flyer

or download here http://dsm5.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/AH1259%20DSM-5%20flyer.pdf

+++

Related material

Further DSM-5 spin-jobs:

Psychiatric News | November 16, 2012

Volume 47 Number 22 page 1b-10

Professional News

Results of DSM Field Trials Available on AJP in Advance

Mark Moran

The field trials provide new data for the ongoing review of proposed diagnostic criteria for DSM-5

Three papers discussing the results of the DSM-5 field trials were posted October 30 by AJP in Advance. These papers describe the methods and results of the 23 diagnoses that were assessed…

and from Task Force Chair, David J. Kupfer…

Huffington Post Blog

David J. Kupfer, MD | Chair, DSM-5 Task Force | November 7, 2012

Field Trial Results Guide DSM Recommendations

Written with Helena C. Kraemer, Ph.D.

Two years ago this month, APA announced the start of field trials that would subject proposed diagnostic criteria for the future DSM-5 to rigorous, empirically sound evaluation across diverse clinical settings. And now, as the first comprehensive analyses of that effort are published, what’s clear is just how well the field trials did their job…

For comment see:

1 Boring Old Man

OMG!…

1 Boring Old Man | November 9, 2012

Side Effects

From quirky to serious, trends in psychology and psychiatry

by Christopher Lane, Ph.D.

The DSM-5 Field Trials’ Decidedly Mixed Results

Far from being a ringing endorsement, the field trials set off fresh alarm bells

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

“What’s the chance that a second, equally expert diagnosis will agree with the first, making a particular diagnosis reliable?” asks David Kupfer, chair of the DSM-5 task force, of the decidedly mixed results of the DSM-5 field trials. First off, are you sure you really want to know?…

You Can’t Turn a Sow’s Ear Into a Silk Purse

By Allen Frances, MD | November 11, 2012

also here on Psychiatric Times (registration required):

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/blog/frances/content/article/10168/2113993

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

+++

Removal of proposals for DSM-5 categories and criteria

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

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

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

The revised home text can be read here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Content embargo

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Categories and criteria text frozen during final revisions

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

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

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

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

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

 

From Medscape Medical News > Psychiatry

Last DSM-5 Public Review Period Ends With 2000 Comments

Deborah Brauser | June 26, 2012

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

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

Read full report

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

 

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

1 Boring Old Man

missed opportunity…

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

 

Related material

1] APA News Release June 26, 2012

2] DSM-5 Development Timeline

3] DSM-5 Development Permissions Policy

4] DSM-5 Terms and Conditions of Use

American Psychiatric Association (APA) Assembly Notes and Full Treasurer’s Report

American Psychiatric Association (APA) Assembly Notes and Full Treasurer’s Report

Post #174 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-2bX

Update @ June 1, 2012

James H. Scully, Jr., M.D., CEO and Medical Director of the American Psychiatric Association, has published a response to Allen Frances’ Huff Po blog of May 30:

DSM-5 Inaccuracies: Setting the Record Straight

Update @ May 30, 2012

1 Boring Old Man

reform, or accept your fate…

1 Boring Old Man | May, 30 2012

Huffington Post Blogs Allen Frances, MD

DSM-5 Costs $25 Million, Putting APA in a Financial Hole

Allen Frances | May 30, 2012

The American Psychiatric Association just reported a surprisingly large yearly deficit of $350,000. This was caused by reduced publishing profits, poor attendance at its annual meeting, rapidly declining membership, and wasteful spending on DSM-5. APA reserves are now below “the recommended amount for a non-profit (reserves equal to a year’s operating expenses).”

APA has already spent an astounding $25 million on DSM-5. I can’t imagine where all that money went. As I recall it, DSM-IV cost about $5 million, and more than half of this came from outside research grants. Even if the DSM-5 product were made of gold instead of lead, $25 million would be wildly out of proportion. The rampant disorganization of DSM-5 must have caused colossal waste. One obvious example is the $3 million spent on the useless DSM-5 field trial, with its irrelevant question, poorly conceived design, and embarrassing results…

Full commentary

On May 8, in an article for Medscape Medical News, Deborah Brauser reported:

     …Members of the task force said they hope to publish the full results [of the DSM-5 field trials] “within a month.” However, the third and final public comment period for the manual opened last week and ends on June 15. Although the entire period is 6 weeks long, the public may only have 2 weeks to comment after the publication of the field trials’ findings. DSM-5 Field Trials Generate Mixed Results

With less than three weeks to go before the stakeholder and public comment period closes, there is still no sign of a report on the DSM-5 field trials.

If the Task Force does not get a report out soon, stakeholders will be obliged to submit feedback without the benefit of data from the trials to inform their comments. Once again, this third and final stakeholder review smacks of a purely tokenistic exercise.

For the two previous draft reviews, some disorders were accompanied by PDF documents expanding on new and revised disorder descriptions and work group rationales.

For the Somatic Symptom Disorders, no updated “Disorder Descriptions” or “Rationale/Validity” documents have been published that reflect substantial revisions made to proposals and criteria between the second and third drafts. The documents as published for the second review have been taken down from the DSM-5 Development site but have not been revised and reissued.

I have twice contacted APA Media and Communications for clarification of whether the Work Group intends to publish revised documents before the end of the comment period. Evidently APA Media and Communications don’t wish to provide me with a response.

 

I will update if and when a report on the field trials emerges from the Task Force.

In the meantime, here are two public domain documents that may be of interest to APA watchers:

APA Assembly Notes Spring 2012

or download here:

http://alabamapsych.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/apa_assembly_notes_may_2012.pdf

APA Treasurer’s Report May 2012  [.ppt compatible PowerPoint reader required]

or view here:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzWdENl1wkVSYk5aXzRZelFYUjA/edit?pli=1

%d bloggers like this: