NIMH Director issues joint statement with APA President-elect on DSM’s validity as diagnostic tool

NIMH Director issues joint statement with APA President-elect on DSM’s validity as a diagnostic tool

Post #248 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-308

180degrees

Less than two weeks after throwing DSM under the bus, NIMH’s Director, Thomas Insel, has issued a joint statement with APA President-elect, Jeffrey Lieberman.

This week, DSM…

…represents the best information currently available for clinical diagnosis of mental disorders

In a Pharmalot report titled NIMH Director Says The Bible Of Psychiatry Is Valid, After All, Ed Silverman writes:

‘Just 10 short days after trashing the widely regarded bible of psychiatry for lacking validity, National Institutes of Mental Health director Tom Insel has had a change of heart. Along with American Psychiatric Association president-elect Jeff Lieberman, he has now issued a statement saying the forthcoming version…is a valuable diagnostic tool. Their missive amounts to a combination of face saving and damage control…’

Report, here, from Sharon Jayson, for USA Today:

NIH official clarifies criticism of diagnostic manual

‘The groups also make it clear that DSM-5 isn’t going away.

‘DSM-5 and RDoC represent complementary, not competing, frameworks…As research findings begin to emerge from the RDoC effort, these findings may be incorporated into future DSM revisions and clinical practice guidelines,” the statement says. “But this is a long-term undertaking. It will take years to fulfill the promise that this research effort represents for transforming the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders.”‘

1 Boring Old Man’s take here: a long and winding road…

Gary Greenberg at the New Yorker: The Rats of N.I.M.H.

Tuesday’s joint statement from Thomas Insel and Jeffrey Lieberman, here:

 Click link for PDF document   Joint APA and NIMH Statement

Or here on NIMH site: DSM-5 and RDoC: Shared Interests

Full text APA Release No. 13-37

For Information Contact:
Eve Herold, 703-907-8640 May 14, 2013
press@psych.org Release No. 13-37
Erin Connors, 703-907-8562
econnors@psych.org
DSM-5 and RDoC: Shared Interests
Thomas R. Insel, M.D., director, NIMH
Jeffrey A. Lieberman, M.D., president-elect, APA

NIMH and APA have a shared interest in ensuring that patients and health providers have the best available tools and information today to identify and treat mental health issues, while we continue to invest in improving and advancing mental disorder diagnostics for the future.

Today, the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), along with the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) represents the best information currently available for clinical diagnosis of mental disorders. Patients, families, and insurers can be confident that effective treatments are available and that the DSM is the key resource for delivering the best available care. The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) has not changed its position on DSM-5. As NIMH’s Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) project website states, “The diagnostic categories represented in the DSM-IV and the International Classification of Diseases-10 (ICD-10, containing virtually identical disorder codes) remain the contemporary consensus standard for how mental disorders are diagnosed and treated.”

Yet, what may be realistically feasible today for practitioners is no longer sufficient for researchers. Looking forward, laying the groundwork for a future diagnostic system that more directly reflects modern brain science will require openness to rethinking traditional categories. It is increasingly evident that mental illness will be best understood as disorders of brain structure and function that implicate specific domains of cognition, emotion, and behavior. This is the focus of the NIMH’s Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) project. RDoC is an attempt to create a new kind of taxonomy for mental disorders by bringing the power of modern research approaches in genetics, neuroscience, and behavioral science to the problem of mental illness.

The evolution of diagnosis does not mean that mental disorders are any less real and serious than other illnesses. Indeed, the science of diagnosis has been evolving throughout medicine. For example, subtypes of cancers once defined by where they occurred in the body are now classified on the basis of their underlying genetic and molecular causes.

All medical disciplines advance through research progress in characterizing diseases and disorders. DSM-5 and RDoC represent complementary, not competing, frameworks for this goal. DSM-5, which will be released May 18, reflects the scientific progress seen since the manual’s last edition was published in 1994. RDoC is a new, comprehensive effort to redefine the research agenda for mental illness. As research findings begin to emerge from the RDoC effort, these findings may be incorporated into future DSM revisions and clinical practice guidelines. But this is a long-term undertaking. It will take years to fulfill the promise that this research effort represents for transforming the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders.

By continuing to work together, our two organizations are committed to improving outcomes for people with some of the most disabling disorders in all of medicine.

The American Psychiatric Association is a national medical specialty society whose physician members specialize in diagnosis, treatment, prevention, and research of mental illnesses including substance use disorders.

Visit the APA at www.psychiatry.org
###

 

More on the RDoC from the NIMH website

Research Domain Criteria

The National Institute of Mental Health Strategic Plan Released August 2008

Advertisements

Division of Clinical Psychology (DCP) calls for paradigm shift away from ‘disease model’

British Division of Clinical Psychology (DCP) calls for paradigm shift away from ‘disease model’

Post #247 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-2Zj

Update: Prof Richard Bentall on BBC Radio 4 Start the Week, Monday, May 13, 2013

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01sd3jq

Lucy Johnstone on BBC Radio 4 Today programme, Monday, May 13, 2013 | 2 hours 50 mins in from start

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01sd3jn

Lucy Johnstone article at Mad in America, May 13, 2013:

UK Clinical Psychologists Call for the Abandonment of Psychiatric Diagnosis and the ‘Disease’ Model

Lucy Johnstone World Service interview  | MP3 file | 8.2 MB at Dropbox (no Dropbox account required)

+++

Update: Statement released: May 13, 2013

Division of Clinical Psychology

Position Statement on the Classification of Behaviour and Experience in Relation to Functional Psychiatric Diagnoses

Time for a Paradigm Shift

Click link for PDF document   Position Statement on Diagnosis

+++

Today’s Observer reports on the release, tomorrow, of a Position Statement by the British Division of Clinical Psychology (DCP), a sub-division of the British Psychological Society, calling for the abandonment of diagnosis and the ‘illness/disease’ model.

Observer

Psychiatrists under fire in mental health battle
(British) Psychological Society to launch attack on rival profession, casting doubt on biomedical model of mental illness

Jamie Doward | May 12, 2013

“…In a groundbreaking move that has already prompted a fierce backlash from psychiatrists, the British Psychological Society’s division of clinical psychology (DCP) will on Monday issue a statement declaring that, given the lack of evidence, it is time for a “paradigm shift” in how the issues of mental health are understood. The statement effectively casts doubt on psychiatry’s predominantly biomedical model of mental distress – the idea that people are suffering from illnesses that are treatable by doctors using drugs. The DCP said its decision to speak out “reflects fundamental concerns about the development, personal impact and core assumptions of the (diagnosis) systems”, used by psychiatry…”

Also in today’s Observer, opposing positions from Oliver James and Professor Sir Simon Wessely, a member of the Royal College of Psychiatrists and chair of psychological medicine at King’s College London, in which he defends the need to create classification systems for mental disorder and downplays the influence of the DSM:

Do we need to change the way we are thinking about mental illness?
Experts on both sides of the debate over the classification of mental disorders make their case

The Observer | Oliver James | Prof Sir Simon Wessely | Sunday 12 May 2013

Comment from Allen Frances, MD, on Huffington Post, on today’s Observer report:

[Note the position statement is issued by the Division of Clinical Psychology (DCP), a sub-division of the British Psychological Society (BPS) and is not the official position of the BPS.]

 The Inmates Seem to Have Taken Over the Asylum

“…Then the NIMH recklessly renounced all syndromal DSM diagnosis as invalid. But NIMH has nothing to offer now in its place except an oversold and undeliverable promise of some future strictly biological model of mental illness that will take decades to deliver — assuming it can ever be delivered at all…

“…Now the British Psychological Society has produced its own brand of extremist posturing, offering its own quixotic paradigm shift..”


Further mainstream media coverage of the DSM debate

An Editorial and an Opinion piece in the New York Times:

Editorial

Shortcomings of a Psychiatric Bible

The Editorial Board | May 11, 2013

Opinion

Why the Fuss Over the D.S.M.-5?

Sally Satel | May 11, 2013


Nature | News

Psychiatry framework seeks to reform diagnostic doctrine

Critics say clinical manual unfit for mental-health research.

Heidi Ledford | May 10, 2013

Quotes from NIMH’s director, Thomas Insel; epidemiologist, Jane Costello, who resigned from the DSM-5 Work Group for Child and Adolescent Disorders in 2009, and Steven Hyman, a former NIMH director and a former DSM-5 Task Force member, who has chaired the APA-WHO International Advisory Group for the Revision of ICD-10 Mental and Behavioural Disorders [Members].


New Scientist Print edition

Feature article This Week

How a scientific DSM will transform psychiatry

Peter Aldhous, Andy Coghlan and Sara Reardon | May 8, 2013

This article appears in the print edition under the headline “A revolution in mental health, Patients deserve better than an unscientific manual, says leading health institute.”

Also in this week’s New Scientist print edition:

Editorial Opinion

Don’t count on this manual, The future of psychiatric research lies in simpler questions

Allen Frances, MD | May 8, 2013

A longer version of this Allen Frances opinion piece appeared online, earlier in the week, here

DSM-5 Round up: May #1

Post #245 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-2WM

More reports on last week’s announcement by NIMH Director, Thomas Insel

BMJ News [Full report behind paywall]

Director of top research organization for mental health criticizes DSM for lack of validity

BMJ 2013; 346 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f2954 (Published 8 May 2013)

Michael McCarthy, Seattle | May 8, 2013


New Scientist print edition No 2196 May 11, 2013

[The first of these two print edition articles is behind a subscription]

How a scientific DSM will transform psychiatry

Peter Aldhous, Andy Coghlan, additional reporting by Sara Reardon

This article appears in the print edition THIS WEEK section under the headline

A revolution in mental health, Patients deserve better than an unscientific manual, says leading health institute

…don’t expect the landscape of mental illness to change any time soon. Insel accepts that it will take at least a decade to conduct the research necessary to devise a new approach to diagnosis. In the meantime, patients’ illnesses will continue to be diagnosed using the DSM’s symptom-based categories…

…Even the transition in research will be gradual – the NIMH isn’t going to stop funding projects based around DSM diagnoses overnight. But it is clear that new approaches will get priority in future, and with a budget of almost $1.5 billion per year, the NIMH is in a position to call the shots…

This week’s Editorial in the print edition is an edited version of the Allen Frances opinion piece published by New Scientist earlier this week:

Print edition Editorial > Opinion

Don’t count on this manual, The future of psychiatric research lies in simpler questions, by Allen Frances


UK Independent

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders has been updated but should we beware this manual’s diagnosis?

The book which gives doctors a checklist for mental illnesses – as made famous by The Psychopath Test – has been updated. But does it really work?

…An alternative – and free – publication, International Statistical Classification of Diseases (ICD), issued by the World Health Organisation, provides an official international classification system of mental illness that the DSM sometimes borrows. The ICD is used in Europe for clinical treatment in preference to the DSM and without the lurid headlines. The DSM, though, is increasingly influential on our way of thinking about mental health…

Mark Piesing | May 8, 2013

Comment to article from Dx Revision Watch


For global usage of DSM v ICD by practising psychiatrists and country by country breakdown see
Slide 17 Global use of DSM-5 and ICD-10; Slide 18 Use by country breakdown http://www.aaidd.org/media/3192013.pdf
Data from The WPA-WHO Global Survey of Psychiatrists’ Attitudes Towards Mental Disorders Classification Free full paper

UK Radio

BBC R4 Today programme

Discussion on DSM-5 | Today programme, Thurs, May 9

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01s8qx7/Today_09_05_2013/

1 hr.50 mins in from start |  7 minutes

With James Davies, Lecturer and author of “Cracked” (has also had two articles around his book published in the Times)

Does your child really have a behavioural problem? James Davies, May 6 2013

and Prof Nick Craddock

+++
BBC R4 All in the Mind [One year left to listen again]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p018qfjm

Presenter Claudia Hammond

The new edition of the American Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders will be launched later this month, Professor Simon Wessely discusses its potential impact in the UK.

Duration: 9 mins at start of 28 min broadcast| Tuesday 07 May 2013 21:00 | Repeated Wed 8 May 2013 15:30

Discussion omitted any reference to, and implications for the WHO/APA International Advisory Group for the Revision of ICD-10 Mental and Behavioural Disorders commitment to strive as far as possible for harmonization between the mental health chapter of the forthcoming ICD-11 (Chapter 5) and DSM-5.

The Scientist

NIMH to Steer Away from New Manual

The agency will no longer use the newly revised guide to mental disorders to categorize its funding priorities.

Kate Yandell | May 9, 2013

…To better classify mental disease, the NIMH has started the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) project, which Insel said will “transform diagnosis by incorporating genetics, imaging, cognitive science, and other levels of information to lay the foundation for a new classification system.” However, biological biomarkers for mental disease are few, so Insel said that RDoC is more of a framework for future knowledge to fit into than a completed classification system…

…In order to better fill in the gaps, he said that NIMH grant applicants will be asked to think of research projects that cut across diagnoses…

…NIMH is not “ditching” the DSM completely, Insel told Time. DSM diagnostic criteria will continue to be important in the clinic, just not as guides for research.


+++
Not specific to recent announcement by NIMH’s, Thomas Insel

Huffington Post [Also at Psychiatric Times, Psychology Today]

Hippocratic Humility in the Face of ‘Unexplained’ Medical Problems

Allen Frances, MD | May 7, 2013

With contribution from Dr Diane O’Leary


National Pain Report

Could Fibromyalgia Be Labeled as a Psychiatric Illness?

Celeste Cooper, RN | May 5, 2013

+++

Related material

National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) announcement Transforming Diagnosis
Published by Thomas Insel, Director, NIMH, April 29, 2013

Full text of rebuttal statement from David J Kupfer, Chair, DSM-5 Task Force, press released by APA on May 6, 2013
Dx Revision Watch Post #242: http://wp.me/pKrrB-2VO

+++
DSM-5 and the NIMH Research Domain Criteria Project Psychiatric Times, James Phillips, MD, April 13, 2011

NIMH Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) Draft 3.1: June, 2011

+++

International media Round up #1: National Institute of Mental Health to re-orientate research away from DSM categories

International media Round up #1: National Institute of Mental Health to re-orientate research away from DSM categories

Post #243 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-2VZ

Update: Additional media coverage on NIMH added (Matthew Herper, Forbes; Deborah Brauser, Medscape Medical News; Ferris Jabr, Scientific America; John M Grohol, PsychCentral; TIME; 1 Boring Old Man), plus details of DSM-5 on BBC R4 radio

BBC R4’s All in the Mind this evening will be discussing the impact of the DSM on UK mental health and asking whether or not we in the UK pay any attention to what it contains. No other details about whom Claudia Hammond will be interviewing:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01s8cpf

BBC Radio 4 | Duration: 28 minutes | Tuesday 07 May 2013 21:00 | Wed 8 May 2013 15:30


Yesterday, American Psychiatric Association press released a rebuttal from DSM-5 Task Force Chair, David J Kupfer, to the announcement, last week, that the world’s largest federal mental health funding agency will be re-orientating research away from DSM categories.

Read Kupfer’s statement here:

Statement, David Kupfer, MD, May 3, 2013 [press@psych.org Release No. 13-33]

Chair of DSM-5 Task Force Discusses Future of Mental Health Research

Click link for PDF document American Psychiatric Association Press Release

+++

The story is trickling into mainstream media and being picked up internationally. For earlier media and blogger coverage, see Dx Revision Watch post: National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) to ditch the DSM (May 3).

There has been mixed reaction to this announcement by NIMH’s Director, Thomas Insel, with many welcoming a shift from DSM dominance but scepticism, also, over whether NIMH might realistically achieve its objectives, as set out a couple of years ago.

+++
Media Round up #1


Forbes

Pharma & Healthcare

Why Psychiatry’s Seismic Shift Will Happen Slowly

Matthew Herper Forbes Staff | May 8, 2013

…I called the NIMH, and was put on the phone with Bruce Cuthbert, the director of the division of adult translational research. I had a pretty simple question. If the NIMH were really rejecting or abandoning the DSM, that would mean the agency wouldn’t accept studies that use DSM-5 criteria. For instance, if you wanted to test a new schizophrenia drug in schizophrenics, you’d have to find some new RDoC way of describing the disease.

Cuthbert said repeatedly that would not be the case. It’s not so much that studies that use the DSM-5 will be excluded and abandoned, but that researchers would now be allowed to apply for grants that would not use the manual’s diagnostic criteria, or subdivided them in new, creative ways…


Medscape Medical News > Psychiatry

NIMH, APA Clash Over Upcoming DSM-5

‘Patients Deserve Better,’ NIMH Director Says

Deborah Brauser | May 7, 2013


Scientific America

No One Is Abandoning the DSM, But It Is Almost Time to Transform It

Ferris Jabr | May 7, 2013


PsychCentral

Did the NIMH Withdraw Support for the DSM-5? No

John M. Grohol, Psy.D. | May 7, 2013

…Will this replace the DSM-5? No, because as Dr. Insel notes, “This is a decade-long project that is just beginning.” If the NIMH effort ever replaces the DSM, it will be a long time from now…

“I also should point out that these comments reflect [only] our translational research portfolios. Our Division of Services and Intervention Research mostly supports research conducted in clinical settings that is relevant to current clinical practice and services delivery. Thus, […] grants in these areas will continue to be predominantly funded with DSM categories for some time.” [according to Dr. Bruce Cuthbert, director of the Division of Adult Translational Research at the National Institute of Mental Health]


1 Boring Old Man

…groundhog day

1 Boring Old Man | May 7, 2013


TIME

Mental Illness

Mental Health Researchers Reject Psychiatry’s New Diagnostic ‘Bible’

Maia Szalavitz | May 7, 2013

Just weeks before psychiatry’s new diagnostic “bible”—the DSM 5— is set to be released, the world’s major funder of mental health research has announced that it will not use the new diagnostic system to guide its scientific program, a change some observers have called “a cataclysm” and “potentially seismic.” Dr. Thomas Insel, the director of the National Institute on Mental Health, said in a blog post last week that “NIMH will be re-orienting its research away from DSM categories.”

The change will not immediately affect patients. But in the long run, it could completely redefine mental health conditions and developmental disorders. All of the current categories — from autism to schizophrenia — could be replaced by genetic, biochemical or brain-network labeled classifications. Psychiatrists, who are already reeling from the conflict-filled birth of the fifth edition of the Diagnostical and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, are feeling whipsawed…

…The NIMH has outlined a new diagnostic system — called Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) — that could ultimately replace the DSM, but it’s not yet ready for prime time. For the time being, NIMH and the psychiatrists who use the manual will continue to abide by existing classifications for diagnosing patients and getting treatment reimbursed. “Some people have the idea that we’re trying to ditch or diss the DSM and that’s not a fair assessment,” says Insel…


New York Times

Psychiatry’s Guide Is Out of Touch With Science, Experts Say

Pam Belluck and Benedict Carey | May 6, 2013

…“As long as the research community takes the D.S.M. to be a bible, we’ll never make progress,” Dr. Insel said, adding, “People think that everything has to match D.S.M. criteria, but you know what? Biology never read that book.”

…Dr. Insel said in the interview that his motivation was not to disparage the D.S.M. as a clinical tool, but to encourage researchers and especially outside reviewers who screen proposals for financing from his agency to disregard its categories and investigate the biological underpinnings of disorders instead. He said he had heard from scientists whose proposals to study processes common to depression, schizophrenia and psychosis were rejected by grant reviewers because they cut across D.S.M. disease categories.

“They didn’t get it,” Dr. Insel said of the reviewers. “What we’re trying to do with RDoC is say actually this is a fresh way to think about it.”

He added that he hoped researchers would also participate in projects funded through the Obama administration’s new brain initiative.

Dr. Michael First, a psychiatry professor at Columbia who edited the last edition of the manual, said, “RDoC is clearly the way of the future,” although it would take years to get results that could apply to patients. In the meantime, he said, “RDoC can’t do what the D.S.M. does. The D.S.M. is what clinicians use. Patients will always come into offices with symptoms.”

For at least a decade, Dr. First and others said, patients will continue to be diagnosed with D.S.M. categories as a guide, and insurance companies will reimburse with such diagnoses in mind…


Science Insider

NIMH Won’t Follow Psychiatry ‘Bible’ Anymore

Emily Underwood | May 6, 2013

…Helena Kraemer, a biostatistician at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, who was responsible for field trials of diagnostic categories proposed for DSM-5, says that Insel is right that the NIMH’s new program, called Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) is “the direction we have to go.” However, she says, “he’s wrong in saying that DSM-5 is to be set aside.” When it comes to validity, there now is no gold standard, she says. “The DSM is a series of successive approximations.” Kraemer’s vision is that future versions of the manual will not have to wait 10 to 15 years for revision, but incorporate new scientific data from RDoC as it emerges. She says that a meeting is scheduled in June to discuss the possibility of converting the DSM into an electronic document that could incorporate those changes. “Everybody I’ve talked to about it thinks that’s a good idea.”

…Implementing RDoC will present some practical challenges, [William] Carpenter acknowledges. “This does shift the paradigm.” Rather than excluding all study subjects who do not fit a DSM diagnosis, such as major depression, for example, the new approach might include a range of participants with different diagnoses who all demonstrate anhedonia, the impaired ability to experience pleasure, and might look for underlying brain abnormalities that they share in common. “I bet that the rough spots are overcome pretty quickly,” Carpenter says, “but of course we have to see how well that actually works out…”


The Globe and Mail [Canada]

American Psychiatric Association rebuked over new diagnostic manual

Wency Leung | May 6, 2013

…[Gary] Greenberg says that while he believes that this change in the institute’s research direction will generate a huge amount of science on mental health, he is skeptical that researchers will be able to boil down the extraordinarily complex workings of the brain into sound and specific diagnostic criteria.

In response to Insel, the APA issued a statement on Saturday by David Kupfer, chair of the DSM-5 task force, noting that it has been waiting for decades for reliable biological and genetic markers on which to base precise diagnoses. “We are still waiting,” Kupfer said.

In the meantime, the DSM is the “strongest system currently available for classifying disorders,” he said.

“Efforts like the National Institute of Mental Health’s Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) are vital to the continued progress of our collective understanding of mental disorders,” Kupfer said. “But they cannot serve us in the here and now, and they cannot supplant DSM-5…”


Psychology Today Blog Mood Swings

NIMH: A Requiem for DSM – and its Critics
A new generation will reject DSM, and the anti-biological critics of DSM too

Dr. Nassir Ghaemi in Mood Swings | May 5, 2013

Update: Response from Gary Greenberg and further comment from Bernard Carroll, MD


Wetenschap 24 News [Netherlands]

Psychiaters verwerpen psychiatriebijbel

Door: Nadine Böke | mei 03, 2013

De grootste onderzoeksinstelling voor geestelijke gezondheidszorg ter wereld, het Amerikaanse NIMH (National Institute for Mental Health) verwerpt ‘psychiatriebijbel’ DSM.


LaPresse [French Canadian]

Le blogue santé

DSM-5: une bible controversée

Valérie Simard | 6 mai 2013


Agence Science-Presse [French Canadian]

Recherche: désaveu de la bible des psychiatres

Agence Science-Presse |  le 6 mai 2013

(Agence Science-Presse) L’ouvrage qu’on décrit sans cesse comme la «bible» des maladies mentales, et dont la nouvelle édition, après des années d’attente, doit paraître ce mois-ci, vient d’être écarté par rien de moins que le plus gros organisme subventionnaire de la recherche sur les maladies mentales au monde.


De Morgen [Belgium]

Something rotten in de psychiatrie

OPINIE − 07/05/13

De labelingmachine van de DSM 5 is mensonwaardig.
Wat doet de overheid, vraagt Marc Calmeyn. Calmeyn is psychiater en psychoanalyticus. Hij werkt in Brugge.


For earlier media and blogger coverage, see Dx Revision Watch post: National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) to ditch the DSM.