Good news — you can make a difference!
According to a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association last week, the 8,600 comments submitted in response to the draft of the new version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (called the “DSM-5″ for short — the 5 stands for the 5th edition of the book) helped spur changes in the draft.
To me, this kind of change demonstrates a fundamental shift in the ability to engage in a meaningful scientific/clinical dialogue. Twenty years ago, there was no easy feedback mechanism for a project of this scale. Back then, significant time and resources would be needed in order to get legitimate and critical feedback (e.g., setting up focus groups in multiple geographic locations, soliciting researchers and clinicians to participate through phone calls and mailings, etc.).
Because of the Internet and the “Web 2.0″ movement — where there is an inherent expectation of the ability to engage in a two-way dialogue about content found online — the DSM-5 has done something never done before. It has encouraged a two-way dialogue with the workgroups responsible for making changes and edits in this important diagnostic manual.
Before posting, please read our blog moderation guidelines. The comments below begin with the oldest comments first. Click on the last comments page to jump to the most recent comments.
Before posting, please read our blog moderation guidelines.
Post a Comment:
Copyright © 1995-2013 Psych Central. All rights reserved.
Site last updated: 21 May 2013
|
One thing that absolutly must change is an automatic diagnosis of bipolar when one becouse manic on anti-depressants. There are many medicines out there that have this side effect but only those given anti-depressants are so labeled, and it could be terribly wrong.
Second thing that must happen is a waiting time between adding and changing medications so the boby can recover and a true picture of what exacly the new drugs are doing or not doing and there side effects.
Thridly the number of drugs given to one person must be monatored, if someone is getting 5 drugs with side effects which reduce their ablity to function and lead a quaity life, they need to be taken off and reavaluted.
I have wanted to see revisions that were totally overlooked- especially in criteria that overlap. I agree with Anne that “manic” episodes only seen when patient is on medication should not be reason for a diagnosis of Bi-Polar. In the same venue- BPD criteria- of the # of criteria listed all but one can be seen in BiPolar; PTSD or GAD; And just how is the distinction made between a bi polar high/low cycle occuring rapidly and the labile mood of BPD? I believe these areas need to be addresed.
You certainly annoyed 50.7% of the population with your mental disorder of introversion.
Sure hope you are considering the domino effect of that one.
I think differential diagnoses must be discussed within the various OCD spectrum/subtype of disorders. I also think new research studies between OCD/OCPD and the similarities (esp. in families with genetic predispositions) must not be overlooked. We will see what comes with this new manual but the one in 2023 (I believe is the correct year) will be most interesting as studies in brain research and psychological disorders are sure to take off in the next decade!
The DSM IV already has a specifying statement that mania induced by a medication is not enough of a criteria for a diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder.
Are you aware of the heavy social casualties that will result if you adopt this “false” description of introversion that’s being proposed?
Introversion is a normal personality characteristic, and allowing this change to go forward is beyond reprehensible. Why on earth would you pathologize nearly half of the world’s population?
Also, as someone with Tourette’s Syndrome, I disagree with Tourette’s/Tic Disorders being put into the “Anxiety/OCD Disorders” category. If successful, this will paint Tourette’s solely as a psychiatric condition, further exacerbating the stigmatization and misconceptions of it. TS is a neurobiological condition and probably shouldn’t be in the DSM, but that’s another discussion.
Online posting of draft disorders and criteria proposed by the DSM-5 Work Groups for new and existing mental disorders had been scheduled for May, this year.
But according to a revised Timeline on the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) DSM-5 Development site, this second public review exercise is now shifted three months, to August-September 2011:
“August-September 2011: Online Posting of Revised Criteria. Following the internal review, revised draft diagnostic criteria will be posted online for approximately one month to allow the public to provide feedback. This site will be closed for feedback by midnight on September 30, 2011.”