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

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

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

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

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

http://dsmfacts.org/

Welcome to DSM-5 Facts

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

APA Responds to Allen Frances New York Times Op-Ed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Huffington Post Blogs | Allen Frances

Public Relations Fictions Trying to Hide DSM 5 Facts

Allen Frances MD | May 31, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Extract]

Treasurer’s Report – David Fassler, MD

The Treasurer’s report was distributed. The Association had a deficit this past year of $350,000. There were greater than expected staff savings which did not quite offset the losses of revenue.

Publishing sales were $1M less than last year, mostly due to DSM-IV sales (because of the release soon of DSM-V). The Hawaii meeting earned $2M less than the previous meeting due to lower attendance. This is part of a trend over the past five years of lower attendance and lower revenue. It was noted in the discussion that attendance for the CME, Inc. meeting has not declined as much.

Advertising revenue and revenue from membership has been fairly steady (despite losses in the number of members). Reserves for the APA are growing slowly but are somewhat less than the recommended amount for a non-profit (reserves equal to a year’s operating expenses).

For more information: The complete treasurer’s report can be accessed here

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

or view here:

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

[Extract]

DSM-5 Update – David Kupfer, MD, Darrell Regier, MD, Glenn Martin MD

Glenn Martin reminded members that the Assembly’s DSM Committee has been very active and will be meeting in person and conference call as we move toward the November vote for approval. The near final draft of DSM-5 has been posted for final public comment through June 15, 2012. Two items were moved into the section for further study: Attenuated Psychosis and Mixed Anxiety and Depression. The Major Depressive Disorder criteria were modified to clarify the distinction between normal bereavement and a diagnosable disorder. Also added was a more extensive Personality Disorders discussion about the rationale for changes with the evidence for the reliability of dimensional measures and for the categorical diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder.

There was a discussion about the Autism Spectrum diagnosis. This new diagnosis was the reflects the difficulty separating the four diagnoses that were used in DSM-IV. There has been a lot of attention to the concern raised by families who fear the loss of services if there are changes in the diagnostic criteria.

By July a summary of the changes and talking points should be available. This will be distributed to district branches, and members of the organization so that they can provide accurate information to the public.

For more information: Go to the DSM-V web page for the latest information.

Full report here

Call to action – DSM-5 comments needed by June 15, 2012

Call to action – DSM-5 comments needed by June 15, 2012

Post #173 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-2bO

The stakeholder comment period for the third and final review of draft proposals for DSM-5 categories and criteria closes on June 15. Patients, patient organizations and professional stakeholders have three weeks left in which to submit comments.

US advocate, Mary Dimmock, has prepared a “Call to action”

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is used in the U.S. to categorize mental disorders for patient diagnosis, treatment and insurance. The new version, DSM-5, includes a proposal for Somatic Symptom Disorder (SSD) that will have profound implications for ME/CFS patients. Your input is needed by June 15, 2012 to ensure that the DSM-5 authors understand your concerns…

…SSD can be applied to patients regardless of whether the symptoms are considered to be medically unexplainable or not. Severity is rated by the count and frequency of somatic symptoms. The “Justification for Criteria – Somatic Symptoms”, issued in May 2011, states that CBT, focused on “the identification and modification of dysfunctional and maladaptive beliefs”, is one of the most promising treatments.

Why this matters to ME/CFS patients
A diagnosis of SSD can be “bolted” onto any patient’s diagnosis. All that is required is for the medical practitioner to decide that the patient is excessively concerned with their somatic symptoms and their health. This is done using highly subjective and difficult to measure criteria for which very few independent reliability studies have been undertaken.

For patients with diseases that are poorly understood and misdiagnosed by the medical community, like ME/CFS, this will be disastrous. Once diagnosed inappropriately with SSD, the implications for diagnosis, treatment, disability and insurance will be profound…

Download Mary’s Call to action document here:

Word .docx format DSM-5 Response 2012

Word .doc format DSM-5 Response 2012 (MS 2004)

Somatic Symptom Disorder could capture millions more under mental health diagnosis

Somatic Symptom Disorder criteria could capture millions more under mental health diagnosis

Post #172 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-29B

By Suzy Chapman | Dx Revision Watch

While media and professional attention has been focused on the implications for introducing new disorders into the DSM and lowering diagnostic thresholds for existing categories, the Somatic Symptom Disorders (SSD) Work Group has been quietly redefining DSM’s Somatoform Disorders with radical proposals that could bring millions more patients under a mental health diagnosis.

The SSD Work Group is proposing to rename the Somatoform Disorders section of DSM-IV to “Somatic Symptom Disorders,” eliminate four existing  DSM-IV categories: somatization disorder, hypochondriasis, pain disorder, and undifferentiated somatoform disorder and replace them with a single new category – “Somatic Symptom Disorder.”

If approved, these proposals will license the application of a mental health diagnosis for all illnesses – whether “established general medical conditions or disorders” like diabetes, heart disease and cancer or conditions presenting with “somatic symptoms of unclear etiology” – if the clinician considers that the patient’s life has become “subsumed” with health concerns and preoccupations, or their response to distressing somatic symptoms is “excessive” or “disproportionate” or their coping strategies “maladaptive.”

 

Somatoform Disorders – disliked and dysfunctional

The SSD Work Group, under Chair, Joel E. Dimsdale, says current terminology for the Somatoform Disorders is confusing and flawed; that no-one likes these disorders and they are rarely used in clinical psychiatric practice. Primary Care physicians don’t understand the terms and patients find them demeaning and offensive [1].

The group says the terms foster mind/body dualism; that the concept of “medically unexplained” is unreliable, especially in the presence of medical illness, and cites high prevalence of presentation with medically unexplained somatic symptoms (MUS) in general medical settings – 20% in Primary Care, 40% in Specialist Care, 33-61% in Neurology; that basing a diagnosis of psychiatric disorder on MUS alone is too sensitive.

The Work Group might have considered dispensing altogether with a clutch of disliked, dysfunctional categories.

Instead, the group proposes to rebrand these disorders and assign new criteria that will capture patients with diverse illnesses, expanding application of psychiatric services, antidepressants and behavioural therapies like CBT, for the “modification of dysfunctional and maladaptive beliefs about symptoms and disease, and behavioral techniques to alter illness and sick role behaviors.”

 

Focus shifts from “medically unexplained” to “excessive thoughts, behaviors and feelings”

The Work Group’s proposal is to deemphasize “medically unexplained” as the central defining feature of this disorder group.

Instead, focus shifts to the patient’s cognitions – “excessive thoughts, behaviors and feelings” about the seriousness of distressing and persistent somatic (bodily) symptoms which may or may not accompany diagnosed general medical conditions – and the extent to which “illness preoccupation” is perceived to “dominate” or “subsume” the patient’s life.

“…[The SSD Work Group's] framework will allow a diagnosis of somatic symptom disorder in addition to a general medical condition, whether the latter is a well-recognized organic disease or a functional somatic syndrome such as irritable bowel syndrome or chronic fatigue syndrome…” [2]

“…These disorders typically present first in non-psychiatric settings and somatic symptom disorders can accompany diverse general medical as well as psychiatric diagnoses. Having somatic symptoms of unclear etiology is not in itself sufficient to make this diagnosis. Some patients, for instance with irritable bowel syndrome or fibromyalgia would not necessarily qualify for a somatic symptom disorder diagnosis. Conversely, having somatic symptoms of an established disorder (e.g. diabetes) does not exclude these diagnoses if the criteria are otherwise met…” [3]

These are the most recent proposals for new category ”J 00 Somatic Symptom Disorder.”

Note that requirement for “at least two from the B type criteria” has been reduced to “at least one from the B type criteria” for the third release of draft proposals, presumably in order to accommodate merging the previously proposed “Simple Somatic Symptom Disorder” category into the CSSD criteria. No revised “Rationale/Validity” PDF document has been issued, but read brief revised ”Rationale” here.

http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevision/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=368

Criteria A, B, and C must all be fulfilled to make the diagnosis:

A. Somatic symptoms: One or more somatic symptoms that are distressing and/or result in significant disruption in daily life.

B. Excessive thoughts, feelings, and behaviors related to these somatic symptoms or associated health concerns: At least one of the following must be present.

(1) Disproportionate and persistent thoughts about the seriousness of one’s symptoms.
(2) Persistently high level of anxiety about health or symptoms
(3) Excessive time and energy devoted to these symptoms or health concerns

C. Chronicity: Although any one symptom may not be continuously present, the state of being symptomatic is persistent (typically >6 months).

Specifiers
Predominant Pain (previously pain disorder). This category is reserved for individuals presenting predominantly with pain complaints who also satisfy criteria B and C of this diagnosis. Some patients with pain may better fit other psychiatric diagnoses such as adjustment disorder or psychological factors affecting a medical condition.

Severity specifiers
Somatic Symptom Disorder is a disorder characterized by persistency, symptom burden, and excessive or maladaptive response to somatic symptoms. There is a considerable range of severity. Typically, the disorder is more severe when multiple somatic symptoms are present. In addition to fulfilling criteria A and C, the following metrics may be used to rate severity:

Mild: only 1 of the B criteria fulfilled
Moderate: 2 or more B criteria fulfilled
Severe: 2 or more B criteria fulfilled plus multiple somatic symptoms

 

How are highly subjective and difficult to measure constructs like “Disproportionate and persistent thoughts about the seriousness of one’s symptoms” and “Excessive time and energy devoted to these symptoms or health concerns” to be operationalized?

By what means would a practitioner determine how much of a patient’s time spent “searching the internet looking for data” (to quote the example of the Work Group Chair) might be considered a reasonable response to chronic health concerns and what should be coded as “excessive preoccupation” or indicate that this patient’s life has become “subsumed” or “overwhelmed” by concerns about illness and symptoms?  2 gigabytes a week?  5?  10?

At the APA’s Annual Conference, earlier this month, SSD Work Group Chair, Joel E. Dimsdale, presented an update on his group’s deliberations. During the Q & A session, a questioner expressed concern that practitioners who are not psychiatric professionals or clinicians might have some difficulty interpreting the wording of the B type criteria to differentiate between negative and positive coping strategies.

Dr Dimsdale was asked to expand on how the B type criteria would be defined and by what means patients with chronic medical conditions who devote time and energy to health care strategies to try to improve their symptoms and level of functioning would be evaluated in the field by the very wide range of DSM users and how they would be differentiated from patients considered to be spending “excessive time and energy devoted to symptoms or health concerns” or perceived as having become “absorbed” by their illness.

I am not persuaded by Dr Dimsdale’s reassurances that they will try to make this “crystal clear” in the five to six pages of manual text in the process of being drafted for this disorder chapter. Nor am I reassured that these B (1), (2) and (3) criteria can be safely applied outside the optimal conditions of field trials, in settings where practitioners may not necessarily have the time or instruction for administration of diagnostic assessment tools, and where decisions to code or not to code may hang on the arbitary and subjective perceptions of DSM end-users lacking clinical training in the use of the manual text and application of criteria.

 

Implications for a diagnosis of SSD for all patient populations

Incautious, inept application of criteria resulting in a “bolt-on” psychiatric diagnosis of a “Somatic Symptom Disorder” could have far-reaching implications for all patient populations:

• Application of highly subjective and difficult to measure criteria could potentially result in misdiagnosis with a mental health disorder, misapplication of an additional diagnosis of a mental health disorder or missed diagnoses through dismissal and failure to investigate new or worsening somatic symptoms.

• Application of an additional diagnosis of Somatic Symptom Disorder may have implications for the types of medical investigations, tests and treatments that clinicians are prepared to consider and which insurers are prepared to fund.

• Application of an additional diagnosis of Somatic Symptom Disorder may impact payment of employment, medical and disability insurance and the length of time for which insurers are prepared to pay out. It may negatively influence the perceptions of agencies involved with the assessment and provision of social care, disability adaptations and workplace accommodations.

• Patients prescribed psychotropic drugs for perceived unreasonable levels of “illness worry” or “excessive preoccupation” with symptoms may be placed at risk of iatrogenic disease.

• For multi-system diseases like Multiple Sclerosis, Behçet’s syndrome or Systemic lupus it can take several years before a diagnosis is arrived at. In the meantime, patients with chronic, multiple somatic symptoms who are still waiting for a diagnosis would be vulnerable.

• Proposals allow for the application of a diagnosis of Somatic Symptom Disorder where a parent is considered excessively concerned with a child’s symptoms [3]. Families caring for children with any chronic illness may be placed at increased risk of wrongful accusation of “over-involvement” with a child’s symptomatology.

Where a parent is perceived as encouraging maintenance of “sick role behaviour” in a child, this may provoke social services investigation or court intervention for removal of a sick child out of the home environment and into foster care or enforced in-patient “rehabilitation.” This is already happening in families with a child or young person with chronic illness, notably with Chronic fatigue syndrome or ME. It may happen more frequently with a diagnosis of a chronic childhood illness + SSD.

 

Dustbin diagnosis?

Although the Work Group is not proposing to classify Chronic fatigue syndrome, IBS and fibromyalgia, per se, within the Somatic Symptom Disorders, patients with CFS – “almost a poster child for medically unexplained symptoms as a diagnosis,” according to Dr Dimsdale’s presentation – or with fibromyalgia, irritable bowel syndrome, chronic Lyme disease, Gulf War illness, chemical injury and chemical sensitivity may be particularly vulnerable to misapplication or misdiagnosis with a mental health disorder under these SSD criteria.

There is considerable concern that this new Somatic Symptom Disorder category will provide a “dustbin diagnosis” in which to shovel the so-called “functional somatic syndromes.”

 

15% of “diagnosed illness” and 26% of “functional somatic” captured by SSD criteria

For testing reliability of CSSD criteria, three groups were studied for the field trials:

488 healthy patients; a “diagnosed illness” group of 205 patients with cancer and malignancy (some in this group were said to have severe coronary disease) and a “functional somatic” group comprising 94 people with irritable bowel and “chronic widespread pain” (a term used synonymously with fibromyalgia).

Patients in the study were required to meet one to three cognitions: Do you often worry about the possibility that you have a serious illness? Do you have the feeling that people are not taking your illness seriously enough? Is it hard for you to forget about yourself and think about all sorts of other things?

Dr Dimsdale reports that if the response was “Yes – a lot.” it was coded.

15% of the cancer and malignancy group met SSD criteria when “one of the B type criteria” was required; if the threshold was increased to “two B type criteria” about 10% met criteria for dual-diagnosis of cancer + Somatic Symptom Disorder.

For the 94 irritable bowel and “chronic widespread pain” study group, about 26% were coded when one cognition was required; 13% coded with two cognitions required.

Has the SSD Work Group produced projections for prevalence estimates and potential increase in mental health diagnoses across the entire disease landscape?

Has the group factored for the clinical and economic burden of providing CBT for modifying perceived “dysfunctional and maladaptive beliefs about symptoms and disease, and behavioral techniques to alter illness and sick role behaviors” in patients for whom an additional diagnosis of Somatic Symptom Disorder has been coded?

 

Where’s the science?

Dr Dimsdale admits his committee has struggled from the outset with these B type criteria but feels its proposals are “a step in the right direction.”

The group reports that preliminary analysis of field trial results shows “good reliability between clinicians and good agreement between clinician rated and patient rated severity.” In the trials, CSSD achieved Kappa values of .60 (.41-.78 Confidence Interval).

Kappa reliability reflects agreement in rating by two different clinicians corrected for chance agreement – it does not mean that what they have agreed upon are valid constructs.

Radical change to the status quo needs grounding in scientifically validated constructs and a body of rigorous studies not on pet theories and papers (in some cases unpublished papers) generated by Dr Dimsdale’s work group colleagues. Where is the substantial body of independent research evidence to support the group’s proposals?*

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

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

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

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

 

Where are the professionals?

During the second public review, the Somatic Symptom Disorders proposals attracted more responses than almost any other category. The SSD Work Group is aware that patients, caregivers and patient advocacy organizations have considerable concerns. But are medical and allied health professionals scrutinizing these proposals?

This is the last opportunity to submit feedback. Psychiatric and non psychiatric clinicians, primary care practitioners and specialists, allied health professionals, psychologists, counselors, social workers, lawyers, patient advocacy organizations – please look very hard at these proposals, consider their safety and the implications for an additional diagnosis of an SSD for all patient illness groups and weigh in with your comments by June 15.

Criteria and rationales for proposals for the DSM-5 Somatic Symptom Disorders categories can be found here on the DSM-5 Development site.

 

References

1 Levenson JL. The Somatoform Disorders: 6 Characters in Search of an Author. Psychiatr Clin North Am. 2011 Sep;34(3):515-24.

Dimsdale JE. Medically Unexplained Symptoms: A Treacherous Foundation for Somatoform Disorders? Psychiatr Clin North Am. 2011 Sep;34(3):511-3.

2 Dimsdale J, Creed F. DSM-V Workgroup on Somatic Symptom Disorders: the proposed diagnosis of somatic symptom disorders in DSM-V to replace somatoform disorders in DSM-IV – a preliminary report. J Psychosom Res 2009;66:473–6.

3 DSM-5 Somatic Symptom Disorders Work Group Disorder Descriptions and Justification of Criteria-Somatic Symptoms documents, published May 4, 2011 for the second DSM-5 stakeholder review. (Caveat: for background to the group’s rationales only; proposals and criteria as set out in these documents have not been revised to reflect recent changes to revisions or reissued for the third review.)

     Disorder Descriptions   May 4, 2011

     Rationale/Validity Document   May 4, 2011

More Kappa data from DSM-5 field trials

More Kappa data from DSM-5 field trials

Post #167 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-27D

Further data from the DSM-5 field trials results have been released in a report by Deborah Brauser for Medscape Medical News.

You can read Ms Brauser’s report from the American Psychiatric Association’s annual conference here, though you may need to register for the site:

Medscape Medical News > Psychiatry

DSM-5 Field Trials Generate Mixed Results

Deborah Brauser | May 8, 2012

…Members of the task force said they hope to publish the full results “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.

…“No previous field trial had such a sophisticated design. And it has resulted in more statistically significant data for specific disorders,” said Dr. Regier.

The current DSM-5 field trials, as well as field trials for past manuals, use Kappa score as a statistical measure of criteria reliability. A Kappa score of 1.0 was considered perfect, a score of greater than .8 was considered almost perfect, a score of .6 to .8 was considered good to very good, a score of .4 to .6 was considered moderate, a score of .2 to .4 was considered fair and could be accepted, and a score of less than .2 was considered poor.

 At adult sites, schizophrenia was shown to have a pooled Kappa score of .46. However, that is down from the .76 and .81 Kappa scores found in the DSM-IV and DSM-III, respectively, and it is less than the .79 score found in the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10).

“It’s important to realize in some ways that the Kappa in the current field trial was from a totally different design…,” said Dr. Regier

Full report

This table has some of the results:

Reconstructed from data published by A Frances, DSM 5 in Distress, Psychology Today, 05.06.12

 

1 Boring Old Man has updated an earlier table here on his blog which incorporates additional data from the Medscape report: 

updated table
1 Boring Old Man | May 9, 2012

There are further, detailed commentaries from 1 boring old man on the DSM-5 field trial results and Kappa values here:

major depressive disorder κ=0.30?…     May 6, 2012

a fork in the road…     May 7, 2012

Village Consumed by Deadly Storm…     May 8, 2012

box scores and kappa…     May 8, 2012

Included in Ms Brauser’s report are data for “Complex somatic disorder”:

The field trials for the new proposed category Complex Somatic Symptom Disorder (CSSD) were held at Mayo. According to one of several tables within Ms Brauser’s report, the following data have been released for “Complex somatic disorder” [sic]:

Extract from DSM-5 Field Trials Generate Mixed Results, Deborah Brauser,  May 8, 2012

Disorder	DSM-5 (95% CI)	DSM-IV	ICD-10	DSM-III
Major neurocognitive disorder	.78 (.68 – .87)	—	.66	.91
ASD	.69 (.58 – .80)	.59 – .85	.77	-.01
PTSD	.67 (.59 – .74)	.59	.76	.55*
Child ADHD	.61 (.51 – .72)	.59	.85	.50
Complex somatic disorder	.60 (.41 – .78)	—	.45	.42

CI, confidence interval; ASD, autism spectrum disorder; PTSD, posttraumatic stress disorder; ADHD, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

*From the DSM-III-R.

CSSD is a new category for DSM-5 which redefines and replaces some, but not all of the existing DSM-IVSomatoform Disorders categories under a new rubric with a new definition and criteria.

It’s a mashup of the existing categories:

Somatization Disorder
Hypochondriasis
Undifferentiated Somatoform Disorder
Pain Disorder

Following evaluation of the field trials, this new category, Complex Somatic Symptom Disorder is now proposed to drop the “Complex” descriptor, be named Somatic Symptom Disorder and absorb Simple Somatic Symptom Disorder (SSSD) – a separate diagnosis that had been introduced for the second draft, with criteria requiring fewer symptoms than for a diagnosis of CSSD and shorter chronicity.

In order to accommodate SSSD, criteria and Severity Specifiers for CSSD have been modified since the second draft. (More on this in the next post.)

Since CSSS (or SSD, as is now proposed) did not exist as a category in DSM-IV, or in ICD-10 or DSM-III, it’s unclear and unexplained by the table what data for which existing somatoform disorders have been used for Kappa comparison for this new category with data for ICD-10 and DSM-III, and how meaningful comparison between them would be.

You can find out more about how the field trials were conducted on the DSM-5 Development site.

 

Delay in publication of field trial results and no key documents in support of proposals

Stakeholders may not get to scrutinise a report on the field trials until as late as a couple of weeks before the public comment period closes.

There are no Disorder Descriptions and Rationale/Validity Propositions PDF documents that expand on category descriptions and rationales (at least not for the Somatic Symptom Disorders) and reflect revisions to proposals between the release of the second and third draft.

Yesterday, I contacted APA’s Communications and Media Office to enquire whether the Somatic Symptom Disorders work group intends to publish either a Disorder Descriptions or Rationale/Validity Propositions document, or both, to accompany this latest draft during the life of the stakeholder review period or whether these key documents are being dispensed with for the third draft.

I’ll update if and when APA Media and Communications provides clarification.

 

Related post:

Make Yourself Heard! says DSM-5′s Kupfer – but are they listening?

Make Yourself Heard! says DSM-5′s Kupfer – but are they listening?

Make Yourself Heard! says DSM-5′s Kupfer – but are they listening?

Post #166: Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-26L

Four further commentaries from 1 boring old man on DSM-5 field trial results and Kappa values:

major depressive disorder κ=0.30?…

May 6, 2012

a fork in the road…

May 7, 2012

Village Consumed by Deadly Storm…

May 8, 2012

box scores and kappa…

May 8, 2012

MedPage Today

Most DSM-5 Revisions Pass Field Trials

John Gever, Senior Editor | May 07, 2012

“…Darrel Regier, MD, the APA’s research director, explained that the trials were intended primarily to establish reliability – that different clinicians using the diagnostic criteria set forth in the proposed revisions would reach the same diagnosis for a given patient. The key reliability measure used in the academic center trials was the so-called intraclass kappa statistic, based on concordance of the “test-retest” results for each patient. It’s calculated from a complicated formula, but the essence is that a kappa value of 0.6 to 0.8 is considered excellent, 0.4 to 0.6 is good, and 0.2 to o.4 “may be acceptable.” Scores below 0.2 are flatly unacceptable.

Kappa values for the dozens of new and revised diagnoses tested ranged from near zero to 0.78. For most common disorders, kappa values from tests conducted in the academic centers were in the “good” range:

Bipolar disorder type I: 0.54
Schizophrenia: 0.46
Schizoaffective disorder: 0.50
Mild traumatic brain injury: 0.46
Borderline personality disorder: 0.58

In the “excellent” range were autism spectrum disorder [0.69], PTSD [0.67], ADHD [0.61], and the top prizewinner, major neurocognitive disorder [better known as dementia], at 0.78. But some fared less well. Criteria for generalized anxiety disorder, for example, came in with a kappa of 0.20. Major depressive disorder in children had a kappa value of 0.29. A major surprise was the 0.32 kappa value for major depressive disorder. The criteria were virtually unchanged from the version in DSM-IV, the current version, which also underwent field trials before they were published in 1994. The kappa value in those trials was 0.59.

But a comparison is not valid, Regier told MedPage Today…”

Read full report

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

Newsflash From APA Meeting: DSM 5 Has Flunked its Reliability Tests
Needs To Be Kept Back For Another Year

Allen J. Frances, M.D. | May 6, 2012

“…The results of the DSM 5 field trials are a disgrace to the field. For context, in previous DSM’s, a diagnosis had to have a kappa reliability of about 0.6 or above to be considered acceptable. A reliability of .2-4 has always been considered completely unacceptable, not much above chance agreement…”

Reconstructed from data published by A Frances, DSM 5 in Distress, Psychology Today, 05.06.12

“…No predetermined publication date justifies business as usual in the face of these terrible Field Trial results (which are even more striking since they were obtained in academic settings with trained and skilled interviewers, highly selected patients, and no time pressure. The results in real world settings would be much lower). Reliability this low for so many diagnoses gravely undermines the credibility of DSM 5 as a basis for administrative coding, treatment selection, and clinical research…”

Read full commentary

Scientific American

Field Tests for Revised Psychiatric Guide Reveal Reliability Problems for Two Major Diagnoses

Ferris Jabr | May 6, 2012

“…The kappa for generalized anxiety disorder was about 0.2 and the kappa for major depressive disorder was about 0.3.

“…These numbers are way too low according to the APA’s own scales—and they are much lower than kappas for the disorders in previous versions of the DSM. Regier and other members of the APA emphasized that field trial methodology for the latest edition is far more rigorous than in the past and that kappas for many diagnoses in earlier editions of the DSM were likely inflated. But that doesn’t change the fact that the APA has a problem on its hands: its own data suggests that some of the updated definitions are so flawed that only a minority of psychiatrists reach the same conclusions when using them on the same patient. And the APA has limited time to do something about it…”

“…Until the APA officially publishes the results of the field trials, nobody outside the association can complete a proper analysis. What I have seen so far has convinced me that the association should anticipate even stronger criticism than it has already weathered. In fairness, the APA has made changes to the drafts of the DSM-5 based on earlier critiques. But the drafts are only open to comment for another six weeks. And so far no one outside the APA has had access to the field trial data, which I have no doubt many researchers will seize and scour. I only hope that the flaws they uncover will make the APA look again—and look closer…”

Read full report

Psychiatric News | May 04, 2012
Volume 47 Number 9 page 1a-28
American Psychiatric Association
Professional News

DSM Field Trials Providing Ample Critical Data

David J. Kupfer, M.D.

This article is part a series of commentaries by the chair of the DSM-5 Task Force, which is overseeing the manual’s development. The series will continue until the release of DSM-5 in May 2013.

As of this month, the 12-month countdown to the release of the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) officially begins. While the developers of DSM-5 will continue to face several deadlines over the coming year, the progress that has been made since APA’s 2011 annual meeting has been nothing short of remarkable.

One of the most notable and talked-about recent activities of the DSM revision concerns the implementation and conclusion of the DSM-5 Field Trials, which were designed to study proposed changes to the manual…

Read on

From the same article and note that

“After the comment period closes, visitors will no longer be able to submit feedback through the site, and the site will not reflect any further revisions to the draft manual in anticipation of its publication in May 2013. However, the site will remain live and viewable.”

Make Yourself Heard!

The DSM-5 Web site (www.dsm5.org) is open to a third and final round of feedback. For six weeks, patients and their loved ones, members of the profession, and the general public can submit questions and comments via the Web site. All will be read by members of the appropriate DSM-5 work groups.

A summary of changes made to the draft diagnostic criteria since the last comment period (May-July 2011) will help guide readers to important areas for review, but visitors are encouraged to comment on any aspect of DSM-5. After the comment period closes, visitors will no longer be able to submit feedback through the site, and the site will not reflect any further revisions to the draft manual in anticipation of its publication in May 2013. However, the site will remain live and viewable.

Psychiatrists can use this important opportunity to express their opinions about proposed changes and how they may impact patient care. Since www.dsm5.org was first launched in February 2010, the work groups have discussed— and in many cases, implemented draft changes in response to—the feedback received from the site. This final comment period presents a historic opportunity for APA members to take part in the DSM-5 revision process and help impact the way in which psychiatric disorders are diagnosed and classified in the future.

David J. Kupfer, M.D., is chair of the DSM-5 Task Force and a professor of psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic.

Commentary on Dr Kupfer’s report from 1 boring old man

self-evident…

I boring old man | May 6,  2012

Further commentary from 1 boring old man on DSM-5 controversy

not a good time…

1 boring old man | May 5, 2012

DSM-5 Somatic Symptoms Work Group submissions 2012: Last chance to tell SSD Work Group why it needs to ditch flawed, unsafe and unscientific proposals

DSM-5 Somatic Symptoms Work Group submissions 2012: Last chance to tell SSD Work Group why it needs to ditch unsafe and scientifically flawed proposals

Post #165 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-26q

Under the guise of “eliminating stigma” and eradicating “terminology [that] enforces a dualism between psychiatric and medical conditions” the American Psychiatric Association appears hell bent on colonising the entire medical field by licensing the application of a mental health diagnosis to all medical diseases and disorders.

 

Last chance to tell the SSD Work Group why it needs to ditch its unsafe and scientifically flawed proposals

The third DSM-5 Development public review of proposals for revisions to DSM-IV categories and criteria runs through May 2 – June 15. This will be the last opportunity for stakeholders to submit feedback.

Register on the DSM-5 Development site to submit comment or use your previous user name and log in details if you submitted during the earlier reviews. For information on registration see this post from 2011.

One again, I’m collating copies of submissions to the Somatic Symptom Disorders Work Group on a dedicated page from international patient organizations, medical, allied health and other professional stakeholders, patients, advocates and professional bodies.

Any consumer groups, medical professionals, allied health professionals, social workers, lawyers etc with concerns for the Somatic Symptom Disorders proposals are welcome to forward copies of submissions for publication here.

If you are looking for submissions for the first and second public reviews, you need these pages:

Submissions to first public review (February 10 – April 20, 2010): http://wp.me/PKrrB-AQ

Submissions to second public review (May 4 – July 15, 2011): http://wp.me/PKrrB-19a

This year’s submissions are being collated here as they come to my attention:

DSM-5 SSD Work Group submissions 2012 

Shortlink for submissions page is: http://wp.me/PKrrB-1Ol

Today I am publishing UK patient and advocate, Peter Kemp’s submission to the SSD Work Group:

Submission from Peter Kemp, UK advocate

How people with M.E. and CFS (and other illnesses) could be misdiagnosed as Somatic Symptom Disorder using DSM-5

Misdiagnosis is a common occurrence by all accounts. Therefore medical definitions or criteria should not only assist diagnosis – they should positively aim to prevent or reduce misdiagnosis.

Somatic Symptom Disorder (SSD) as proposed for DSM-5 allows too many possibilities for misdiagnosis. Misdiagnosis that could have disastrous consequences. This is so readily foreseeable that this must be addressed.

Once a physician diagnoses SSD, they have effectively judged the patient incompetent to interpret their own symptoms. If the patient has an unrecognised disease that progresses, or develops a new disease and reports the new symptoms to the doctor, what will the doctor do? The patient is untrustworthy. The doctor is busy and has ‘real’ patients to treat.

It is inevitable that even patients that are correctly diagnosed with SSD will sooner or later present with actual physical disease. The diagnosis of SSD could predictably obstruct investigation and treatment of their disease. This obstruction could be directly attributed to the use of an SSD diagnosis.

SSD should not be included in DSM-5 unless specific guidance to prevent misdiagnosis are included and these have been proven effective.

Imagine a doctor with a patient presenting in the early stages of MS. MS can be difficult to diagnose. When Professor Poser reviewed 366 MS diagnoses made by board certified neurologists, he found that only 65% had been correctly diagnosed (http://www.cfids.org/archives/2000rr/2000-rr4-article03.asp ).

It can take years before the signs, symptoms and tests are clear enough to make a diagnosis (http://ms.about.com/popular.htm ). The symptoms of ‘pre-diagnosis’ MS can be very distressing and the lack of a laboratory test or firm diagnosis may add to a patient’s worries. The patient may try all sorts of strategies to try and find out about, and improve what is happening to them. They may appear to pester their GP, they may appear neurotic and irrational.

Now imagine that in accordance with DSM-5, a doctor gives them a diagnosis of the proposed SSD. The patient has an official diagnosis in their medical records that amounts to ‘hypochondriac’. What effect will that have on the patient’s chances of getting the necessary investigations as the disease progresses? How is it going to help them to cope with their distressing physical symptoms now they have been explained as psychosomatic? The time it will take for them to get a true diagnosis may be further prolonged, and the years spent waiting could be made even more harrowing because of inaccurate psychological labelling.

Therefore sensible doctors will avoid diagnosing SSD. Foolish doctors risk spending their time at professional disciplinary hearings and in court; and this still might not adequately reflect the amount of suffering their diagnosis of SSD could cause.

The rationale for SSD also states: “The proposed classification for Somatic Symptom Disorders deemphasizes the central role of medically unexplained symptoms. Instead, it defines disorders on the basis of positive symptoms (distressing somatic symptoms + excessive thoughts, feelings, and behaviors in response to these symptoms).”

I believe it safe to say that ‘positive symptoms’ does not mean ‘good symptoms’ or ‘symptoms with the right attitude’. I imagine it means definite, definable, testable and maybe even measurable. But when terms like ‘distressing’ and ‘excessive’ are used to measure symptoms, the definition is not a definition. It is not even a convincing concept.

The idea is right, to base the definition on signs and symptoms that are actually present, as long as these sufficiently differentiate the condition from other conditions and do not lead to too many misdiagnoses. Unfortunately, they would predictably fail to achieve this because the definition proposed is significantly subjective.

The ‘DSM-5 Proposed Revision’ could certainly misdiagnose M.E. This would be a serious matter as M.E. is classified by the WHO ICD as a neurological illness. A doctor whose diagnosis of SSD was contradicted by a doctor that diagnosed M.E could find themselves in an awkward legal situation. The implications to the proper care of a patient, due to misdiagnosing a serious neurological illness as a neurotic illness hardly bear thinking about. Hindering necessary investigations and treatment might only be a small part of the problems this might create.

The latest proposal states:

“Somatic Symptom Disorder

Criteria A, B, and C must all be fulfilled to make the diagnosis:”

“A. Somatic symptoms: One or more somatic symptoms that are distressing and/or result in significant disruption in daily life.”

The Myalgic Encephalomyelitis: International Consensus Criteria – states:
(http://www.meassociation.org.uk/?p=7173)

“A patient will meet the criteria for post-exertional neuroimmune exhaustion (A), at least one symptom from three neurological impairment categories (B), at least one symptom from three immune/gastro-intestinal/genitourinary impairment categories (C), and at least one symptom from energy metabolism/transport impairments (D).”

The Canadian Expert Consensus Panel Clinical Case Definition for ME/CFS states:
(http://www.cfids-cab.org/MESA/ccpccd.pdf)

“A patient with ME/CFS will meet the criteria for fatigue, post-exertional malaise and/or fatigue, sleep dysfunction, and pain; have two or more neurological/cognitive manifestations and one or more symptoms from two of the categories of autonomic, neuroendocrine and immune manifestations; and adhere to item 7.”

Therefore every patient with M.E. or CFS or ME/CFS will present with ample distressing and disruptive symptoms to satisfy DSM-5 Somatic Symptom Disorder Part A.

“B. Excessive thoughts, feelings, and behaviors related to these somatic symptoms or associated health concerns: At least one of the following must be present.

(1) Disproportionate and persistent thoughts about the seriousness of one’s symptoms.
(2) Persistently high level of anxiety about health or symptoms
(3) Excessive time and energy devoted to these symptoms or health concerns”

The NICE Guidelines for CFS/ME state:
(http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/11824/36191/36191.pdf )

“People with mild CFS/ME are mobile, can care for themselves and can do light domestic tasks with difficulty. Most are still working or in education, but to do this they have probably stopped all leisure and social pursuits. They often take days off, or use the weekend to cope with the rest of the week.”

Therefore even the mildest form of CFS sees persons who have often greatly reduced or stopped socializing, hobbies, sports etc.; and spend much of the time formerly devoted to these pursuits in resting and recuperating their energy to continue working.

When this level of disruptive illness goes on for more than 6 months, people will naturally and rationally become worried. They will be fearful of what is happening and what is going to happen. They will be anxious about their responsibilities, their job, their family and friend connections – everything. They may quite naturally seek help from their GP. They may be given antidepressants, sleeping medications, pain killers, etc. All these combined with a chronic illness necessitate frequent visits to their GP. They may try alternative therapies (possibly after having found what their GP offered did not help them). They may alter their diet, take nutritional supplements, go for acupuncture, homeopathy or other type of therapy.

And here is the rub; if one does not believe they are actually physically ill, their ‘thoughts, feelings and behaviours’ will certainly appear ‘excessive’. This could apply not just to CFS, but many other high impact and distressing illnesses.

The ‘Rationale’ for SSD states: “Undifferentiated Somatoform Disorder has such a low threshold that it is applicable to a very large proportion of patients attending primary care. The same low threshold issue occurs with Somatoform Disorder NOS.”

The proposed definition does not address this problem. It might actually make it worse. If doctors believe that SSD has a valid definition they may start actually using it – then God help us.

If a person with just ‘mild’ CFS is justified in being worried, justified in resting so they can keep working, justified in searching for something that will improve their health – then anyone with the illnesses mentioned could meet the criteria to satisfy DSM-5 Somatic Symptom Disorder Part B.

The only proviso is that to some extent this could depend on interpretation of the subjective aspects of part B (there may be more detailed explanations elsewhere – this essay is based on what is included here). What is ‘excessive’, ‘persistantly’, ‘disproportionate’, ‘seriousness’?*

The same ‘Rationale’ for SSD remarks on: “The lack of positive psychological features in the definition”. Unfortunately the proposed criteria attempt to define “positive psychological features” based entirely upon a physician’s subjectivity. That is not, in any sense, a definition.

This is why I believe the circular-reasoning trap constructed with SSD makes it risible. They construct a concept for SSD. They construct criteria for the concept. Chicken-egg or egg-chicken, take your pick.

The problem with this approach is that it does not IDENTIFY the psychological condition they are trying to define. SSD cannot exist only by differentiating features, this is true. Yet differentiating is an essential step. SSD must discern from other anxiety or depressive disorders. It must be discern from normal or rational anxiety, whether that anxiety is acute, chronic or fluctuating. It must discern from anxiety or depressive disorders due to neurological illness or injury. It must discern from physical illness that has not yet been diagnosed, or from physical illness for which diagnosis is complex or often delayed. It must discern from new or emerging diseases. If SSD cannot discern from these, then misdiagnosis could be a common and predictable result.

The criteria should define the disorder but they don’t. They attempt to define the criteria. The disorder should inform the criteria, but it doesn’t. The disorder is lost in a confusion of subjective terms, ‘excessive’, ‘persistantly’, ‘disproportionate’, ‘seriousness’.

The only way it can work is if someone (and here’s another trap); someone who believes that SSD exists and is defined by the DSM, decides what ‘excessive’ and ‘disproportionate’ etc., mean. Then all they have to do, is reach exactly the same conclusion that every other physician using the DSM would reach in the same position. Bingo. A diagnosis that does not mean anything other than what the ‘diagnoser’ decides that it means. And they better hope they got it right, otherwise a good lawyer will wipe the floor with them.

“C. Chronicity: Although any one symptom may not be continuously present, the state of being symptomatic is persistent (typically >6 months).”

This is either synchronicity, or they got this direct from the NICE Guidelines for ‘CFS/ME’. The NICE Guidelines ‘Making a diagnosis’ state:

“The range of presenting symptoms is wide, and fatigue and pain may not always be the prominent disabling features at initial presentation.”

“Symptoms tend to vary in intensity and type over a period of weeks or months (and evolve into what is more clearly CFS/ME with time)”

Mild CFS will satisfy DSM-5 Somatic Symptom Disorder Part C. Therefore every person with M.E. or CFS could get a diagnosis of SSD unless they can convince any psychiatrist they encounter that they are not ‘excessive’, ‘persistent’, ‘disproportionate’, or that they don’t believe they are seriously ill.

A serious anomaly might arise with SSD in both M.E. and CFS. These illnesses can start with only fatigue or just a few symptoms. Extreme fatigue and pain might be all that a patient reports. However, if the illness continues over years, some symptoms may improve whilst new ones appear. Problems such as sensory impairments, bladder and bowel problems, immune dysfunction, and a host of neurological symptoms (to name but a few) can develop.

Will the M.E. or CFS patient then be vulnerable to having their previous diagnosis ‘cancelled-out’ by a new diagnosis of SSD, because they developed too many symptoms and are worried about them?

The SSD development group have repeated previous flaws they identified as creating the need for new definitions. They have not defined anything. Yet there may be some positive outcome from their efforts. I imagine that some medical insurance company executives must be rubbing their hands together in glee, but medical negligence lawyers should be turning cartwheels.

Peter Kemp

*Editor: Accompanying the first and second release of draft proposals for the Somatic Symptom Disorders categories, two quite lengthy PDF documents that expanded on the disorder descriptions and validity/rationales were published in conjunction with the webpage Proposed Revision, Rationale and Severity texts.

For this third draft, no PDFs have been published that reflect the Work Group’s revisons since release of the second draft, last May, or set out its rationales in detail. No draft DSM-5 textual content, more comprehensive disorder descriptions or field trial evaluations are available for public scrutiny other than brief, revised Rationale texts:

Criteria for Proposed Revision J00 Somatic Symptom Disorder

Rationale text for category J00 Somatic Symptom Disorder:

Rationale

The proposed classification for Somatic Symptom Disorders deemphasizes the central role of medically unexplained symptoms. Instead, it defines disorders on the basis of positive symptoms (distressing somatic symptoms + excessive thoughts, feelings, and behaviors in response to these symptoms).
The group considers that the current DSM-IV somatoform diagnoses (Somatization Disorder, Somatoform Disorder NOS, Undifferentiated Somatoform Disorder, Hypochondriasis and the Pain Disorders) are so flawed that complete restructuring of these diagnoses is required. Change is needed as:

- The DSM-IV somatoform diagnoses are used rarely in clinical practice in most countries; the terms cause confusion among doctors and are resented by many patients.

- The criteria for DSM-IV somatization disorder are too restrictive. Undifferentiated Somatoform Disorder has such a low threshold that it is applicable to a very large proportion of patients attending primary care. The same low threshold issue occurs with Somatoform Disorder NOS.

- These diagnoses are based on “medically unexplained symptoms,” but this term is unreliable, especially in the presence of medical illness. Doctors disagree on the use of the term and patient recall of such symptoms is variable, so reliability of these diagnoses is low.

- The lack of positive psychological features in the definition of these disorders means they fail to satisfy one of the criteria for a mental disorder.

The new diagnoses of Somatic Symptom Disorder (SSD) is proposed to overcome these problems with relevant DSM-IV diagnoses.

The previous posting proposed diagnoses of Complex Somatic Symptom Disorder (CSSD) and Simple Somatic Symptom Disorder (SSSD). In this revision, we have merged the two disordes [sic], recognizing that SSSD is a less severe variant of CSSD. The work group is considering dropping the adjective “complex” from the name of the resulting disorder and is desirous of feedback.   Accessed May 4, 2012

Related material:

1] DSM-5 proposals for Somatoform Disorders revised on April 27, 2012

2] DSM-5 Development site

3] Somatic Symptom Disorders proposals

APA Press Release: DSM-5 Draft Criteria Open for Public Comment

APA Press Release: DSM-5 Draft Criteria Open for Public Comment

Post #164 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-20I

Commentaries and media, followed by APA Press Release No. 24

(Not specific to DSM-5 third draft: Ethics complaints filed against APA.)

Psychology Today

Science Isn’t Golden
Matters of the mind and heart

Patients Harmed by Diagnosis Find Their Voices
Victims of psychiatric labeling file ethics complaints.

Paula J. Caplan, Ph.D. | April 28, 2012

The American Psychiatric Association’s 2012 Annual Meeting

This coverage is not sanctioned by, nor a part of, the American Psychiatric Association.

From Medscape Medical News > Conference News
DSM-5 Field Trial Results a Hot Topic at APA 2012 Meeting

Deborah Brauser | May 3, 2012

May 3, 2012 — Telepsychiatry, neuromodulation, the role of genetics, and updates for the upcoming Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) are just some of the hot items on the agenda of this year’s American Psychiatric Association’s 2012 Annual Meeting in Philadelphia…

(Not specific to DSM-5 third draft: Letter, AJP re DSM-5 field trial reliability and kappas.)

American Journal of Psychiatry

Letters to the Editor | May 01, 2012
Standards for DSM-5 Reliability

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

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

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

DSM 5 Rejects ‘Hebephilia’ Except for the Fine Print

Alan Frances MD | May 3, 2012

Scientific American blogs

APA Announces New Changes to Drafts of the DSM-5, Psychiatry’s New “Bible”

Ferris Jabr | May 3, 2012

Observations

Opinion, arguments & analyses from the editors of Scientific American

“…This year, the APA is holding its annual meeting from May 5 to 9 in Philadelphia, where much of the discussion will focus on the drafts of the DSM-5 and the results of “Field Trials”—dry runs of the new diagnostic criteria in clinical settings. I am attending the conference to learn more and, next week, my colleague Ingrid Wickelgren at Scientific American MIND and I will bring you a series of blogs about the DSM-5 authored by ourselves and some well-known researchers and psychiatrists. For the duration of next week, we will also publish my feature article about DSM-5 in its entirety on our website. After next week, you can still read the feature in the May/June issue of MIND. Stay tuned!”

About the Author: Ferris Jabr is an associate editor focusing on neuroscience and psychology.

1 boring old man

1 boring old man | May 3, 2012

the future of an illusion IV½…

and

the future of an illusion IV

1 boring old man | May 2, 2012

Psychology Today | DSM 5 in Distress

Wonderful News: DSM 5 Finally Begins Its Belated and Necessary Retreat
Perhaps this will be the beginning of real reform.

Alan Frances MD | May 2, 2012

MindFreedom International Newswire

Protesters, Rejecting Mental Illness Labels, Vow to “Occupy” the American Psychiatric Association Convention

MindFreedom International
Last modified: 2012-05-01T16:46:46Z
Published: Tuesday, May. 1, 2012 – 9:46 am

PHILADELPHIA, May 1, 2012 — /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — On Saturday, May 5, 2012, as thousands of psychiatrists congregate for the American Psychiatric Association (APA) Annual Meeting, individuals with psychiatric labels and others will converge in a global campaign to oppose the APA’s proposed new edition of its “bible,” the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), scheduled for publication in 2013. Occupy the APA will include distinguished speakers from 10 a.m. to noon at Friends Center (1515 Cherry Street, Philadelphia), and a march at approximately 12:15 p.m. to the Pennsylvania Convention Center (12th and Arch Streets), where the group will protest from approximately 1 p.m. while the APA meets inside…

http://www.psychiatry.org/advocacy–newsroom/newsroom/dsm-5-draft-criteria-open-for-public-comment

Wed May 02, 2012

Contact: For Immediate Release                                  
Eve Herold, 703-907- 8640 Release No. 24
press@psych.org
Erin Connors, 703-907-8562
econnors@psych.org

DSM-5 Draft Criteria Open for Public Comment
Mental health diagnostic manual available for final online comment period

ARLINGTON, Va. (May 2, 2012) – For a third and final time, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) invites public comment on the proposed criteria for the upcoming fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). DSM is the handbook used by health care professionals as an authoritative guide to the diagnosis of mental disorders.

The public comment period will last six weeks, beginning May 2 and continuing until June 15. All responses submitted via the DSM-5 website will be considered by the DSM-5 Work Groups, which are charged with assessing the latest scientific evidence and recommending the disorder definitions and criteria to be included in the manual. Nearly 10,800 comments from health care professionals, mental health advocates, families and consumers were submitted in the first two public comment periods in 2010 and 2011.

“The comments we have received over the past two years have helped sharpen our focus, not only on the strongest research and clinical evidence to support DSM-5 criteria but on the real-world implications of these changes,” said APA President John M. Oldham, M.D. “We appreciate the public’s interest and continued participation in the DSM-5 development process.”

In preparation for this final comment period, members of the DSM-5 Task Force and Work Groups have updated their proposals for diagnostic criteria. The revised criteria reflect recently published research, results from DSM-5 field testing of the criteria and public comments received since 2010.

Key changes posted for this round of public review include:

• Revised proposals to place Attenuated Psychosis Syndrome and Mixed Anxiety Depressive Disorder in Section III of the manual, covering conditions that require further research before their consideration as formal disorders

•  Added language to Major Depressive Disorder criteria to help differentiate between normal bereavement associated with a significant loss and a diagnosis of a mental disorder

• Added rationale for changes to Personality Disorders, with field trial data now supporting the reliability of dimensional measures and the categorical diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder

• Modified diagnostic criteria for Pedophilic Disorder to make the category more consistent with the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Diseases

• Condensed diagnoses within Communication Disorders to only include Language Disorders and Speech Disorders

• A proposal for a new diagnosis of Suicidal Behavioral Disorder

• Modified diagnostic criteria for numerous disorders, including some in the Neurocognitive Disorders and Anxiety Disorders chapters

• A proposed Cultural Formulation Interview, which includes specific questions to help clinicians more effectively assess cultural aspects of psychiatric diagnosis

• A detailed list of changes made to draft proposals since July 2011 can be found on www.DSM5.org .

Revisions to DSM reflect scientific advances in the field and new knowledge gained since the last manual was published in 1994. Since 1999, more than 500 mental health and medical researchers and clinicians from the United States and abroad have been involved in the planning, review and deliberations for DSM-5. Field trials in both large academic medical centers and routine clinical practices have tested select criteria.

Feedback to the proposed diagnostic criteria can be submitted through www.DSM5.org , which will be available until the comment period ends June 15. After that, the site will remain viewable but will be closed to comments as the Work Groups and Task Force complete revisions and submit criteria for evaluation by the Scientific Review Committee and the Clinical and Public Health Committee. The Task Force will then make final recommendations to the APA Board of Trustees. The final version of DSM-5 is expected to go before the Board of Trustees in December 2012.

“As with every stage in this thorough development process, DSM-5 is benefiting from a depth of research, expertise and diverse opinion that will ultimately strengthen the final document,” noted David J. Kupfer, M.D., chair of the DSM-5 Task Force.

Publication of DSM-5 is expected in May 2013.

The American Psychiatric Association is a national medical specialty society whose physician members specialize in the diagnosis, treatment, prevention and research of mental illnesses, including substance use disorders. Visit the APA at www.psychiatry.org  and www.HealthyMinds.org .

APA releases third draft of DSM-5 for final stakeholder review and comment

American Psychiatric Association (APA) releases third draft of DSM-5 for final stakeholder review and comment

Post #163 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-20I

 

The American Psychiatric Association, publishers of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder (DSM), has today released its third draft of proposed revisions to DSM-IV diagnostic categories and criteria.

The next edition of the DSM, which will be known as DSM-5, is due for publication in May 2013.

This third and final stakeholder review and comment period runs for six weeks until June 15, 2012

Revised proposals can be found on the DSM-5 Development website here:

http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevision/Pages/Default.aspx

Submitting comment

As with the two previous feedback exercises, comments from professionals, professional bodies, consumer groups and individuals are being accepted via a registration process on the DSM-5 Development website, for which a valid email address is required for validation purposes. Comments are uploaded via a WYSIWYG/html editor.

(If you had registered to submit comment for either of the earlier feedback exercises your log in details may still work.)

These review and feedback exercises are open to all stakeholders in DSM-5  – medical professionals, clinicians, researchers, psychiatrists, psychologists, allied mental health and health professionals, counselors, social workers, OTs, lawyers, teachers, patients and their families, caregivers, advocates and patient organizations.

These public reviews are not run as formal consultation exercises and the DSM-5 Task Force does not publish comments received nor lists of the names of professional bodies, organizations, institutions and individuals who have submitted feedback.

This page on the DSM-5 Development site says:

“…At this time, we are accepting comment submissions on this Web site until June 15, 2012. Comments about specific diagnoses can be made on the pages below, while you may leave feedback about non-diagnostic specific issues in DSM-5 in the Overall Comments section. The work group members will review all feedback and make decisions about further revisions based in part on the comments provided as well as on results from field trial testing, which is currently underway. Once the next edition of changes have been implemented, we will post the revised criteria on this site to allow commentary once again…”

However, the Home Page announcement states,

“…This commenting period marks the third and final time DSM-5 draft criteria will be available for your feedback. Following this period the site will remain viewable with the draft proposals until DSM-5’s publication…”

The second public review exercise ran from May 4 to June 15, 2011 but was extended a further month until July 15. If the closure date for receipt of submissions for this third review is extended I will update this site.

 

THIRD and FINAL stakeholder review published

http://www.dsm5.org/Pages/Default.aspx

Final Updates to DSM5.org

For the next 6 weeks we are pleased to once again offer the opportunity to submit comments on the draft fifth edition of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). This commenting period marks the third and final time DSM-5 draft criteria will be available for your feedback. Following this period the site will remain viewable with the draft proposals until DSM-5’s publication.

Following the previous commenting period (May-July 2011), members of the DSM-5 Task Force and Work Groups reviewed feedback submitted to this site and, where appropriate, revised their proposed diagnostic criteria and made other changes. With the completion of the DSM-5 Field Trials, Work Group members have spent the past several months examining data and findings from these important studies. Therefore, the proposed diagnostic criteria found on this site are the result of the DSM-5 Work Groups’ ongoing deliberations, based on findings from scientific field studies, patient and clinician perspectives, and views from the general public. We want to stress that revisions will continue to be made, as necessary, over the next several months.

What’s New?

What specifically has changed on this site over the past year? Visitors may notice differences in the ways in which some proposed disorders are classified. Below are some of the changes.

Based on concerns about the reliability of the proposed Attenuated Psychosis Syndrome and Mixed Anxiety Depressive Disorder in the field trials, these two conditions are being recommended for further study in Section III, an area of DSM-5 for conditions that require further research before consideration as formal disorders.

We also added a footnote to the Major Depressive Disorder criteria to clarify the difference between normal bereavement associated with a significant loss and a diagnosis of a mental disorder. Many commentators noted the previous criteria erroneously implied that bereavement could be assumed to only last 2 months and we wanted to correct that misunderstanding and provide more information on how bereavement and other loss reactions differ from Major Depressive Disorder. The extensive public comment also highlighted the need to clarify that use of a checklist of the diagnostic criteria by people without clinical training is insufficient to make a clinical diagnosis.

Among the other significant changes in this posting is a more extensive Personality Disorders rationale for change with the reliability of dimensional measures and the categorical diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder now supported by Field Trial data. However, additional data analysis in this area is ongoing.

Diagnostic criteria for Pedophilic Disorder have been modified. The adjusted boundaries of this disorder are based more on biological developmental indicators of early puberty in victims to avoid implications that the disorder involves post-pubertal adolescent victims and to make the criteria consistent with the International Classification of Diseases.

Communication Disorders now include two diagnoses – Language Disorders and Speech Disorders – each with appropriate subtypes to cover all seven of the disorders previously proposed for categorization here.

Similarly, based on clinical feedback and the field trial documentation that Simple Somatic Symptom Disorder was a milder form of Complex Somatic Symptom Disorder, the two have now been combined as a single disorder: Somatic Symptom Disorder.

The diagnosis of Suicidal Behavioral Disorder is a newly proposed disorder that is intended to complement the previous proposal for Non-Suicidal Self Injury Disorder. The latter disorder was tested in the Field Trials with highly variable levels of reliability—final decisions about its placement in Section III for further study have not been made. Another disorder suggested for placement in Section III includes Persistent Complex Bereavement Disorder which has had conflicting disorder criteria proposed from previous studies of this condition. The Work Group has suggested a new criteria set that builds on previous research prior to full endorsement of this condition.

Readers will also notice changes in specific criteria for some of the disorders, including those in the Neurocognitive Disorders and the Anxiety Disorders chapters. Finally, we have also now included a proposed Cultural Formulation Interview for DSM-5, which also includes some specific questions for visitors to consider in thinking about how the manual can help clinicians more effectively assess cultural aspects of psychiatric diagnosis.

A detailed listing of changes to draft proposals that have been made since July 2011 can be found on the Recent Updates page. We also encourage readers to visit each diagnostic section, which includes a brief introductory statement about changes within that section, as well as a listing of the proposed disorders for that particular section.

Next Steps

It is important to note that the proposed changes listed here do not represent the final changes for DSM-5. The proposals listed here reflect the most up-to-date drafts, final versions of which will be put forth for review and approval by the Board of Trustees of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) later this year. However, these proposed changes will undergo further revisions between now and the end of 2012, in part generated from your input, and also because results from the DSM-5 Field Trials continue to be analyzed, discussed, and integrated into proposals, along with an extensive review process that is taking place for these proposals. This review process includes: a Scientific Review Committee which will review the scientific validating evidence for revisions; an extensive peer review process where hundreds of expert reviewers will consider the clinical and public health risks and benefits of making changes from DSM-IV; and a review by an Assembly DSM-5 committee. Revisions will continually be made based on feedback from these various groups. This represents an unprecedented level of internal and external review for the DSM including the public review via the three postings on the DSM5.org.

Finally, there will be an overall review by the DSM-5 Task Force that integrates these assessments and sends final recommendations along with all supporting data to the APA’s Board of Trustees for a final review. The Board of Trustees will consider the recommendations of the Task Force along with those from the Scientific Review Committee as well as other review committees mentioned above and the public comments. The final manual approved by the Board will be submitted to the American Psychiatric Publishing for publication by December 31, 2012. The 166th APA Annual Meeting in San Francisco, May 18-22, 2013, will mark the official release of DSM-5.

(Ed: See DSM-5 Development site for links)

Neurodevelopmental Disorders
Schizophrenia Spectrum and Other Psychotic Disorders
Bipolar and Related Disorders
Depressive Disorders
Anxiety Disorders
Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders
Trauma and Stressor Related Disorders
Dissociative Disorders
Somatic Symptom Disorders
Feeding and Eating Disorders
Elimination Disorders
Sleep-Wake Disorders
Sexual Dysfunctions
Gender Dysphoria
Disruptive, Impulse Control, and Conduct Disorders
Substance Use and Addictive Disorders
Neurocognitive Disorders
Personality Disorders
Paraphilias
Other Disorders

http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevision/Pages/Default.aspx

Proposed Draft Revisions to DSM Disorders and Criteria

The draft disorders and disorder criteria proposed by the DSM-5 Work Groups for new and existing mental disorders can be found on these pages. You will notice that the diagnostic chapters listed below are no longer organized according to DSM-IV. Instead, we have restructured the diagnostic chapters in DSM-5 to better reflect advances in our scientific understanding of psychiatric disorders, as well as to make diagnosis easier and more feasible for clinicians. You can read more about the proposed chapter structure by clicking here.

Use the links below to read about proposed changes to the disorders that interest you. Although the disorders listed below are listed according to their proposed placement in DSM-5, you may click here if you are interested in seeing which work groups are addressing which disorders. Please note that the proposed criteria listed here are not final. These are initial drafts of the recommendations that have been made to date by the DSM-5 Work Groups.

You will also notice for each disorder a section pertaining to the assessment of disorder severity. The severity criteria being proposed differs somewhat across disorders, largely because the work groups are in different stages in their deliberation processes. Therefore, you will notice some variability in the range of options presented across disorders, as well as differences in the severity scales being proposed. However, by DSM-5’s completion, we look forward to presenting a standardized method for assessing severity for all diagnoses, with an emphasis on simplicity and clinical utility. Finally, in addition to pages on each of the DSM-IV diagnostic categories, please be sure to review the sections on proposed revisions to the definition of a mental disorder, a listing of Conditions Proposed by Outside Sources that are still under consideration, and Other Clinical Conditions that may be the Focus of Clinical Attention. Please be sure to review these sections in addition to the diagnostic categories.

At this time, we are accepting comment submissions on this Web site until June 15, 2012. Comments about specific diagnoses can be made on the pages below, while you may leave feedback about non-diagnostic specific issues in DSM-5 in the Overall Comments section. The work group members will review all feedback and make decisions about further revisions based in part on the comments provided as well as on results from field trial testing, which is currently underway. Once the next edition of changes have been implemented, we will post the revised criteria on this site to allow commentary once again.*

*Please note that all input we receive will be reviewed, though we can not guarantee that your suggestions will be incorporated into any revisions.

*Ed: Update @ May 3, 2012

I am advised that APA has clarified that the paragraph above contained erroneous text; the webpage has since been amended to read:

“…At this time, we are accepting comment submissions on this Web site until June 15, 2012. Comments about specific diagnoses can be made on the pages below, while you may leave feedback about non-diagnostic specific issues in DSM-5 in the Overall Comments section. The work group members will review all feedback and make decisions about further revisions based in part on the comments provided as well as on results from field trial testing, which is currently underway.”

*Please note that all input we receive will be reviewed, though we can not guarantee that your suggestions will be incorporated into any revisions.

 

(Ed: One focus of this site has been the monitoring of proposals for the Somatic Symptom Disorders. The categories and criteria proposals for Somatic Symptom Disorders, as published today, do not appear to have changed since April 27, other than an edit to the introduction reflecting the proposal to merge CSSD with SSSD and name “Somatic Symptom Disorder”. See Post #162: DSM-5 proposals for Somatoform Disorders revised on April 27, 2012 )

http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevision/Pages/SomaticSymptomDisorders.aspx 

Somatic Symptom Disorders

Please find below a list of disorders that are currently proposed for the diagnostic category, Somatic Symptom Disorders. This category contains diagnoses that were listed in DSM-IV under the chapter of Somatoform Disorders. The Somatic Symptom Disorders Work Group has been responsible for addressing these disorders. Among the work group’s recommendations is the proposal to rename this category Somatic Symptom Disorders. Because the current terminology for somatoform disorders is confusing and because somatoform disorders, psychological factors affecting medical condition, and factitious disorders all involve presentation of physical symptoms and/or concern about medical illness, the work group suggests renaming this group of disorders Somatic Symptom Disorders. In addition, because of the implicit mind-body dualism and the unreliability of assessments of “medically unexplained symptoms,” these symptoms are no longer emphasized as core features of many of these disorders. Since Somatization Disorder, Hypochondriasis, Undifferentiated Somatoform Disorder, and Pain Disorder share certain common features, namely somatic symptoms and cognitive distortions, the work group is proposing that these disorders be grouped under a common rubric called Somatic Symptom Disorder. The work group had previously suggested separate diagnoses of Complex Somatic Symptom Disorder and Simple Somatic Symptom Disorder, but they are now proposing that these be combined into a singular diagnosis of Somatic Symptom Disorder. The work group has also proposed that Factitious Disorder be moved from its previous location under Other Disorders to this chapter. Lastly, the work group is proposing that Conversion Disorder now be named Conversion Disorder (Functional Neurological Symptom Disorder) . We appreciate your review and comment on these disorders.

J 00 Somatic Symptom Disorder |
J 01 Illness Anxiety Disorder |
J 02 Conversion Disorder (Functional Neurological Symptom Disorder) |
J 03 Psychological Factors Affecting Medical Condition |
J 04 Factitious Disorder |
J 05 Somatic Symptom Disorder Not Elsewhere Classified |

The six most essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis: a pluralogue: conceptual and definitional issues in psychiatric diagnosis Parts 1 and 2

The six most essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis: a pluralogue: conceptual and definitional issues in psychiatric diagnosis, Parts 1 and 2

Post #161 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-248

Below, I am posting the Abstract and Introduction to Parts 1 and 2 of Philos Ethics Humanit Med Review “The six most essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis: a pluralogue: conceptual and definitional issues in psychiatric diagnosis.”

Part 1 of this Review was published on January 13, 2012; Part 2 was published (as a provisional PDF) on April 18, 2012. I will post Part 3 when it becomes available.

Below Parts 1 and 2, I have posted the PDFs for Phillips J (ed): Symposium on DSM-5: Part 1. Bulletin of the Association for the Advancement of Philosophy and Psychiatry 2010, 17(1):1–26 and Phillips J (ed): Symposium on DSM-5: Part 2. Bulletin of the Association for the Advancement of Philosophy and Psychiatry 2010, 17(2):1–75 out of which grew the concept for the Philos Ethics Humanit Med Review Parts 1 and 2.

This is an interesting series of exchanges which expand on conceptual and definitional issues discussed in these two Bulletins but these are quite lengthy documents, 29 and 30 pp, respectively; PDFs are provided rather than full texts.

Review Part One

The six most essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis: a pluralogue part 1: conceptual and definitional issues in psychiatric diagnosis

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3305603/

Philos Ethics Humanit Med. 2012; 7: 3.
Published online 2012 January 13. doi: 10.1186/1747-5341-7-3 PMCID: PMC3305603

Copyright ©2012 Phillips et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
Received August 15, 2011; Accepted January 13, 2012.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

      The six most essential questions Part 1

or: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3305603/pdf/1747-5341-7-3.pdf

Html: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3305603/

or http://www.peh-med.com/content/7/1/3

James Phillips,¹ Allen Frances,² Michael A Cerullo,³ John Chardavoyne,¹ Hannah S Decker,⁴ Michael B First,⁵ Nassir Ghaemi,⁶ Gary Greenberg,⁷ Andrew C Hinderliter,⁸ Warren A Kinghorn,^2,9 Steven G LoBello,¹⁰ Elliott B Martin,¹ Aaron L Mishara,¹¹ Joel Paris,¹² Joseph M Pierre,^13,14 Ronald W Pies,^6,15 Harold A Pincus,^5,16,17,18 Douglas Porter,¹⁹ Claire Pouncey,²⁰ Michael A Schwartz,²¹ Thomas Szasz,¹⁵ Jerome C Wakefield,^22,23 G Scott Waterman,²⁴ Owen Whooley,²⁵ and Peter Zachar¹⁰

 

¹Department of Psychiatry, Yale School of Medicine, 300 George St., Suite 901, New Haven, CT 06511, USA

²Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, 508 Fulton St., Durham, NC 27710, USA

³Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, 260 Stetson Street, Suite 3200, Cincinnati, OH 45219, USA

⁴Department of History, University of Houston, 524 Agnes Arnold, Houston, 77204, USA

⁵Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, Division of Clinical Phenomenology, New York State Psychiatric Institute, 1051 Riverside Drive, New York, NY 10032, USA

⁶Department of Psychiatry, Tufts Medical Center, 800 Washington Street, Boston, MA 02111, USA

⁷Human Relations Counseling Service, 400 Bayonet Street Suite #202, New London, CT 06320, USA

⁸Department of Linguistics, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign 4080 Foreign Languages Building, 707 S Mathews Ave, Urbana, IL 61801, USA

⁹Duke Divinity School, Box 90968, Durham, NC 27708, USA

¹⁰Department of Psychology, Auburn University Montgomery, 7061 Senators Drive, Montgomery, AL 36117, USA

¹¹Department of Clinical Psychology, The Chicago School of Professional Psychology, 325 North Wells Street, Chicago IL, 60654, USA

¹²Institute of Community and Family Psychiatry, SMBD-Jewish General Hospital, Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, 4333 cote Ste. Catherine, Montreal H3T1E4 Quebec, Canada

¹³Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, 760 Westwood Plaza, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA

¹⁴VA West Los Angeles Healthcare Center, 11301 Wilshire Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90073, USA

¹⁵Department of Psychiatry, SUNY Upstate Medical University, 750 East Adams St., #343CWB, Syracuse, NY 13210, USA

¹⁶Irving Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, Columbia University Medical Center, 630 West 168th Street, New York, NY 10032, USA

¹⁷New York Presbyterian Hospital, 1051 Riverside Drive, Unit 09, New York, NY 10032, USA

¹⁸Rand Corporation, 1776 Main St Santa Monica, California 90401, USA

¹⁹Central City Behavioral Health Center, 2221 Philip Street, New Orleans, LA 70113, USA

²⁰Center for Bioethics, University of Pennsylvania, 3401 Market Street, Suite 320 Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA

²¹Department of Psychiatry, Texas AMHSC College of Medicine, 4110 Guadalupe Street, Austin, Texas 78751, USA

²²Silver School of Social Work, New York University, 1 Washington Square North, New York, NY 10003, USA

²³Department of Psychiatry, NYU Langone Medical Center, 550 First Ave, New York, NY 10016, USA

²⁴Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont College of Medicine, 89 Beaumont Avenue, Given Courtyard N104, Burlington, Vermont 05405, USA

²⁵Institute for Health, Health Care Policy, and Aging Research, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, 112 Paterson St., New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA

Abstract

In face of the multiple controversies surrounding the DSM process in general and the development of DSM-5 in particular, we have organized a discussion around what we consider six essential questions in further work on the DSM. The six questions involve: 1) the nature of a mental disorder; 2) the definition of mental disorder; 3) the issue of whether, in the current state of psychiatric science, DSM-5 should assume a cautious, conservative posture or an assertive, transformative posture; 4) the role of pragmatic considerations in the construction of DSM-5; 5) the issue of utility of the DSM – whether DSM-III and IV have been designed more for clinicians or researchers, and how this conflict should be dealt with in the new manual; and 6) the possibility and advisability, given all the problems with DSM-III and IV, of designing a different diagnostic system. Part I of this article will take up the first two questions. With the first question, invited commentators express a range of opinion regarding the nature of psychiatric disorders, loosely divided into a realist position that the diagnostic categories represent real diseases that we can accurately name and know with our perceptual abilities, a middle, nominalist position that psychiatric disorders do exist in the real world but that our diagnostic categories are constructs that may or may not accurately represent the disorders out there, and finally a purely constructivist position that the diagnostic categories are simply constructs with no evidence of psychiatric disorders in the real world. The second question again offers a range of opinion as to how we should define a mental or psychiatric disorder, including the possibility that we should not try to formulate a definition. The general introduction, as well as the introductions and conclusions for the specific questions, are written by James Phillips, and the responses to commentaries are written by Allen Frances.

General Introduction

This article has its own history, which is worth recounting to provide the context of its composition.

As reviewed by Regier and colleagues [1], DSM-5 was in the planning stage since 1999, with a publication date initially planned for 2010 (now rescheduled to 2013). The early work was published as a volume of six white papers, A Research Agenda for DSM-V [2] in 2002. In 2006 David Kupfer was appointed Chairman, and Darrel Regier Vice-Chairman, of the DSM-5 Task Force. Other members of the Task Force were appointed in 2007, and members of the various Work Groups in 2008.

From the beginning of the planning process the architects of DSM-5 recognized a number of problems with DSM-III and DSM-IV that warranted attention in the new manual. These problems are now well known and have received much discussion, but I will quote the summary provided by Regier and colleagues:

Over the past 30 years, there has been a continuous testing of multiple hypotheses that are inherent in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, from the third edition (DSM-III) to the fourth (DSM-IV)… The expectation of Robins and Guze was that each clinical syndrome described in the Feighner criteria, RDC, and DSM-III would ultimately be validated by its separation from other disorders, common clinical course, genetic aggregation in families, and further differentiation by future laboratory tests–which would now include anatomical and functional imaging, molecular genetics, pathophysiological variations, and neuropsychological testing. To the original validators Kendler added differential response to treatment, which could include both pharmacological and psychotherapeutic interventions… However, as these criteria have been tested in multiple epidemiological, clinical, and genetic studies through slightly revised DSM-III-R and DSM-IV editions, the lack of clear separation of these syndromes became apparent from the high levels of comorbidity that were reported… In addition, treatment response became less specific as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors were found to be effective for a wide range of anxiety, mood, and eating disorders and atypical antipsychotics received indications for schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and treatment-resistant major depression. More recently, it was found that a majority of patients with entry diagnoses of major depression in the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) study had significant anxiety symptoms, and this subgroup had a more severe clinical course and was less responsive to available treatments… Likewise, we have come to understand that we are unlikely to find single gene underpinnings for most mental disorders, which are more likely to have polygenetic vulnerabilities interacting with epigenetic factors (that switch genes on and off) and environmental exposures to produce disorders. [[2], pp. 645-646]

As the work of the DSM-5 Task Force and Work Groups moved forward, a controversy developed that involved Robert Spitzer and Allen Frances, Chairmen respectively of the DSM-III and DSM-IV Task Forces. The controversy began with Spitzer’s Letter to the Editor, “DSM-V: Open and Transparent,” on July 18, 2008 in Psychiatric Times [3], detailing his unsuccessful effort to obtain minutes of the DSM-5 Task Force meetings. In ensuing months Allen Frances joined him in an exchange with members of the Task Force. In a series of articles and blog postings in Psychiatric Times, Frances (at times with Spitzer) carried out a sustained critique of the DSM-5 work in which he focused both on issues of transparency and issues of process and content [4-16]. The latter involved the Task Force and Work Group efforts to address the problems of DSM-IV with changes that, in Frances’ opinion, were premature and not backed by current scientific evidence. These changes included new diagnoses such as mixed anxiety-depression, an expanded list of addictive disorders, the addition of subthreshold conditions such as Psychosis Risk Syndrome, and overly inclusive criteria sets – all destined, in Frances’ judgment, to expand the population of the mentally ill, with the inevitable consequence of increasing the number of false positive diagnoses and the attendant consequence of exposing individuals unnecessarily to potent psychotropic medications. The changes also included extensive dimensional measures to be used with minimal scientific foundation.

Frances pointed out that the NIMH was embarked on a major effort to upgrade the scientific foundation of psychiatric disorders (described below by Michael First), and that pending the results of that research effort in the coming years, we should for now mostly stick with the existing descriptive, categorical system, in full awareness of all its limitations. In brief, he has argued, we are not ready for the “paradigm shift” hoped for in the 2002 A Research Agenda.

We should note that as the DSM-5 Work Groups were being developed, the Task Force rejected a proposal in 2008 to add a Conceptual Issues Work Group [17] – well before Spitzer and Frances began their online critiques.

In the course of this debate over DSM-5 I proposed to Allen in early 2010 that we use the pages of the Bulletin of the Association for the Advancement of Philosophy and Psychiatry (of which I am Editor) to expand and bring more voices into the discussion. This led to two issues of the Bulletin in 2010 devoted to conceptual issues in DSM-5 [18,19]. (Vol 17, No 1 of the AAPP Bulletin will be referred to as Bulletin 1, and Vol 17, No 2 will be referred to as Bulletin 2. Both are available at http://alien.dowling.edu/~cperring/aapp/bulletin.htm. webcite) Interest in this topic is reflected in the fact that the second Bulletin issue, with commentaries on Frances’ extended response in the first issue, and his responses to the commentaries, reached over 70,000 words.

Also in 2010, as Frances continued his critique through blog postings in Psychiatric Times, John Sadler and I began a series of regular, DSM-5 conceptual issues blogs in the same journal [20-33].

With the success of the Bulletin symposium, we approached the editor of PEHM, James Giordano, about using the pages of PEHM to continue the DSM-5 discussion under a different format, and with the goal of reaching a broader audience. The new format would be a series of “essential questions” for DSM-5, commentaries by a series of individuals (some of them commentators from the Bulletin issues, others making a first appearance in this article), and responses to the commentaries by Frances. Such is the origin of this article. (The general introduction, individual introductions, and conclusion are written by this author (JP), the responses by Allen Frances.

For this exercise we have distilled the wide-ranging discussions from the Bulletin issues into six questions, listed below with the format in which they were presented to commentators. (As explained below, the umpire metaphor in Question 1 is taken from Frances’ discussion in Bulletin 1.)…

Full document in PDF format

 

Review Part Two

(Note: Part Two was published on April 18, 2012 and addresses Questions 3 and 4. The complete article is available as a provisional PDF. The fully formatted PDF and HTML versions are in production. I will replace with the final version when available.)

The six most essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis: A pluralogue part 2: Issues of conservatism and pragmatism in psychiatric diagnosis

Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 2012, 7:8 doi:10.1186/1747-5341-7-8

http://www.peh-med.com/content/7/1/8/abstract

Published: 18 April 2012

      The six most essential questions Part 2 Provisional

The six most essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis: A pluralogue part 2: Issues of conservatism and pragmatism in psychiatric diagnosis

James Phillips, Allen Frances, Michael A Cerullo, John Chardavoyne, Hannah S Decker, Michael B First, Nassir Ghaemi, Gary Greenberg, Andrew C Hinderliter, Warren A Kinghorn, Steven G LoBello, Elliott B Martin, Aaron L Mishara, Joel Paris, Joseph M Pierre, Ronald W Pies, Harold A Pincus, Douglas Porter, Claire Pouncey, Michael A Schwartz, Thomas Szasz, Jerome C Wakefield, G Scott Waterman, Owen Whooley and Peter Zachar

Abstract (provisional)

In face of the multiple controversies surrounding the DSM process in general and the development of DSM-5 in particular, we have organized a discussion around what we consider six essential questions in further work on the DSM. The six questions involve: 1) the nature of a mental disorder; 2) the definition of mental disorder; 3) the issue of whether, in the current state of psychiatric science, DSM-5 should assume a cautious, conservative posture or an assertive, transformative posture; 4) the role of pragmatic considerations in the construction of DSM-5; 5) the issue of utility of the DSM – whether DSM-III and IV have been designed more for clinicians or researchers, and how this conflict should be dealt with in the new manual; and 6) the possibility and advisability, given all the problems with DSM-III and IV, of designing a different diagnostic system. Part I of this article took up the first two questions. Part II will take up the second two questions. Question 3 deals with the question as to whether DSM-V should assume a conservative or assertive posture in making changes from DSM-IV. That question in turn breaks down into discussion of diagnoses that depend on, and aim toward, empirical, scientific validation, and diagnoses that are more value-laden and less amenable to scientific validation. Question 4 takes up the role of pragmatic consideration in a psychiatric nosology, whether the purely empirical considerations need to be tempered by considerations of practical consequence. As in Part 1 of this article, the general introduction, as well as the introductions and conclusions for the specific questions, are written by James Phillips, and the responses to commentaries are written by Allen Frances.

The complete article is available as a provisional PDF. The fully formatted PDF and HTML versions are in production.

 

Symposium on DSM-5: Parts 1 and 2

      Bulletin Vol 17 No 1

Phillips J (ed): Symposium on DSM-5: Part 1. Bulletin of the Association for the
Advancement of Philosophy and Psychiatry 2010, 17(1):1–26

      Bulletin Vol 17 No 2

Phillips J (ed): Symposium on DSM-5: Part 2. Bulletin of the Association for the Advancement of Philosophy and Psychiatry 2010, 17(2):1–75

 

One focus for this site has been the monitoring of the various iterations towards the revision of the Somatoform Disorders categories of DSM-IV, for which radical reorganization of existing DSM categories and criteria is proposed.

As the DSM-5 Development site documentation currently stands (April 27, 2012), the “Somatic Symptom Disorders” Work Group (Chaired by Joel E. Dimsdale, M.D.) proposes to rename Somatoform Disorders to “Somatic Symptom Disorders” and to fold a number of existing somatoform disorders together under a new rubric, which the Work Group proposes to call “Complex Somatic Symptom Disorder.”

Complex Somatic Symptom Disorder (CSSD) would include the previous DSM-IV diagnoses of somatization disorder [DSM IV code 300.81], undifferentiated somatoform disorder [DSM IV code 300.81], hypochondriasis [DSM IV code 300.7], as well as some presentations of pain disorder [DSM IV code 307].

There is a more recently proposed, Simple Somatic Symptom Disorder (SSSD), which requires symptom duration of just one month, as opposed to the six months required to meet the CSSD criteria. There is also an Illness Anxiety Disorder (hypochondriasis without somatic symptoms); and a proposal to rename Conversion Disorder to Functional Neurological Disorder and possibly locate under Dissociative Disorders.

There is some commentary on the Somatoform Disorders in DSM-IV in this discussion from Bulletin 1:

Bulletin Vol 17 No 1, Page 19:

Doing No Harm: The Case Against Conservatism

G. Scott Waterman, M.D. David P. Curley, Ph.D.

Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont College of Medicine