Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

groovedaddy

(6,229 posts)
Tue May 15, 2012, 12:10 PM May 2012

Diagnosing the D.S.M.

AT its annual meeting this week, the American Psychiatric Association did two wonderful things: it rejected one reckless proposal that would have exposed nonpsychotic children to unnecessary and dangerous antipsychotic medication and another that would have turned the existential worries and sadness of everyday life into an alleged mental disorder.

But the association is still proceeding with other suggestions that could potentially expand the boundaries of psychiatry to define as mentally ill tens of millions of people now considered normal. The proposals are part of a major undertaking: revisions to what is often called the “bible of psychiatry” — the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or D.S.M. The fifth edition of the manual is scheduled for publication next May.

I was heavily involved in the third and fourth editions of the manual but have reluctantly concluded that the association should lose its nearly century-old monopoly on defining mental illness. Times have changed, the role of psychiatric diagnosis has changed, and the association has changed. It is no longer capable of being sole fiduciary of a task that has become so consequential to public health and public policy.

Psychiatric diagnosis was a professional embarrassment and cultural backwater until D.S.M.-3 was published in 1980. Before that, it was heavily influenced by psychoanalysis, psychiatrists could rarely agree on diagnoses and nobody much cared anyway.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/12/opinion/break-up-the-psychiatric-monopoly.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120512

12 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
1. He makes some really good points and I support his call for a new organization.
Tue May 15, 2012, 12:22 PM
May 2012

The APA is a highly politicized body and the inclusion of other disciplines in writing the DSM would be of great benefit, imo.

And before someone jumps in with the standard, "They are only doing it because big pharma is paying for it", I would note this from the article:

Many critics assume unfairly that D.S.M.-5 is shilling for drug companies. This is not true. The mistakes are rather the result of an intellectual conflict of interest; experts always overvalue their pet area and want to expand its purview, until the point that everyday problems come to be mislabeled as mental disorders. Arrogance, secretiveness, passive governance and administrative disorganization have also played a role.

hedgehog

(36,286 posts)
2. I think there is a lot of confusion between diseases that have
Tue May 15, 2012, 12:31 PM
May 2012

a physical/biological cause and conditions that are a result of societal or encultured attitudes. The confusion between clinical depression and existential angst is one example.

It doesn't help matters at all when diseases that are probably biological in nature are given a sociological framework. Thus, anorexia in the Middle Ages is seen as an example of extreme devotion ("Saint So-and-So lived on communion and water for years&quot while in our time it is seen as a result of attempting to be ultra-thin like runway models.



cbayer

(146,218 posts)
3. The DSM does try to make distinctions.
Tue May 15, 2012, 12:44 PM
May 2012

They separate out Axis 1 and Axis 2 disorders, with *personality* based diagnoses being in the second.

It's not always that clear, and, when it comes down to it, it's probably all neurochemistry whatever the problem.

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)
9. I'd say sometimes it's quite unfortunate that psychologists separate 4 axes of illness
Tue May 15, 2012, 03:05 PM
May 2012

and focus their consideration mostly on axis I and axis II. I understand that for the medical industry there are professional boundaries, but such boundaries are artificial with regard to how people achieve and maintain high function.

Psychological disorders with behavioral components are often characterized as problems with self-control.

Proper self-control requires situational awareness of both internal cognitive and emotional states that contribute to triggering behavior AND to the external social environment. The complex rules a person develops to identify social acceptability of behavior all largely acquired from the environment. Sudden changes in social rules can lead to significant Axis I distress.

We don't exist alone but in the context of our environment Both an individual's identity and sense of self-worth are largely influenced by and not infrequently dependent upon social reinforcement. Very fundamental human needs identified by Maslow like food and shelter are dependent upon social interaction. Strip people of these things and many will have psychological adjustment difficulties, major depression and worse.

Traumatic grief from loss of a loved one, loss of a job, or eviction from a home can be debilitating and crush a person's identity and self-worth. It can have serious implications that can include drug abuse, anti-social behavior, self-harm, and externalized violence sometimes random and sometimes 'going postal.' The loss that triggers the illness is on Axis IV, alleviating the impact of the Axis IV (with things like care dogs, peer association, etc ) has been shown to be effective in relieving Axis I symptoms.

In my mind, the psychiatric industry should be rather less interested in professional isolation imposed by arbritrary boundaries and should be looking for ways to develop interdisciplinary approaches to get patients coordinated care of concommitant problems on Axis I, II, III, and IV.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
10. Axis iii is known medical problems.
Tue May 15, 2012, 05:52 PM
May 2012

Axis iv is psychosocial stressors.
Axis v is the global assessment of functioning.

None of these are psychiatric diagnoses, just ways of incorporating more information into the diagnostic picture. They are there specifically so the kinds of things you are talking about don't get neglected.

Psychiatrists, probably more than any other medical speciality, work with interdisciplinary treatment teams to address the problems on all the levels noted in the Axis system.

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)
11. Yes, and Axis V is so problematic as to be of extremely questionable value
Tue May 15, 2012, 07:30 PM
May 2012

Which is unfortunate because placement along that scale is often used to suggest satisfaction of criteria for outpatient or inpatient treatment including involuntary commitment. This is problematic because, for example, state welfare departments consider disability benefits and assisted living care availability based in part on communication of this pretty flawed assessment value.

As shown below the presentation of Axis IV assessment in the DSM-IV places patient functioning on a scale broken into deciles between 0 and 100. It's arguably an interval scale. There is nothing special here about 0 or 100. Nothing quantitative is actually being measured. Rather a clinician's imprecise and honestly somewhat subjective interpretation of the the presence, absence or severity of criteria in the different deciles is what is being displayed. You can't say that a score of 50 is better than a score of 40 in the same way that a score of 80 is better than a score of 70.

The number of criteria in each decile isn't equal, and weight can and have been applied to criteria subjectively within a decile. THis is addressed by some states who have created more detailed sub assessment within deciles.

Some states and agencies have created more detailed criteria to enable social workers to produce more reliably repeatable results. In general repeatability of scores is a problem between assessors.

A serious flaw with the assessment is that clinicians are told to read through the scale in order and stop when they reach criteria that match their client. Clinicians using this assessment get different scores when working top-down compared to working bottom-up. There is no sense of which of the different scores is more correct. The scores from the bottom-up approach produce assessments that get lower scores. Scores estimated from the top down produce higher scores. If you wanted to deny people disability benefits you'd obviously choose to make assessments from the top down. If you want to get or keep people in commitment, as a profit motivated private hospital might, you'd go from the bottom up. Some state agencies have made an effort to standardize whether the list is considered bottom to top or top to bottom, but this isn't uniform.

From DSM-IV-TR, p. 34

Code (Note: Use intermediate codes when appropriate, e.g., 45, 68, 72.)

100-91
Superior functioning in a wide range of activities, life’s problems never seem to
get out of hand, is sought out by others because of his or her many positive
qualities. No symptoms.

90-81
Absent or minimal symptoms (e.g., mild anxiety before an exam), good
functioning in all areas, interested and involved in a wide range of activities.
socially effective, generally satisfied with life, no more than everyday problems
or concerns (e.g. an occasional argument with family members).

80-71
If symptoms are present, they are transient and expectable reactions to
psychosocial stressors (e.g., difficulty concentrating after family argument); no
more than slight impairment in social, occupational or school functioning (e.g.,
temporarily failing behind in schoolwork).

70-61
Some mild symptoms (e.g. depressed mood and mild insomnia)
OR some difficulty in social, occupational, or school functioning (e.g., occasional
truancy, or theft within the household), but generally functioning pretty well, has
some meaningful interpersonal relationships.

60-51
Moderate symptoms (e.g., flat affect and circumstantial speech, occasional panic
attacks)
OR moderate difficulty in social, occupational, or school functioning (e.g.. few
friends, conflicts with peers or co-workers).

50-41
Serious symptoms (e.g.. suicidal ideation, severe obsessional rituals, frequent
shoplifting)
OR any serious impairment in social, occupational, or school functioning (e.g.,
no friends, unable to keep a job).

40-31
Some impairment in reality testing or communication (e.g., speech is at times
illogical, obscure, or irrelevant)
OR major impairment in several areas, such as work or school, family relations,
judgment, thinking, or mood (e.g., depressed man avoids friends, neglects family,
and is unable to work; child frequently beats up younger children, is defiant at home,
and is failing at school).

30-21
Behavior is considerably influenced by delusions or hallucinations
OR serious impairment in communication or judgment (e.g., sometimes
incoherent, acts grossly inappropriately, suicidal preoccupation)
OR inability to function in almost all areas (e.g., stays in bed all day; no job, home,
or friends).

20-11
Some danger of hurting self or others (e.g., suicide attempts without clear
expectation of death; frequently violent; manic excitement)
OR occasionally fails to maintain minimal personal hygiene (e.g., smears feces)
OR gross impairment in communication (e.g., largely incoherent or mute).

10-1
Persistent danger of severely hurting self or others (e.g., recurrent violence)
OR persistent inability to maintain minimal personal hygiene
OR serious suicidal act with clear expectation of death.

0 Inadequate information.



What follows is part of a modified GAF that was used in Florida. It shows how greater specification in guidance has been used to get results that are more dependably repeatable between assessors. It's apparent from the lettering of the question groups that this form is intended to be filled in from bottom to top.


Use the Criteria below to determine the individual’s current functional status, then enter rating on back of this form.

90-100
Absent or Minimal Symptoms and no Impairment in Functioning

Group H Criteria: -Minimal or absent symptoms (e.g., mild anxiety before an examination)
-Good functioning in all areas and satisfied with life
-Interested and involved in a wide range of activities
-Socially effective

88-90
No psychological symptoms and no problems of living or functioning

84-87
Minimal symptoms and no everyday problems

81-83
Minimal symptoms and some everyday problems

80
Some Transient Mild Symptoms or temporary Mild Impairment in Functioning

Group G Criteria: -Mild symptoms are present, but they are transient and expectable reactions to psychosocial stressors (e.g., difficulty concentrating after family argument).
-Slight impairment in social, work, or school functioning (e.g., temporarily falling behind in school or work).

78-80
EITHER mild symptom(s) OR mild impairment in social, work or school functioning

74-77
Mild impairment in more than one area of social, work or school functioning

71-73
BOTH mild symptoms AND slight impairment in social, work & school functioning

70
Some Persistent Mild Symptoms or persistent Mild Impairment in Functioning

Group F Criteria: -Mild symptoms are present that are NOT just expectable reactions to psychosocial stressors (e.g., mild or lessened depression and/or mild insomnia)
-Some persistent difficulty in social, work or school functioning (e.g., occasional truancy, theft within the family, or repeated falling behind in school or work)
-But has some meaningful interpersonal relationships

68-70
EITHER mild persistent symptoms OR mild difficulty in social, work, or school functioning

64-67
Mild persistent difficulty in more than one area of social, work or school functioning

61-63
BOTH mild persistent symptoms AND some difficulty in social, work, and school functioning

60
Moderate Symptoms or Moderate Impairment in Functioning

Group E Criteria: -Moderate symptoms (e.g., frequent, moderate depressed mood and insomnia and/or moderate ruminating and obsessing; or occasional anxiety attacks; or flat affect and circumstantial speech; or eating problems and below minimum safe weight without depression).

58-60
EITHER moderate depressed mood, symptoms OR moderate difficulty in social, work, or school functioning

54-57
Moderate difficulty in more than 1 area of social, work or school functioning

51-53
BOTH moderate symptoms AND moderate difficulty in social, work, and school functioning

50
Some Serious Symptoms or Serious Impairment in Functioning

Group D Criteria: -Serious impairment with work, school or housework if a housewife or househusband (e.g., unable to keep job or stay in school, or failing school, or unable to care for family and house)
-Frequent problems with the law (e.g., frequent shoplifting, arrests) or occasional combative behavior
-Serious impairment in relationships with friends (e.g., very few or no friends, or no current friends)
-Serious impairment in judgment (including inability to make decisions, confusion, disorientation)
-Serious impairment in thinking (including constant preoccupation w/thoughts, distorted body image, paranoia)
-Serious impairment in mood (including constant depressed mood plus helplessness and hopelessness, or agitation, or manic mood)
-Serious impairment due to anxiety (panic attacks, overwhelming anxiety)
-Other symptoms: some hallucinations, delusions, or severe obsessional rituals
-Passive suicidal ideation

48-50
1 of the criteria in Group D
44-47
2 of the criteria in Group D
41-43
3 of the criteria in Group D


zazen

(2,978 posts)
4. I _really_ have a problem with the minimization of trauma
Tue May 15, 2012, 12:50 PM
May 2012

as the etiology of some PDs, especially BPD.

I think at PTSD will be expanded to include with dissociative features, or complex, or something, which is a much more accurate and less stigmatizing explanation for a range of behaviors commonly associated with BPD. It's not that there aren't some biological predispositions to BPDish ness in some people, but when it's that commonly linked with trauma, to call it a PD is just more victim blaming, in my opinion.

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)
7. I have a borderline dx, I think the chinese restaurant style diagnosis of the DSM IV tr is poor
Tue May 15, 2012, 02:20 PM
May 2012

Last edited Tue May 15, 2012, 07:35 PM - Edit history (2)

I don't have a history of sexual abuse or physical trauma. I have suffered from 7 of the remaining 8 families of symptoms used to diagnose borderline. My impulsiveness is often dismissed by psychologists as it has more to do with an inability to self-censor than reckless driving, reckless sex, or reckless handling of personal finances. Unfortunately most coworkers think it's pretty serious.

For those who aren't familiar with how the DSM works, many of it's diagnostic criteria go sort of like like this: must have five of the following nine symptoms, and the thing you use for item 3 can't be related to things in item 5 etc.

I understand this both conceptually and technically, multivariate statistics and principal components analysis in particular were included as part of my graduate systematics training. Someone has figured out how to create clusters of symptoms and give the clusters names.

Great...or maybe not.

Because of possible combinations of listed symptoms in the DSM for borderline there are nearly 300 possible combinations of qualitative symptoms. Think about that--296 qualitatively different clinical presentations!!!! Given the same name! We have too many names in the DSM?? What?

And worse than the nomenclatorial problems of diagnosis is the state of treatment for borderline--currently there are only 2 treatment programs that have been subjected to moderately critical clinical evaluation, 1 of them is based on 12 step programs and requires of it's patients acceptance of a spiritual higher power. Hmm. There is a bummer for atheist/skeptics. TWO?! treatment programs for 296 qualitatively different presentations of symptoms. Maybe if the psychiatric industry would give different names to say 4 or 5 subgroups of symptom clusters then psychologists could invent 2 or 3 more clinical approaches?

Well, you probably don't believe it but it gets still worse. The major metrics by which those 2 treatments are judged successful are 2 intimately linked symptoms--self-harm and attempted suicide. Setting aside the statistical issues assumed in the counting of such highly correlated symptoms as two qualitatively distinct features to measure, how is it that improvement of self-harm, one and only one of the required minimum of 5 symptoms for a BPD dx is considered such a great success that an entire industry has been created around DBT?

What if you are one of the folks who have borderline, whose dominant symptom isn't self-harm but borderline rage?? Well, there is NO treatment for borderline that has been clinically tested for effectiveness for rage...and you'll just have to have that wait until you do something to get sent into an anger management course--or prison. And that is how it comes to pass that borderline is considered to have a 3x higher incidence in women. Because rage is common in a borderline man. That symptomatic, some would say diagnostic, rage gets him sent to prison, while a borderline women's anger more likely gets her sent to a guarded room in a clinic.



I think that the editorialist's fear of widening diagnoses is more about fear of stigmatization than concern of bad science. Meaningful pathological evaluation wouldn't be based on social acceptability of diagnoses. It would be based on the presence of diacritical symptoms (those symptoms that are important in differential diagnosis). I get stigma, I face it. I can understand why every person with a mental health dx wants to avoid stigma.

Ignoring dx's or camouflaging them with a name change doesn't seem like the proper way to get people treated. I can't see how renaming borderline PTSD helps anyone advance understanding, treatment, and suppress stigmatization. It makes as much sense as believing that calling an abortion a D&C (which has been done quite a lot historically) is going to help the cause of Women's reproductive rights.


DannyHaszard

(20 posts)
5. A patient,victim speaks.
Tue May 15, 2012, 01:49 PM
May 2012

There are two kinds of antipsychotics the 50 year old tried and tested inexpensive *typical* antipsychotics like Thorazine,and the newer so-called *atypicals* like Risperdal,Seroquel,Zyprexa.
These drugs are lifesavers for those with delusional mental illness which is only 1 percent of the population.
The saga of the so called *atypical antipsychotics* is one of incredible profit.Eli Lilly made $65 BILLION on Zyprexa franchise(*Viva Zyprexa* Lilly sales rep slogan).
.
Described as *the most successful drug in the history of neuroscience* the drugs at $12 pill are used by states to medicate deinstitutionalized mental patients to keep them out of the $500-$1,200 day hospitals
There is a whole underclass block of our society,including children in foster care that are the market for these drugs,but have little voice of protest if harmed by them.I am an exception,I got diabetes from Zyprexa as an off-label treatment for PTSD and I am not a mentally challenged victim so I post.
Google-Haszard Zyprexa
--Daniel Haszard - FMI http://www.zyprexa-victims.com

hedgehog

(36,286 posts)
6. "These drugs are lifesavers" - without commenting on the question of treatment,
Tue May 15, 2012, 01:57 PM
May 2012

I don't think many people understand how many mental illnesses are in fact, life threatening! Woodie Allen going to see his analyst twice a week for 50 years is not the typical victim of clinical depression!

 

laconicsax

(14,860 posts)
8. Atypicals are also showing promise in treating MDD in conjnction with normal antidepressants.
Tue May 15, 2012, 03:05 PM
May 2012

Unfortunately this may very well result in more overprescription.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Health»Diagnosing the D.S.M.