Opinion on DSM-V (DSM-5) revision on Psychiatric Times site and in this week’s New Scientist, 9 December
Note: The APA Press Release announcing the extension of the timeline for the publication of DSM-V from May 2012 to an anticpated release date of May 2013 uses “DSM-5” rather than “DSM-V”. Unless the APA adopts the use of “DSM-5” on new documents, I will continue to use “DSM-V”. According to the Style Guide for ICD-11, it is proposed that chapters in ICD-11 will no longer use Roman numerals – so we might anticipate, for example, “Chapter 5” and “Chapter 6”.
03 December 2009
Alert to the Research Community—Be Prepared to Weigh in on DSM-V
Allen Frances, MD
Dr Frances was the chair of the DSM-IV Task Force and of the department of psychiatry at Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC. He is currently professor emeritus at Duke.
“This commentary will suggest how the research community can be instrumental in improving DSM-V and helping it avoid unintended consequences. According to several converging, anonymous (but I think quite reliable) sources to which I have had access, the draft options for DSM-V will finally be posted between mid-January and mid-February 2010. There will then be just one additional month until mid-March for collecting comments. The good news is that the products of a previously closed process will finally be available for wide review and correction. The bad news is that there will be only a very brief period allotted for this absolutely crucial input from the field.
“The research community has a central role and a great responsibility in taking advantage of this precious opportunity to carefully review and identify the problems in the DSM-V drafts and to suggest solutions…” Read on
08 December 2009
A Call to DSM-V to Focus on the Designation of Borderline Intellectual Functioning
Jerrold Pollak, PhD
Program in Medical and Forensic Neuropsychology
John J. Miller, MD
Department of Psychiatry, Seacoast Mental Health Center, Portsmouth, New Hampshire
08 December 2009
DSM-V and Pain
Steven A. King, MD, MS
Dr King is in the private practice of pain medicine in New York and he is also clinical professor of psychiatry at the New York University School of Medicine.
Articles on DSM-V revision process in this week’s New Scientist:
Time’s up for psychiatry’s bible
09 December 2009
“Proponents of some of the changes are being accused of running ahead of the science, and there are warnings that the APA is risking “disastrous unintended consequences” if it goes ahead with plans to publish DSM-V, as the new manual will be known, in 2012.*
“It doesn’t have to be this way. With the advent of the internet, there is no longer any compelling need to rewrite the diagnostic criteria for the whole of psychiatry in one go. Yes, diagnoses should be revised as new scientific findings come in. But for this, specialists can be assembled when necessary to address specific areas that have become outmoded. Their suggestions can be posted on the web for comment. More research can be commissioned, if necessary. And when consensus is reached, new diagnostic criteria can be posted online…” Read full article
*Ed: Article to press prior to APA announcement on 10 December.
Psychiatry’s civil war
09 December 2009 by Peter Aldhous
“…The wording used in the DSM has a significance that goes far beyond questions of semantics. The diagnoses it enshrines affect what treatments people receive, and whether health insurers will fund them. They can also exacerbate social stigmas and may even be used to deem an individual such a grave danger to society that they are locked up.”
“…Attention has also turned to the financial interests of those working on DSM-V. The APA has ruled that members of the task force and work groups may not receive more than $10,000 per year from industry while working on DSM-V, and must keep their stock holdings below $50,000. This doesn’t satisfy Lisa Cosgrove of the University of Massachusetts, Boston, who studies financial conflicts in psychiatry (New Scientist, 29 April 2006, p 14). She notes that the APA’s ruling places no limit on industry research grants, and has found that the proportion of DSM-V panel members who have industry links is exactly the same as it was for DSM-IV, at 56 per cent (The New England Journal of Medicine, vol 360, p 2035).” Read full article
Short link for PDF of APA Press Release | 10 December 2009
Press Release No. 09-65:
or copy on ME agenda at: http://wp.me/p5foE-2uO