scholarly journals DSM-5: Επτά χρόνια μετά -εξελίξεις και προκλήσεις στην ταξινόμηση ψυχικών διαταραχών

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 199
Author(s):  
Άννα Χριστοπούλου ◽  
Άρια Γκιρλέμη ◽  
Άννα Αποστολίδου ◽  
Ηλέκτρα Στεφάνου ◽  
Αναστασία Κουτουματσιώτη ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic System ◽  
The United States ◽  
Classification Systems ◽  
Economic Changes ◽  
Diagnostic And Statistical Manual ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Systems Research ◽  
Scientific Dialogue ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Areas Of Interest

The DSM-5, the fifth publication of the diagnostic system DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) has been a source of intense scientific interest and debate.  The purpose of this article is to review the most important developments in this scientific dialogue during the seven years after the publication of the manual. To begin with, reference is briefly made to the development of the DSM-5 as well as to criticism and response to this criticism that immediately followed publication of the manual. Then, later developments regarding the DSM-5 are discussed, such as the focus on particular issues of concern as well as significant social and economic changes regarding contemporary classification systems. Research findings on the current use of diagnostic classification systems are also presented.  Finally, particular areas of interest and concern regarding future classification, and new proposals as the Research Domain Criteria (RDoc) of the National Institute of Mental Health in the United States are discussed.

Neurodevelopmental Disorders (ASD and ADHD): DSM-5, ICD-10, and ICD-11

CNS Spectrums ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 295-299 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ellen Doernberg ◽  
Eric Hollander
Keyword(s):  
Mental Disorders ◽  
Neurodevelopmental Disorders ◽  
Neurodevelopmental Disorder ◽  
The United States ◽  
Autism Spectrum ◽  
Classification Systems ◽  
Statistical Manual ◽  
Diagnostic And Statistical Manual ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Icd 10

Neurodevelopmental disorders, specifically autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) have undergone considerable diagnostic evolution in the past decade. In the United States, the current system in place is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), whereas worldwide, the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) serves as a general medical system. This review will examine the differences in neurodevelopmental disorders between these two systems. First, we will review the important revisions made from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) to the DSM-5, with respect to ASD and ADHD. Next, we will cover the similarities and differences between ASD and ADHD classification in the DSM-5 and the ICD-10, and how these differences may have an effect on neurodevelopmental disorder diagnostics and classification. By examining the changes made for the DSM-5 in 2013, and critiquing the current ICD-10 system, we can help to anticipate and advise on the upcoming ICD-11, due to come online in 2017. Overall, this review serves to highlight the importance of progress towards complementary diagnostic classification systems, keeping in mind the difference in tradition and purpose of the DSM and the ICD, and that these systems are dynamic and changing as more is learned about neurodevelopmental disorders and their underlying etiology. Finally this review will discuss alternative diagnostic approaches, such as the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) initiative, which links symptom domains to underlying biological and neurological mechanisms. The incorporation of new diagnostic directions could have a great effect on treatment development and insurance coverage for neurodevelopmental disorders worldwide.

Psychotic disorders in DSM-5 and ICD-11

CNS Spectrums ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 349-354 ◽  
Author(s):  
Falko Biedermann ◽  
W. Wolfgang Fleischhacker
Keyword(s):  
Psychotic Disorders ◽  
Work Group ◽  
Theoretical Background ◽  
Classification Systems ◽  
World Health ◽  
Diagnostic And Statistical Manual ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Health Organization ◽  
Diagnostic Criterion

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) was published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) in 2013, and the Work Group on the Classification of Psychotic disorders (WGPD), installed by the World Health Organization (WHO), is expected to publish the new chapter about schizophrenia and other primary psychotic disorders in 2017. We reviewed the available literature to summarize the major changes, innovations, and developments of both manuals. If available and possible, we outline the theoretical background behind these changes. Due to the fact that the development of ICD-11 has not yet been completed, the details about ICD-11 are still proposals under ongoing revision. In this ongoing process, they may be revised and therefore have to be seen as proposals. DSM-5 has eliminated schizophrenia subtypes and replaced them with a dimensional approach based on symptom assessments. ICD-11 will most likely go in a similar direction, as both manuals are planned to be more harmonized, although some differences will remain in details and the conceptual orientation. Next to these modifications, ICD-11 will provide a transsectional diagnostic criterion for schizoaffective disorders and a reorganization of acute and transient psychotic and delusional disorders. In this manuscript, we will compare the 2 classification systems.

Psychiatry Board Review

2017 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
The United States ◽  
Certification Examination ◽  
Board Examination ◽  
Diagnostic And Statistical Manual ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Psychotherapeutic Techniques ◽  
Board Review

The field of psychiatry is rapidly evolving, specifically in the areas of psychopharmacology, psychotherapeutic strategies, and the classification of many major psychiatric disorders with the implementation of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-5 in 2013. A new board review textbook is imperative to address these changes in order to prepare board-eligible psychiatrists for the certification examination as well as for clinical practice in general. Additionally, the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology is in the process of phasing in the DSM-5 criteria to the board examination, such that by 2017 the examination material will exclusively reflect the new manual. The book is aimed primarily at board-eligible psychiatrists preparing for their Initial certification in psychiatry. It will be a useful study tool for psychiatrists renewing certification as well, which in the United States is required every ten years. Furthermore the text will also be a useful reference for all psychiatrists in clinical practice to familiarize themselves with the new diagnostic classifications of DSM-5, the latest psychopharmacologic treatment strategies, and psychotherapeutic techniques.

Delirium classification by the diagnostic and statistical manual – a moving target

2015 ◽  
Vol 27 (6) ◽  
pp. 881-882 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karin J. Neufeld
Keyword(s):  
Rating Scale ◽  
Confusion Assessment Method ◽  
Assessment Method ◽  
Classification Systems ◽  
Diagnostic Systems ◽  
Delirium Assessment ◽  
Diagnostic And Statistical Manual ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Medical Inpatients ◽  
Dsm Iv

The following paper, entitled “A Comparison of Delirium Diagnosis in Elderly Medical Inpatients using the CAM, DRS-R98, DSM-IV and DSM-5 Criteria” by Adamis and colleagues, reports the results of a single delirium assessment of 200 medical inpatients, aged 70 years and older. The aim was to compare the prevalence of delirium using two different diagnostic classification systems (DSM-5 and DSM-IV) and two commonly used research tools (Confusion Assessment Method and the Delirium Rating Scale-Revised ‘98). This editorial focuses on the comparison of the two versions of the DSM. The authors conclude that, while both diagnostic systems identify a core concept of delirium, the DSM-IV criteria are the most inclusive of the four approaches and the DSM-5, the most restrictive, identifying a prevalence of 19.5% and 13%, respectively in this sample. Furthermore, they conclude that these two systems do not appear to detect the same patients: only 14 of 26 (54%) individuals identified as delirious by the more exclusive DSM-5 criteria were also identified as such by DSM-IV.

DSM-5 Clinical/legal Challenges Regarding the USA's Death Penalty

2016 ◽  
Vol 33 (S1) ◽  
pp. S458-S458
Author(s):  
L. French
Keyword(s):  
Mental Retardation ◽  
Death Penalty ◽  
The United States ◽  
World Health ◽  
Diagnostic And Statistical Manual ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
The Us ◽  
Icd 10 ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Competing Interest

IntroductionIn May 2013, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) published the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) in order to bring America's clinical professionals in concert with the World Health Organization's (WHO) international classifications, notably the ICD-10-CM. This effort was met with considerable resistance and changes were delayed until November 2015. Major social-cultural differences between the United States and its European and other North American partners (Canada and Mexico) poses challenges in critical forensic areas such as the clinical/legal assessment of death qualified offenders – a status unique to the USA.Objective/aimsTo articulate the clinical/legal differences between the previous DSM's (III; III-R; IV) and the DSM-5 and how the new language provides greater ambiguity in defining the mental status requirements for Mens Rea – competence to understand one's actions.MethodsPresent the major legal issues surrounding the US death penalty and brought before the US Supreme Court including: Furman v. Georgia (1972); Greg v. Georgia (1976); Jared v. Texas (1976); Proffit v. Florida (1976); Adkins v. Virginia (2002); Roper v. Simmons (2005); Miller v. Alabama (2012): … and legislative actions such as Rosa's Law (Public Law 111-256; 2010).Results/conclusionsAdvocacy groups pushed Rosa's Law to mental retardation with – intellectual and developmental disability. This change is reflected in the DSM-5 whereby mental retardation (MR) was once relegated to axis II, is now classified under intellectual disabilities (ID) given the impression that it is a transitory (correctable) and not a fix (organ disability) clinical condition.Disclosure of interestThe author has not supplied his declaration of competing interest.

The DSM’s Reconnection to Psychoanalytic Theory through the Alternative Model for Personality Disorders

2019 ◽  
Vol 67 (6) ◽  
pp. 1023-1045 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam P. Natoli
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Alternative Model ◽  
Psychoanalytic Theory ◽  
Diagnostic System ◽  
Personality Pathology ◽  
Statistical Manual ◽  
Diagnostic And Statistical Manual ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual ◽  
Current Systems

Often believed to have Kraepelinian origins, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders—5th Edition (DSM-5) defines personality disorders using a categorical, hierarchical taxonomic system. This system possesses many long-standing problems for clinical practice, including a large assortment of symptom combinations that contribute to problematic heterogeneity and likely impair diagnostic validity. The DSM diagnostic system was at one time heavily influenced by psychoanalytic theory (Shorter 2005). A desire for greater theoretical neutrality then encouraged a shift away from psychoanalytic theory, resulting in the problematic atheoretical model of personality pathology introduced in DSM-III (1980) and still used today. The Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD), introduced in DSM-5 (2013), is an attempt to reconcile many of the categorical model’s issues and directly parallels primary themes that characterize psychoanalytic models of personality. After a review of the historical development of DSM, three current systems for diagnosing personality pathology—the DSM-5’s categorical model (2013), its AMPD (2013), and the Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual (2nd ed.; Alliance of Psychoanalytic Organizations 2017) are compared. The comparison illustrates how the AMPD brings psychoanalytic theory back into the DSM system and acknowledges the implications of a more psychoanalytic DSM.

Comparing Math LD Diagnostic Rates Obtained Using LDAC and DSM-5 Criteria: Implications for the Field

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 175-196
Author(s):  
Meadow Schroeder ◽  
Michelle A. Drefs ◽  
Michael Zwiers
Keyword(s):  
Learning Disabilities ◽  
Learning Disability ◽  
Classification Systems ◽  
Math Learning ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Diagnostic And Statistical Manual ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Learning Disability Identification ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Disability Identification

Within the Canadian context, the two major learning disability classification systems are arguably the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and the Learning Disabilities Association (LDAC) of Canada’s Official Definition of Learning Disabilities. Several of the more recent changes to the fifth edition of the DSM contrast with the LDAC definition, which establishes them as competing diagnostic frameworks. We investigated the frequency of math learning disability identification when both the LDAC and DSM-5 criteria were modelled and applied to an archived data set (2011–2016). Results support generally similar percentages of math learning disability cases identified when employing LDAC or DSM-5 criteria; however, the two methods identified a different set of cases. Implications for using DSM-5 versus LDAC criteria in diagnosing learning disabilities are discussed, including the need to consider adopting a national diagnostic standard.

scholarly journals Evaluation of obsessive-compulsive symptoms in relation to smartphone use

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 44-48 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carly A. Kempf ◽  
Kimberly A. Ehrhard ◽  
Steven C. Stoner
Keyword(s):  
Online Survey ◽  
The United States ◽  
Obsessive Compulsive ◽  
Statistical Manual ◽  
Obsessive Compulsive Symptoms ◽  
Compulsive Disorder ◽  
Diagnostic And Statistical Manual ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Smartphone Use

Abstract Introduction The use of smartphones throughout the United States continues to rise. Although smartphones have increased our capacity to access information, there is concern if excessive use may impact mental health. The purpose of this study was to examine whether a relationship exists between smartphone use and the presence of obsessive-compulsive symptoms (OCS) or behaviors. Methods A 33-item online survey was developed with 19 items relating to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition (DSM-5) criteria for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). A survey response was considered positive for possible OCS if participants answered at least 3 questions as Most of the time or All of the time for the OCD-related questions structured around the DSM-5 criteria for OCD while also using their smartphone for greater than 2 or more hours per day. Results A total of 308 of 550 subjects identified spending 2 or more hours on their smartphone per day and also answered positively on 3 or more questions designed to identify OCS. A statistically significant difference was discovered between those who used their smartphone for 2 or more hours per day and those who met 3 or more positive criteria for OCS compared to those who used their smartphone less than 2 hours per day (P < .00001). Discussion The results of this study demonstrate a possible relationship between smartphone use and OCS. Additional research needs to be conducted to further investigate these results to determine their significance in clinical practice.

Evaluation of the Applicability and Usefulness of the Latin American Guide for Psychiatric Diagnosis, Revised Version, in Comparison with other International Systems among Latin American Psychiatrists

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Javier Esteban Saavedra
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Latin American ◽  
Psychiatric Diagnosis ◽  
Diagnostic System ◽  
Clinical Situation ◽  
Classification Systems ◽  
Evaluation Instrument ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
The World ◽  
Icd 10

Background: The Latin American Guide to Psychiatric Diagnosis, Revised Version (GLADP-VR) represents an adaptation of the ICD-10 that seeks through a biopsychosocial approach to better reflect the holistic framework and culture of Latin American countries. This revision of the original GLADP included updated Latin American annotations and a new integrated diagnostic model centered on the person. Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate among Latin American psychiatrists the levels of applicability and usefulness of the GLADP-VR in comparison with major international diagnostic classification systems. Method: The survey evaluation instrument included questions about fundamental characteristics of a useful diagnostic guide and comparative questions about the acceptability and usefulness of the GLADP-VR, the original ICD-10, DSM-IV and DSM-5, and suggestions to improve the guide. The sample included 127 Latin American psychiatrists with an interest on Diagnosis and Classification and membership in one of the 17 national psychiatric societies affiliated with Latin American Psychiatric Association (APAL). They were sent the evaluation instrument by e-mail. Thirty-seven (29.1%) responses were obtained. There were no indications of demographic bias among respondents and no-respondents.The vast majority of respondents answered the questionnaire completely. Ninety-two percent reported knowing the GLADP-VR before the survey and 65.6% had actually used it before.Results: The most commonly used diagnostic system was the original ICD-10 (86.5%), followed by the GLADP-VR (56.8%). Regarding applicability, the diagnostic system recognized as the most user-friendly was the ICD-10 followed by the GLADP-VR, with the most difficult being the DSM-5. Concerning diagnostic accuracy, the GLADP-VR was found most useful; and the DSM-5 was least useful. Regarding usefulness for clinical care and professional practice, the ICD-10 was rated highest, followed by the GLADP-VR, and lowest was DSM-5. The least valued in this regard was the DSM-5. Regarding usefulness for yielding a complete view of the clinical situation, the GLADP-VR was best (83.3%), and DSM-5 was the lowest. Concerning cultural and psychosocial contextualization, the GLADP-VR was considered most useful, well above ICD-10 and the DSMs. Furthermore, the GLADP-VR was considered more useful for teaching and research by about 80% of psychiatrists, superior to the other diagnostic systems.Discussion: The findings of this study on the most prevalent use of ICD-10 are consistent with the results of a survey conducted earlier by the World Psychiatric Association across the world. In addition, in the present study less than half of the respondents used regularly the DSMs. The findings of the present study concerning the GLADP-VR were quite consistent with the corresponding findings of an earlier preliminary evaluation of the GLADP-VR. This seems to be related to the GLADP-VR comprehensive personalized diagnostic formulation with various components, including narratives. Conclusions: There are indications that the GLADP-VR is seen in Latin America as having higher diagnostic accuracy, yielding a comprehensive view of the clinical situation and its context, and more suitable for teaching, research, and work in community mental health.

White Paper: Brain Scan Research

2016 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noel Hunter ◽  
William Schultz
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Brain Activity ◽  
Disease Model ◽  
Diagnostic System ◽  
The United States ◽  
White Paper ◽  
Emotional Suffering ◽  
Preventative Measures ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
New Research

Recently, there have been intense debates within the mental health field regarding the validity of the current diagnostic system, how to best work with individuals in distress, and what constitutes “mental illness.” Proponents of a more biologically focused psychiatry are calling for a shift from a system of many discrete mental disorders based on somewhat arbitrary lists of symptoms to one that focuses on differences in brain activity, brain structure, and/or soon-to-be-discovered biomarkers as the basis for diagnostic categorization. Several national and federally funded organizations throughout the world, including the National Institute of Mental Health in the United States, have publicly avowed to support technologies and research focused on discovering brain-based pathology at the explicit expense of studies examining psychosocial factors and preventative measures for human suffering. Although the motivation for this shift is understandable, it continues to rely on a disease model based on an implausible reductionist view of human nature and contradicts robust research findings. It is likely that this new research focus will not only fail to achieve the breakthroughs it aims for, it will also serve to entrench current flawed assumptions about emotional distress to the detriment of many. By focusing on a narrow, brain-based etiology of emotional suffering, crucial factors, such as poverty, violence, family disharmony, and discrimination are marginalized or ignored. The need for a more comprehensive approach is discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document