Special section on DSM-5: nearing the finish line.
J. Talbott
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/NMD.0b013e318257c7d2
2012-06-01
Abstract:The DSM process and publication are among the most important events in our field. The manual, used by practicing clinicians, forensic evaluators, researchers, billing offices, and legal personnel throughout the world, has gone through five major editions and other changes, and since the formulation of DSM-III (that I had a role in), its writing, field testing, and process of commentary and revision have become more widespread, complex, and contentious. Therefore, we felt that it was important to contribute to this process by devoting a special section to DSM-5 and have collected and saved submissions on the subject to be published together in this issue of the journal. DSM-5 is currently slated for publication in May 2013. The revision process, which officially began in 2006 with the appointment of the chair of theDSM-5 Task Force, is now in its closing stages. The DSM-5 work groups are currently making their final decisions regarding their proposals, which will be forwarded to the DSM-5 Task Force, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) Assembly, and ultimately, to the APA Board of Trustees for review and approval. The door is still open to outside feedback, however, as the third and final public comment period is scheduled for May/June 2012. The timing of this special section on DSM-5, therefore, is particularly auspicious because it provides the potential for these articles to affect the final DSM-5 decisions. Consequently and perhaps not surprisingly, most of these articles present criticisms of the DSM-5 proposals with the hope that the work groups might heed their admonitions and place questionable proposals in the DSM-5 research appendix as opposed to including them in the ‘‘official’’ part of the manual. If there is an overarching theme running through these articles, it is the authors’ concern about the potential for false-positives that might result from the inclusion of new diagnoses or lowered diagnostic thresholds. The diagnostic inflation discussed by Batstra and Frances in their article (‘‘Diagnostic Inflation: Causes and Suggested Cure’’) essentially involves what they consider to be the likelihood of massive false-positives resulting from proposed DSM-5 changes. To mitigate against what they see as the most worrisome negative impact of false-positives, inappropriate use of medication, they recommend a method called ‘‘stepped diagnosis,’’ which largely involves a watchful waiting approach before initiating treatment with medication. A number of the articles focus on the potential of certain proposed definitional changes to lead to false-positives. The article by Wakefield and Schmitz (‘‘Recurrence of Bereavement-Related Depression: Evidence for the Validity of the DSM-IV Bereavement Exclusion From the Epidemiological Catchment Area Study’’) challenges the DSM-5 proposal to remove the bereavement exclusion from the definition of a major depressive episode. The bereavement exclusion in the major depressive episode criteria set is intended to prevent normal grief reactions that phenomenologically resemble mild, brief, major depressive-like episodes from being mislabeled as episodes of clinical depression. Consequently, its elimination has the potential to lead to the mislabeling of normal grief reactions as major depressive episodes, which would be an example of the second type of false-positive problem described above. The DSM-5 Mood Disorders Work Group proposes the elimination of the bereavement exclusion, contending that there is no evidence supporting the DSM-IV approach that considers mild, brief depressive episodes after bereavement to be any different from other types of depressive episodes, and thus, all depressive episodes should be treated diagnostically the same. Wakefield and Schmitz challenge this assertion with their article, showing that, in fact, individuals who develop depressive-like episodes after the loss of a loved one are no more likely to develop a subsequent recurrence of depression (as one would have expected if the depressive reaction after bereavement were a bona fide depressive episode) than are individuals who have never experienced a depressive episode at all. The article by Batstra and Frances (‘‘DSM-5 Further Inflates ADHD’’) contends that several of the proposed changes to the criteria set for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), including lowering the diagnostic threshold in both children and adults and raising