DSM-5: Seven years later- developments and challenges in the classification of mental disorders

PDF (ελληνικά)
Published: Dec 26, 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.12681/psy_hps.25597
Keywords:
criticism developments DSM-5 RDoc
Anna Christopoulou
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
Aria Gkirlemi
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
Anna Apostolidou
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
Electra Stefanou
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
Anastasia Koutoumatsioti
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
Elizabeth Marouli
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
Maria Fotinou
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
Vasiliki Ermiliou
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
Apostolos Koutrias
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
Evdokia Ntali
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1249-1508
Abstract
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.
Article Details
  • Section
  • THEORETICAL REVIEWS
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

The journal PSYCHOLOGY adopts a Platinum open-access policy. Submission, processing or publication costs are waived by the Hellenic Psychological Society. Papers published in the journal PSYCHOLOGY are licensed under a 'Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International' licence. The authors reserve the copyright of their work and grant the journal the right of its first publication. Third-party licensees are allowed to use the published paper immediately after publication as they wish, provided they retain the defined by the license copyright formalities, regarding the reference to its author(s) and its initial publication in the journal PSYCHOLOGY. Moreover, any adjusted work should be shared under the same reuse rights, so with the same CC license.

Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Author.
American Psychiatric Association (2013a). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Author.
https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596
American Psychiatric Association (2013b). Highlights of changes from DSM-IV-TR to DSM-5 [Report]. Ανακτήθηκε στις 15 Σεπτεμβρίου, 2018, από τον σύνδεσμo: http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/changes% 20from%20dsm-iv-tr%20to%20dsm-5.pdf
Balistreri, M. (2016). Hopes and limits of moral bio-enhancement. Medicine & Storia, 10 (9), 75-91.
Bender, S., Stokes, A. & Gaspaire, S. (2018). Implications of the coverage of the DSM-5 in textbooks on learning and teaching of psychology within higher education. Psychology Teaching Review, 24, 53-58.
Bonino, J.L., & Hanna, F.J. (2018). Who owns psychopathology? The DSM: Its flaws, its future, and the professional counselor. Journal of Humanistic Counseling, 57, 118-137. https://doi.org/10.1002/johc.12071
Brauser, D. (2013). APA Answers Criticism of Pharma-Influenced Bias in DSM-5. Ανακτήθηκε στις 28 Νοεμβρίου, 2018, από τον σύνδεσμο: https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/777132
Bredstrom, A. (2017). Culture and context in mental health diagnosing: Scrutinizing the DSM-5 revision. Journal of Medical Humanities, 40, 347-363. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10912-017-9501-1
Browne, T.K. (2017). A role for philosophers, sociologists and bioethicists in revising the DSM: A philosophical case conference. Philosophy, Psychiatry, & Psychology, 24, 187-201. https://doi.org/10.1353/ppp.2017.024
Brunoni, A.R. (2017). Beyond the DSM: Trends in psychiatric diagnosis. Archives of Clinical Psychiatry 44, 154-158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0101-60830000000142
Butcher, S. N., Hooley, J.M., & Mineka, S. (2014). Abnormal Psychology – Sixteenth Edition. Pearson.
Butcher, S.N., Mineka, S., & Hooley, J.M. (2013). Abnormal Psychology – Fifteenth Edition. Pearson.
Caccavale, J. (2013, July). Mental healthcare professionals need to boycott the DSM-5. The Clinical Practitioner, 8, 1–3.
Carson, R. (1996). Aristotle, Galileo, and the DSM taxonomy: The case of schizophrenia. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64,1133-1139. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.64.6.1133
Chmielewsky, Μ., Clark, L.Α., Bagby, Μ. & Watson, D. (2015) Method matters: Understanding diagnostic reliability in DSM-IV and DSM-5. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 124, 3, 764-769. https://doi.org/10.1037/ abn0000069
Clay, R. (2014). ICD-10-CM: Your diagnostic codes are changing. 42-45. American Psychological Association (APA). https://doi.org/10.1037/e648522013-013
Comer, R. J. (2014). Fundamentals of Abnormal Psychology – Seventh Edition. Worth Publishers.
Cooper, R. (2014). How reliable is the DSM-5?, Mad in America. Ανακτήθηκε στις 28 Νοεμβρίου, 2018, από τον σύνδεσμο: http://www.madinamerica.com/2014/09/how-reliable-is-the-dsm-5/
Cooper, R. (2017). Understanding the DSM-5: stasis and change. History of Psychiatry, 29(1), 1–17. https://doi.org /10.1177/0957154X17741783
Cosgrove, L. & Krimsky, S. (2012). A comparison of DSM-IV and DSM-5 panel members’ financial associations with industry: A pernicious problem persists. PLoS Medicine, 9 (3), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pmed.1001190
Cuthbert, B. & Insel, T.R. (2013). Toward the future of psychiatric diagnosis: the seven pillars of RDoC. BMC Medicine 11, 126. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-11-126
Duncan, B.L., Sparks, J.A., & Timimi, S. (2017). Beyond critique: The partners for change outcome management system as an alternative paradigm to psychiatric diagnosis. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 58(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022167817719975
Ehret, Α. Μ., Berking, M. (2013). From DSM-IV to DSM-5: What has changed in the new edition? Verhaltenstherapie, 23, 258–266. https://doi.org/10.1159/000356537
Espeland, W. & Stevens, N. (1998). Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 1998, 313-343. https://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev.soc.24.1.313
First, M.D., Erlich, M.D., Adler, D.A., Leong, S., Dixon, L.B., Oslin, D.W., et al. (2019). How the DSM is used in clinical practice. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 207(3),157-161. https://doi.org/10.1097/NMD .0000000000000953
Ford, S. (2013). Controversy over DSM-5: new mental health guide. Ανακτήθηκε στις 28 Νοεμβρίου, 2018, από τον σύνδεσμο: https://www.nursingtimes.net/controversy-over-dsm-5-new-mentalhealthguide/506 2548 .article
Frances, A. (2013). DSM-5, Writing mistakes will cause great confusion, Huffington Post Science. Ανακτήθηκε στις 28 Νοεμβρίου, 2018, από τον σύνδεσμο: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allen-frances/dsm5-writing-mistakes-wil_b_3419747.html
Frances, A.J. (2012). DSM 5 is guide Not bible—Ignore its ten worst changes. Ανακτήθηκε στις 28 Νοεμβρίου, 2018, από τον σύνδεσμο: https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/dsm5-in-distress/201212/dsm-5-is-guide-not-bible-ignore-its-ten-worst-changes
Frances, A.J. (2014) Saving normal: An insider's revolt against out-of-control psychiatric diagnosis, DSM-5, big pharma, and the medicalization of ordinary life. William Morrow
Freedman, R., Lewis, D. A., Michels, R., Pine, D. S., Schultz, S. K, Tamminga, C. A, et al. (2013). The initial field trials of DSM-5: New blooms and old thorns, The American Journal of Psychiatry, 170 (1), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2012.12091189
Gayle, M. & Raskin, J. (2017). DSM-5: Do counselors really want an alternative? Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 57, 650-666. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022167817696839
Ghaemi, N. (2013). DSM-5: If you don't like the effects, look at the causes. Ανακτήθηκε στις 28 Νοεμβρίου, 2018, από τον σύνδεσμο: https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/mood-swings/201301/dsm-5-if-you-dont-the-effects-look-the-causes
Ghaemi, N. (2016). Bipolar vs. Borderline—Diagnosis is prognosis once again. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 133, 171-173. https://doi.org/10.1111/acps.12560
Ginter, G. (2014). DSM-5 conceptual changes: Ιnnovations, limitations and clinical implications, The Professional Counselor, 4(3), 179-190. https://doi.org/10.15241/ggg.4.3.179
Γκοτζαμάνης, Κ. (2015). Διαγνωστικά Κριτήρια από DSM-5. Ιατρικές Εκδόσεις Λίτσας.
Graham, C.A., Boynton, P.M.& Gould, K. (2017). Women’s sexual desire challenging narratives of “dysfunction”. European Psychologist, 22(1), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000282
Greenberg, G. (2013). The book of woe: The DSM and the unmaking of psychiatry. Penguin Group.
Greene, T. (2018). Blame, PTSD and DSM-5: an urgent need for clarification, European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 9(1), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1080/20008198.2018.1468709
Halpin, M. (2016). The DSM and professional practice: research, clinical and institutional perspectives. Journal of Ηealth and Social behavior. 57, 153-167. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022146516645637
van Heuten-van der Kloet, D., & van Heuten, T. (2015). The classification of psychiatric disorders according to DSM-5 deserves an internationally standardized psychological test battery on symptom level. Frontiers in Psychology, 1-4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01108.
Hooley, J.M., Butcher, J.N., Nock, M.K., & Mineka, S. (2017). Abnormal Psychology - Seventeenth Edition - Global Edition. Pearson.
Hopwood, C., Schade, N., Krueger, R., Wright, A. & Markon, K. (2013). Connecting DSM-5 personality traits and pathological beliefs: Toward a unifying model. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 35, 162-172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-012-9332-3
Johnson, R.A., Barrett, M.S., & Sisti, D.A. (2013). The ethical boundaries of patient and advocate influence on DSM-5. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 21(6), 334-344. https://doi.org/1 0.1097/HRP.0000000000000010
Kecmanovic, D. (2013). DSM-5: The more it changes, the more it is the same. Psychiatria Danubina, 25 (2), 94-96.
Kessler, R.C., Rubinow, D.R., Holmes, C., Abelson, J.M., & Zhao, S. (1997). The epidemiology of DSM-III-R bipolar I disorder in a general population survey. Psychological Medicine, 1079-89. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033291797005333
Κονταξάκης, Β., & Κωνσταντακόπουλος, Γ. (2015). Από το DSM-I στο DSM-5. Ψυχιατρική, 26 (1), 13-16.
Kraemer, H.C. (2015) Research domain criteria (RDoC) and the DSM- Two methodological approaches to mental health diagnosis. Journal of the American Medical Association Published online November 11, 2015. https://doi.org/10.100/jamapsychiatry.2015.2134
Lalumiera, E. (2016). Saving the DSM-5? Descriptive conceptions and theoretical concepts of mental disorders. Medicina & Storia XVI/9-1- 109-126. http://hdl.handle.net/10281/147250
Lasalvia, A. (2015). DSM-5 two years later: Facts, myths and some key open issues. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences, 24, 185-187. . https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045796015000256
Leibenluft, E. (2011). Severe mood dysregulation, irritability, and the diagnostic boundaries of bipolar disorder in youths. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 2, 129-142. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2010.10050766.
Lilienfeld, S.O., & Treadway M. T. (2016). Clashing Diagnostic Approaches: DSM-ICD versus RDoC. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology. 12, 435-63. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-021815-093122.
Linguiardi, V. & McWilliams, N. (2017). The psychodynamic diagnostic manual. Guildford Press.
Maj, M. (2014). DSM-5, ICD-11 and ‘pathologization’ of normal conditions. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 48, 19194. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004867413518825
Maj, M. (2015). The media campaign on the DSM-5: recurring comments and lessons for the future of diagnosis in psychiatric practice. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences, 24, 197-202. https://doi.org/10.1017 /s2045796014000572.
Marecek, J. & Gavey, N. (2013). DSM-5 and beyond: A critical feminist engagement with psychodiagnosis. Feminism & Psychology, 23(1), 3-9. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353512467962
McGuffin, P. & Farmer, A. (2014). Moving from DSM-5 to ICD-11: a joint problem? Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 48, 194-6. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004867413520254
McGuire, A. (2015). Diagnosing the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. Disability & Society, 30(10), 1582-1585. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2015.1062233
Menninger,K. (1963). The Vital Balance The Life Process in Mental Health and Illness. Viking Press
Μούτσου, Ε., & Γεωργάκα, Ε. (2014). Εξελίξεις και συγκρούσει αναφορικά με την ταξινόμηση των ψυχικών διαταραχών στο DSM-5: Μία ανασκόπηση του επιστημονικού διαλόγου και κριτικής. Ψυχολογία, 21(2), 130-148.
Mullins-Sweatt, S., .Lengel, G.J., & DeShong, H. L. (2016). The importance of considering clinical utility in the construction of a diagnostic manual. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 12, 133-155. https://doi.org/ 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-021815-092954.
Nemeroff, C.H., Weinberger, D., Rutter, M., MacMillan, H.L., Bryant, R.A., Wessely, S., et al. (2013). DSM-5: A collection of psychiatrist views on the changes, controversies and future directions, British Medical Journal Medicine, 11 (202). https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-11-202
Padmanabhan, D. (2017). From distress to disease: a critique of the medicalisation of possession in DSM-5, Anthropology & Medicine, 24(3), 261-275. https://doi.org/10.1080/13648470.2017.1389168
Pai, A., Suris, A.M., & North, C.S. (2017). Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in the DSM-5: controversy, change, and conceptual considerations. Behavioral Sciences, 7, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs7010007
Paris, J. (2013). The intelligent clinician's guide to the DSM-5®. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/ med/9780199738175.001.0001
Paris, J. (2015). Overdiagnosis in psychiatry. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/med/ 9780199350643.001.0001
Paris, J. & Philips, J. (Eds). (2013). Making the DSM-5: Concepts and Controversies. Springer.
Pickerskill, M.D. (2013). DSM-5: Diagnosis and the sociology of critique, Journal of Medical Ethics, 40(8), 521-525. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2013-101762
Pomerantz, A. (2017). Clinical Psychology: Science, Practice, and Culture Fourth Edition. Sage Publications.
Raskin, J. & Gayle, M. (2016). DSM-5: Do psychologists really want an alternative? Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 56, 439-456. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022167815577897
Regier, D.A., Narrow, W.E., Clarke, D.E., Kraemer, H.C., Kuramoto, S.J., Kuhl, E.A., et al. (2013). DSM-5 field trials in the United States and Canada, Part II: test-retest reliability of selected categorical diagnoses. American Journal of Psychiatry, 170, 59-70. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2012.12070999
Regier, D. A., Narrow, W. E., Kuhl, E. A., & Kupfer D. J. (2009). The conceptual development of DSM-5. American Journal of Psychiatry, 166, 645–650. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2009.09020279
Reed, G., Correia, J.M., Esparza, P., Saxena, S., Maj, M. (2011). The WPA‐WHO Global Survey of Psychiatrists’ Attitudes Towards Mental Disorders Classification. World Psychiatry, 10-2. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2051-5545.2011.tb00034.
Rief, W., Frances, A., & Wittchen, H.U. (2013). DSM-5: Pros and cons. Verhaltenstherapie, 23, 280-285. https://doi.org/ 10.1159/000356572
Rief, W. & Martin, A. (2014). How to use the new DSM-5 somatic symptom disorder diagnosis in research and practice: A critical evaluation and a proposal for modifications. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10, 339-367. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032813-153745
Rodriquez-Testal, J.F., Senin-Caldeon, C., & Perona-arcelan, S. (2014). From DSM-IV-TR to DSM-5: Analysis of some changes. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 14, 221-231. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ijchp.2014.05.002
Sadler, J.Z. (2015). The crippling legacy of monomanias in DSM-5. In S. Demazeux & P. Singy (Eds). The DSM-5 in perspective: Philosophical reflections on the psychiatric Babel, (pp. 141-155). Springer Science + Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9765-8_9
Saxena, S., Esparza, P., Regier, D. A., Saraceno, B., & Sartorius, N. (2012). Public health aspects of diagnosis and classification of mental and behavioral disorders: Refining the research agenda for DSM-5 and ICD-11. American.
Skodol, A. E., Krueger, R. F., Bender, D. S., Morey, L. C., Clark, L. A., Bell, C. C., et al. (2013). Personality disorders in DSM-5 section III. FOCUS: The Journal of Lifelong Learning in Psychiatry, 11, 187–188.Psychiatric Press. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.focus.11.2.187
Shankman, S. A., Funkhouser, C. J., Klein, D. N., Davila, J., Lerner, D., & Hee, D. (2018). Reliability and validity of severity dimensions of psychopathology assessed using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM‐5 (SCID). International Journal Methods Psychiatric Research, 27, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.1590
Sungur, M., & Gunduz, A. (2014). A Comparison of DSM-IV-TR and DSM-5 definitions for sexual dysfunctions: critiques and challenges. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 11, 364-373. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsm.12379
Sungur, M.Z. (2017). Critiques & challenges to old and new dsm-5 criteria for sexual dysfunction. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 14, 232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2017.04.118
Thyer, B.A. (2015). The DSM-5 definition of mental disorder: Critique and alternatives. Critical Thinking in Clinical Assessment and Diagnosis, 45-68. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17774-8_3
Timimi, S., (2014) No more psychiatric labels: Why formal psychiatric diagnostic systems should be abolished. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 14, 208-215. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.ijchp.2014.03.004
Trost, S. H., Burke, B. L., & Schoenfeld, J. (2014). DSM-5: Using key changes to highlight critical teaching points for undergraduate psychology instructors. Ανακτήθηκε στις 28 Νοεμβρίου, 2018, από τον σύνδεσμο: http://teachpsych.org/resources/documents/otrp/resources/trost14.pdf
Volkmar, F., & McPartland, J. (2014). From Kanner to DSM-5: Autism as an evolving diagnostic concept. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10, 193-212. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032813-153710
Wakefield, J. C. (2013). DSM-5: An overview of changes and controversies. Clinical Social Work Journal, 41, 139–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10615-013-0445-2
Wakefield, J. (2014). Wittgenstein’s nightmare. Why the RDoc grid needs a conceptual dimension, World Psychiatry, 13, 38-40. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20097
Wakefield, J. C. (2015). DSM-5, psychiatric epidemiology and the false positives problem. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences, 24, 188-196. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045796015000116
Wakefield, J.C. & Schmitz, M.F. (2015). Predictive validation of single‐episode uncomplicated depression as a benign subtype of unipolar major depression. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 129, 445-457. https://doi.org /10.1111/acps.12184
Whooley, O. (2010). Diagnostic ambivalence: psychiatric workarounds and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Sociology of Health & Illness, 32 (3), 452-469. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2010.01230.x
Whooley, O. (2016). Measuring mental disorders: The failed commensuration project of DSM-5. Social Science & Medicine, 166, 33-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.08.006
Widiger, T. & Crega, C (2015). Process and content of DSM-5. Psychopathology Review, 1, 162-176. https://doi.org /10.5127/pr.035314
Widiger, T. A., & Glover, N. (2015). DSM workgroup structure and process. In R. L. Cautin & S. O. Lilienfeld (Eds.), The encyclopedia of clinical psychology (pp. 970–978). Wiley Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/ 9781118625392.wbecp103
Whooley, O. & Horwitz, A.V. (2013). The paradox of professional success: Grand ambition, furious resistance, and the derailment of the DSM-5 revision process. Paris, Joel (Ed) & Phillips, James (Ed). (2013). Making the DSM-5: Concepts and controversies, (pp. 75-92). Springer Science + Business Media. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-1-4614-6504-1_6
Zachar, P., First, M.B., & Kendler, K.S. (2017). The Bereavement Exclusion Debate in the DSM-5: A History. Clinical Psychological Science, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702617711284
Zimmerman, M., Ruggero, C. J., Chelminski, I. & Young, D. (2008). Is bipolar disorder over-diagnosed? Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 69, 935-40. https://doi.org/10.4088/JCP.v69n0608