Radical Changes Could be Coming to ‘Psychiatry’s Bible’

4
559

From CNN. “The American Psychiatric Association announced Wednesday that it is radically reconceptualizing the main manual that clinicians use to make a mental health diagnosis. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders will likely get a new name, new voices shaping its content and a new approach that will add more layers to a diagnosis.

The hope is that it will turn what some call “psychiatry’s bible” into more of a guidebook to mental health disorders — one that’s more inclusive, dynamic and educational, so patients will receive more effective treatments.

While APA updates the manual regularly to reflect the most up-to-date science, the last update was 2022. Over the years, the DSM has come under heavy criticism. Some argue it’s not scientific enough, others argue it’s not specific enough, or even practical.

So, to improve the manual, the APA turned to an unlikely source for inspiration: its critics.

“The critics are loud, so it’s very hard to ignore them,” joked Dr. Maria Oquendo, chair of APA’s Future DSM Strategic Committee.”

Article →

4 COMMENTS

  1. “One of the first things APA said it may change is the manual’s name. It is proposed that going forward DSM will stand for Diagnostic Scienctific Manual of Mental Disorders.”

    LOL, that doesn’t sound very helpful, nor accurate.

    Even if they are able to make changes for the better, a lot of psych providers will continue to do whatever they please anyway.

    “Despite the high prevalence of mood and anxiety disorders, few patients are screened and diagnosed appropriately. Indeed, recent studies suggest that a quarter of psychiatrists and half of primary care physicians often do not use Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder when diagnosing depression. Furthermore, despite the availability of several validated, easy-to-administer scales that can facilitate diagnosis and monitoring of outcomes in patients with mood disorders, they are not routinely used by the majority of clinicians. This is despite guideline recommendations supporting the routine use of validated outcome scales… to assess and monitor patients being treated for depression.”
    https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3184591/#sec10

    Report comment

LEAVE A REPLY