Search

In the early 1990s, a research group that included Holly Prigerson and Charles Reynolds established that disordered grief overlaps with depression and anxiety but is not the same. They also developed a research inventory for studying disordered grief. Subsequently, Prigerson focused on measuring disordered grief using advanced psychometric techniques. Because treatment for grief-related depression reduced symptoms of depression but not grief, Katherine Shear was recruited to develop a more effective therapy. Prigerson came to conceptualize disordered grief as prolonged grief that is associated with negative outcomes. Shear came to conceptualize disordered grief as intense grief that is complicated by features that interfere with adaption to the loss. In 2013 a hybrid disorder composed of criteria from both groups was placed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5) appendix. Under the leadership of the DSM Steering Committee, a summit meeting in 2019 helped break an impasse, and a revised prolonged grief disorder became an official DSM diagnosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite widespread use, how clinicians use the DSM in psychiatric practice is not well understood. Recognizing public and professional attitudes toward the DSM are integral to future DSM development, to assess a commonly held assumption such as that the DSM is used primarily for coding, and to assess its clinical utility. A convenience sample of Psychiatric Times readers was surveyed to assess the DSM's use in clinical practice. A total of 394 behavioral health care practitioners fully completed the online survey. Results suggest that the DSM, beyond administrative and billing use, is used for communication with health care providers, for teaching diagnoses to trainees, and, importantly, as an educational tool to inform patients and caregivers alike. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The clinical use of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is explicitly stated as a goal for both the DSM Fourth Edition and DSM Fifth Edition (DSM-5) revisions. Many uses assume a relatively faithful application of the DSM diagnostic definitions. However, studies demonstrate significant discrepancies between clinical psychiatric diagnoses with those made using structured interviews suggesting that clinicians do not systematically apply the diagnostic criteria. The limited information regarding how clinicians actually use the DSM raises important questions: a) How can the clinical use be improved without first having a baseline assessment? b) How can potentially significant shifts in practice patterns based on wording changes be assessed without knowing the extent to which the criteria are used as written? Given the American Psychiatric Association's plans for interim revisions to the DSM-5, the value of a detailed exploration of its actual use in clinical practice remains a significant ongoing concern and deserves further study including a number of survey and in vivo studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose of Review: The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)-5 revision is underway. The review examines draft proposals for changes in mood disorders (posted February 2010 on DSM-5 web site), explains their rationale, and considers relative costs vs. benefits., Recent Findings: Proposals covered include recommendation for a comorbid anxiety dimension; addition of a new disorder, mixed anxiety depression; replacement of mixed manic episodes with a 'mixed features' specifier applicable to manic, hypomanic, and major depressive episodes; addition of severity dimensions for manic and major depressive episodes; and removal of the bereavement exclusion in major depressive episode. Although some proposals (particularly the anxiety dimension and the use of Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) as depression severity dimension) may improve clinical and research utility, others have a high potential for false positives (e.g., addition of mixed anxiety depression, removal of bereavement exclusion), unclear clinical utility (e.g., mixed features specifier for depressive episodes), or problematic implementation (e.g., use of Clinical Global Impression (CGI), which requires prior experience of treating bipolar patients, for rating manic episode severity)., Summary: A cost-benefit analysis of mood proposals yields mixed results, with some having significant benefits and others carrying the risk of significant problems. Only proposals in which benefits outweigh costs should be included in the final DSM-5.

This study compares the clinical relevance and utility of five dimensional diagnostic systems for personality disorders that have been proposed for the forthcoming edition of DSM (DSM-V): (1) a criteria counting model based on current DSM-IV diagnostic criteria; (2) a prototype matching model based on current DSM-IV diagnostic criteria; (3) a prototype matching model based on the Shedler-Westen Assessment Procedure (SWAP); (4) the Five Factor Model; and (5) Cloninger's Psychobiological Model. A random national sample of psychiatrists and psychologists applied all 5 diagnostic systems to a patient in their care and rated the clinical utility of each system. The SWAP Prototype Matching and DSM-IV Prototype Matching models were judged most clinically useful and relevant. The Five Factor Model and Cloninger's Psychobiological Model were judged least useful. The prototype matching systems most faithfully capture the personality syndromes seen in clinical practice, and permit rich descriptions of diagnostic constructs without a proportionate increase in user effort. A prototype matching approach to personality diagnosis deserves consideration for DSM-V.

Purpose of Review: While Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV provided updated definitions and diagnostic criteria for the diagnoses subsumed under the category of somatoform disorders, various nosological questions are still unresolved. We assessed current research activity on important key concepts related to nosology, validity, and reliability of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV somatoform diagnoses., Recent Findings: The initial Medline search for articles from 2000 through 2005 yielded a total of 912 articles. After checking for redundancy and excluding publications using other than Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV diagnostic criteria, a total of 101 articles was further reviewed. Heterogeneity of papers precluded statistical approaches; thus, a descriptive and narrative review was pursued., Summary: It appears that applying the specific categories and criteria as proposed by Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV only captures a small proportion of the phenomena of interest at the interface of medicine and psychiatry. A paradigm shift towards 'general medical/psychiatry interface disorders' in exchange for the current dichotomy of 'mind' vs. 'body' disorders, may reduce stigma associated with current diagnostic labeling, improve user acceptability, and stimulate research in this important but still fragmented clinical area that still lacks agreed-upon diagnostic definitions.