Response to Letter from DSM-5 Task Force and the American Psychiatric Association

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
David N. Elkins ◽  
Brent Dean Robbins ◽  
Sarah R. Kamens
Keyword(s):  
American Psychiatric Association ◽  
Task Force ◽  
Dsm 5

The Successes and Failures of the DSM Revolution

2019 ◽  
pp. 257-292
Author(s):  
Allan V. Horwitz
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Major Depression ◽  
Mental Disorder ◽  
Psychiatric Diagnosis ◽  
American Psychiatric Association ◽  
Task Force ◽  
Health Professions ◽  
Board Of Trustees ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Successes And Failures

Forty years after the DSM-III diagnostic revolution, the fundamental dilemmas that have perennially confronted psychiatry (and other mental health professions) remain unresolved. Neuroscientific and epidemiologic findings show that the current DSM system poorly characterizes the nature of mental disorder. Contrary to the intentions of the researchers who developed the DSM-III, its conditions have tremendous internal heterogeneity, artificial comorbidity, and an inability to separate contextually appropriate from dysfunctional symptoms. These inadequacies led the DSM-5 Task Force to propose fundamental changes in the categorical system that was at the heart of these problems. Yet, the pathway they choose to remedy the situation—the introduction of dimensions—would have made these problems even worse. The American Psychiatric Association assembly and board of trustees rejected this premature upheaval in psychiatric diagnosis. The DSM-5, however, did implement other changes, in particular, the abolition of the bereavement exclusion to the diagnosis of major depression, which exacerbated the confusion between normality and pathology. Despite the intentions of its developers, the DSM-5 did not improve understandings of mental disorder.

The critical reception of the DSM-5: Towards a typology of audiences

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (8) ◽  
pp. 932-948 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melissa Roy ◽  
Marie-Pier Rivest ◽  
Dahlia Namian ◽  
Nicolas Moreau
Keyword(s):  
Mental Disorders ◽  
Digital Media ◽  
Thematic Analysis ◽  
American Psychiatric Association ◽  
Critical Reception ◽  
Reception Theory ◽  
Statistical Manual ◽  
Diagnostic And Statistical Manual ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Academic Publications

Since its initial publication, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders has been the object of criticism which has led to regular revisions by the American Psychiatric Association. This article analyses the debates that surrounded the publication of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.). Building on the concepts of public arenas and reception theory, it explores the meaning encoded in the manual by audiences. Our results, which draw from a thematic analysis of traditional and digital media sources, identify eight audiences that react to the American Psychiatric Association’s narrative of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.): conformist, reformist, humanist, culturalist, naturalist, conflictual, constructivist and utilitarian. While some of their claims present argumentative polarities, others overlap, thus challenging the idea, often presented in academic publications, of a fixed debate. In order to further discuss on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, we draw attention to claims that ‘travel’ across different communities of audiences.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document