Is the DSM-5 — the book professionals and researchers use to diagnose mental disorders — leading us to a society that embraces “over-diagnosis”? Or was this trend of creating “fad” diagnoses started long before the DSM-5 revision process — perhaps even starting with the DSM-IV before it?
Allen Frances, who oversaw the DSM-IV revision process and has been an outspoken critic of the DSM-5, suggests melodramatically that “normality is an endangered species,” due in part to “fad diagnoses” and an “epidemic” of over-diagnosing, ominously suggesting in his opening paragraph that the “DSM5 threatens to provoke several more [epidemics].”
First, when a person starts throwing around a term such as “over diagnosing,” my first question is, “How would we know we’re ‘over diagnosing’ a condition, versus gaining a better understanding of a disorder and its prevalence within modern society?” How can we determine what is being accurately, better and more frequently diagnosed today, versus a disorder that is being “over diagnosed” — that is, being diagnosed when it shouldn’t be due to marketing, education or some other factor.
We could look at attention deficit disorder (also known as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD). The National Institutes of Health convened a panel in 1998 to examine the validity of attention deficit disorder and its treatments, out of concern for the rising amount of children being diagnosed with attention deficit disorder. However, they barely mention overdiagnosis as a concern for ADHD in their consensus statement. They do point out one of the primary problems is inconsistent diagnosing, which I agree represents a real, ongoing concern across the spectrum of mental disorders.
Research into this question has produced mixed results, showing that on one hand, we are indeed over-diagnosing even common, serious mental disorders like bipolar disorder, but we’re also missing a lot of people who have the disorder and have never been diagnosed — again, inconsistent diagnosing. Bipolar disorder should be fairly accurately diagnosed because its diagnostic criteria are clear and overlap with only a few other disorders. One such study that examined whether we are “over diagnosing” bipolar disorder was conducted on 700 subjects in Rhode Island (Zimmerman et al, 2008). They found that less than half the patients who self-reported as being diagnosed with bipolar disorder actually had it, but that over 30 percent of patients who claimed never to have been diagnosed with bipolar disorder actually did have the disorder.
What this kind of study perhaps best demonstrates is the deeply flawed nature of our current diagnostic system based upon the categories set forth by the DSM-III, expanded upon in the DSM-IV, and now being further expanded upon in the DSM5. It is not simply a black and white issue of “over diagnosis.” It is a subtle, complex problem that requires subtle, complex solutions (not a machete taken to pare down sheer numbers of diagnoses). It shows, to me anyway, that perhaps the criteria are fine — the quality, reliable implementation of those criteria continue to leave a lot to be desired.
But diagnoses are not a finite numbers game. We don’t stop adding to the ICD-10 just because there are already thousands of diseases and medical conditions listed. We add to it as the medical knowledge and research supports the addition of new medical classifications and diagnoses. The same is true for the DSM process — hopefully the final revision of DSM5 won’t have added dozens of new disorders because the workgroup believed in a “fad” diagnosis. Rather, they add them because the research base and consensus of experts agrees it’s time to recognize the problem behavior as a real concern worthy of clinical attention and further research.
Who is Dr. Frances to say whether “binge eating disorder” is “real” or not? Has he replicated the work of the DSM5 eating disorders workgroup to arrive at that conclusion? Or is he just picking some diagnoses he feels are “fads” and makes it so? I wouldn’t dream of second-guessing a panel of experts in an area, unless I also spent some significant time reading up on the literature and arriving at my own conclusions through the same type of study and discussion the workgroups use.
The article goes on to list the possible reasons that over-diagnosis takes place, but the list basically boils down to two things — more marketing and more education. Nowhere on his list does he mention the most likely cause of ‘over diagnosis’ — the general unreliability of diagnoses in everyday, real clinical practice, especially by non-mental health professionals. For instance, he’s concerned that websites setup to help people better understand a mental health concern (such as ours?) may lead to people self-overdiagnosing. Self overdiagnosing? I think Dr. Frances just coined a new term (and perhaps a new phenomenon unto itself)!
Outside of this strange vortex, I call such websites and support communities “education” and “self-help.” The research literature is full of studies demonstrating that these websites help people better understand issues and get emotional support and direct, immediate help for them. Could some people use them to inaccurately diagnose themselves? Certainly. But is it a problem of epidemic proportions? I’ve seen no evidence to suggest it is.
Education is key to reaching out to people to help address the decades worth of mis-information and stigma surrounding mental health concerns. Do we just turn off the spigots and lock up the knowledge again in inaccessible books where only the elite and “properly trained” professional has access to it (as psychiatry has traditionally done with the DSM-III-R and even the DSM-IV)? Or do we keep the doors and windows of knowledge wide open and invite as many people as we can into to take a look around and better understand the serious emotional or life issues they are dealing with?
Last, if the DSM itself is partially to blame for over-diagnosis — e.g., because the diagnostic criteria are set too low, as Dr. Frances suggests — then I reiterate my previous suggestion: perhaps the usefulness of the DSM itself has passed. Perhaps it’s time for a more nuanced, psychologically-based diagnostic system to adopted by mental health professionals, one that doesn’t medicalize issues and turn every emotional concern into a problem that has to be labeled and medicated.
I think that the problems of over- and under-diagnosis of mental disorders should be addressed, but I see them as an entirely separate (and more complex) issue from the current revision of the DSM-5 and using the quantity of mental disorders as some sort of gauge to address the quality of diagnosis. Because I believe it’s the quality of our diagnoses — the ability to accurately translate diagnostic criteria to symptoms presented by real people — that most affects “over diagnosis,” not marketing or patient education.
Would we be looking to blame Merriam Webster for all of the trash romance novels that exist? Or do we blame the authors who put the words together to create the novels? Do we blame the DSM for poor diagnoses, or do we blame the professionals (many of whom are not even mental health professionals) who make the poor diagnoses in every day practice?
Read the full article: Normality Is an Endangered Species: Psychiatric Fads and Overdiagnosis
17 comments
The Doc says ‘I call such websites and support communities “education†and “self-help.†The research literature is full of studies demonstrating that these websites help people better understand issues and get emotional support and direct, immediate help for them.’
Maybe at least partly because they promote dialog amongst those who have personal experience with these disorders, rather than by those who theorize about them from afar.
“Perhaps it’s time for a more nuanced, psychologically-based diagnostic system to adopted by mental health professionals, one that doesn’t medicalize issues and turn every emotional concern into a problem that has to be labeled and medicated.”
ABSOLUTELY!! Part of the problem is the current health care system and parity for mental health care. It demands that we find a biologically based diagnoses in order to justify treatment so that the client does not have to pay out-of-pocket. Not all of the reasons people come for therapy is biologically based, but the behavioral patterns that they are trying to change impact their lives every bit as much as any biologically based disease.
“I call such websites and support communities “education†and “self-help.†The research literature is full of studies demonstrating that these websites help people better understand issues and get emotional support and direct, immediate help for them. Could some people use them to inaccurately diagnose themselves? Certainly.”
America’s culture promotes the mindset of only seeing the doctor when something is wrong, and if you can’t describe what’s wrong, don’t see the doctor. These self-diagnoses websites help suffering individuals give names to their problems, which helps them find justification to get in the door to receive mental help. Whether or not they have the illness they suspect, they still benefit from seeking help. It’s no bad thing, 🙂
Claims of “stigmga”
There is one very important aspect to the teaching, validating, passing on of a “stigma”:
One must know which one is “safe” to assert, or be rebuked. Direct your term at sexual assault, you will be rebuked, not just by women, but by the same professionals offering you permit for the one you expressed. Direct your term at Jews, you can expect the same. Direct it at me… well, you already know.
Harold A. Maio, retired Mental Health Editor
[email protected]
In total agreement here. As for the solution, I think creating a panel of mentally ill experts-many who are very intelligent and creative-to come up with a version of the DSM to compare with that of the ‘experts’ can help solve this problem.
“Nowhere on his list does he mention the most likely cause of ‘over diagnosis’ — the general unreliability of diagnoses in everyday, real clinical practice, especially by non-mental health professionals.”
I agree with the underlying theme of this essay, that is, that issues related to diagnosing mental disorders are multi-faceted and complex and that there are two sides to the coin of diagnosing-over and under diagnosing. However I must point out out that you are naive if you believe that members of the DSM task force are not biased or do not have conflicting interests. 3/4 of the dsm task force are on pharamaceutical payrolls. In fact this conflict of interest became such an issue the dsm commite had to implement a rule that placed a cap on the amount of money that dsm members could receive from pharmacy companies. The dsm is becoming the mockery of psychopathology. There is no end to to the number of mental illnesses the dsm is including, and will continue to be including, in the manual which is thicker than the bible. Sex addictions or hypersexuality disorder, binge eating, compulsive shopping, Internet and video game addiction, and premenstrual dysphoric disorder are all being considered right now inclusion into the dsm v. I’ve looked at much of the research being produced on the validity of these so called medical illnesses, and there is certainly a plethora of it, it’s based on the faulty logic of the three d’s of a mental disorder- if a behavior is distressing, dysfunctional, and deviant it constitutes a form of psychopathology. Such a definition of mental illnesses is circular, tautological, and precludes the possibility of engaing in a detrimental behaviour without having a mental illness. I’m not arguing that those exhibit these behaviours- binge eating, abnormal sexual behavior- are feigning or even that they don’t have serious problems. I’m arguing that the behavior itself is not a mental disorder but rather a manifestation of other underlying psychological and emotional problems which are genuine psyciatric conditions-depression, anxiety, etc.
Non-mental health professionals shouldn’t be diagnosing mental disorders period. They should be recognizing possible mental health problems and then referring to an appropriate mental health professional. If none is immediately available, (a serious concern someplaces), then they may have to treat the patient to the best of their ability based on their symptoms until on is available. They should still not be diagnosing however. Even though reimbursement requirements sometime makes this neccesary. Would you trust a non-oncologist to make a breast cancer diagnosis? No, so why should a primary care physician or other non-mental health professional diagnosis Major depression? Or Bipolar disorder? They simply don’t have the training.
I agree that under diagnosis and misdiagnosis is a major concern. OCD comes to mind. A large portion of people with OCD don’t know they have it. In fact, it takes an average of 9 years after the onset of OCD to be diagnosed correctly with OCD. And 14 years to get appropriate treatment (ie CBT in most cases).
RE: Perhaps it’s time for a more nuanced, psychologically-based diagnostic system to adopted by mental health professionals, one that doesn’t medicalize issues and turn every emotional concern into a problem that has to be labeled and medicated.
Without that, how will the mental-health industry (and yes, I wrote that correctly) make money?
There can’t be enough differentiation, if there is, at the same time, an opposing movement towards integration. Only that way, professionals will one day discover the true causes of all the seemingly different mental illnesses — and what to do about it.
I think that the WHO’s definition of health allows the overdiagnosis at the first place: “Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.”
The people who write it can do something about keeping diagnosis useful and reasonable. I completely agree with: “Perhaps it’s time for a more nuanced, psychologically-based diagnostic system …”
July/30/2010
I think that most normal people are too much egotistical to accpet the reality that they miss-diagnosed many pacients fo having cronic mental illness when in reality those paciente where highly academic university functional successfull graduates at bacherleratte degree level.
It appears that for security reaosns ( the government Ãs afraid the an avalanch of radical-revoluntional movement of masses of mental pacientes that are victums of miss-diagnosis would go wild if the governmente revealed the truth that there are about 10% percent of proesionals employees of many important businesses that are successful profesionals individuales with themself being mental pacients).
ummm. Many many people in the mental health field (probably most) have or have had mental health disorders. My therapist even admitted that she has OCD as well. That’s why they go into the field. However, the DSM criteria are based on Research, not personal experience.
Also, being a “highly academic university functional successful graduate” does NOT mean that they can’t have even severe mental health problems. I successfully completed a couple of semesters of college while severely depressed and had panic disorder. I know several people who have Bipolar disorder and are in med school. Some people can compensate.
I believe that there is a real concern over too many diagnosis for one patient. I was actually diagnosed as having a “facticious disorder” by a doctor who saw me ONCE and only read my last discharge summary from the hospital. The nurses had no problem reaffirming my own diagnosis of PTSD- they saw the full picture. I believe that a diagnosis need to be made only after careful investigation.
For the insurance companies can’t we use a “differentional diagnosis” like they do when trying to rule out issues? Some Dx cling to a patient and result in errors down the line; While I understand DSM V to better classify disorders- how many people actually READ all the different classifications that have been updated?
I think there is too much over diagnosing going on just for the sake of getting the insurance companies money. I just finished my 3rd psychology course. The instructor is a Dr. and she told the class that she Has to assign some type of mental disorder to every patient that pays with insurance, because it is the only way the insurance will pay for the therapy sessions. That is a very good indicator that over diagnosis is a serious problem within the mental health industry.
I remember when the DSM 3 was published, It was widely considered to have been an exercise in getting medical aid to people who otherwise were not eligible due to a lack of a consistent diagnostic crieria recognised by the HMO’s in the USA. Apparently the reasoning went: 1. there is no consistent diagnostic criteria (ignoring ICD)so no funding for care/hospitalisation
2. establish criteria so that people can receive treatment.
3. Diagnostic criteria established (so simply said) and funding bodies had a term to put in their forms. With a criteria and a diagnostic label,an average length of time and treatment patterns established so average length of stay or treatment established and set.
4. establish costs
5. now know what to charge, open the doors to people with a diagnosed mental illness, HMO’s pay fees and everyone is supposedly better off. hmmmm.
It has opened the doors to increased diagnosing not necessarily more accurate diagnosis. We still lack a predictive diagnostic criteria or knowledge ie fall out of tree, land at such a speed and angle and break ones arm … not so for any of the mental illnesses. Mental Health Professionals need to get to know the client, spend time with them and have an attitude of being curious not judgemental, and then we can establish behaviours and attitudes that negatively affect someones life – not a diagnosis but an indicator (signs & symptoms as we nurses say)that can lead to a diagnosis. Then of course diagnosis remains fluid often but the symptoms are treated and the person can work towards recovery.
I find it offensive that the author would equate mental disorders created by a DSM committee to diseases like Ebola and measles in the ICD-10. Those diseases have a clear mechanism, because we took the time to find the mechanism we can search for an effective treatment. DSM rarely includes a mechanism.
At this point we don’t understand much about how the human brain works. Even the much simpler brain of the drosophila is still being decoded. You can’t fix the brain if you don’t know how it works. In fact, you can’t even be sure that what you are calling a disorder is not just something you don’t understand.
Workgroups are Worthless. I have been given a plethora of diagnoses over the years, some of which included “perfectly normal”. My problem has always been insomnia. I have gone to psychiatrists Therapists and Primary Care Physicians. I have been diagnosed with and treated with medication for Bipolar, Depression, Anxiety, PTSD and GAD.
These psychoactive drugs are nasty. One adverse reaction almost killed me. I finally found out how to treat my insomnia effectively with a specific recipe of lifestyle changes and carefully orchestrated cues to encourage my pineal gland to regulate on a 24 hour sleep/wake cycle. It’s complicated but I found that I am just a sensitive person and man-made light and technology really throw off my circadian rhythms.
My point: I am a healthy individual with no mental illness yet I have been diagnosed as mentally ill repeatedly throughout my lifetime; WITH DIFFERENT MENTAL ILLNESSES!
Now I can’t be normal and have several mental illnesses at the same time. So I know personally that this mental health system is entirely faulty.
Comments are closed.