Patient Involvement in the Development of DSM-V

RDoC, Psychopathology, and Naturalism: What’s New Is What’s Old?

The Research Domain Criteria project, although innovative, remains thoroughly grounded in a naturalist conception of psychopathology. Exploring the meaning of psychopathology with reference to social categories such as race and gender makes it apparent that, by taking this naturalist approach, Research Domain Criteria runs the risk of treating contingent social norms as immutable facts of nature. The political impact of this approach is inherently conservative as it perpetuates the status quo, even if the status quo entails discrimination. These political effects are not an inevitable outcome of the application of neuroscience to the study of psychopathology. Exploring the implications of neuroplasticity demonstrates that maintaining rigid dichotomies between the biological and the social is untenable. Accordingly, taking a neuroscience approach to psychopathology actually reveals the significance of social science, phenomenological, and narrative-based approaches to research and ultimately points toward the ethical significance of service user participation in the science of nosology.

Values and DSM-5: looking at the debate on attenuated psychosis syndrome

Background

Although values have increasingly received attention in psychiatric literature over the last three decades, their role has been only partially acknowledged in psychiatric classification endeavors. The review process of the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) received harsh criticism, and was even considered secretive by some authors. Also, it lacked an official discussion of values at play. In this perspective paper we briefly discuss the interplay of some values in the scientific and non-scientific debate around one of the most debated DSM-5 category proposals, the Attenuated Psychosis Syndrome (APS). Then, we point out some ethical consequences of a facts-plus-values perspective in psychiatric classification.

Discussion

Different stakeholders participated in the APS-debate and for analytical purposes we divided them into four groups: (i) researchers in the field of high-risk mental states; (ii) the DSM-5 Psychotic Disorders Work Group; (iii) patient, carers and advocacy groups; and (iv) external stakeholders, not related to the previous groups, but which also publicly expressed their opinions about APS inclusion in DSM-5. We found that each group differently stressed the role of values we examined in the APS-debate. These values were ethical, but also epistemic, political, economic and ontological. The prominence given to some values, and the lack of discussion about others, generated divergent positions among stakeholders in the debate.

Summary

As exemplified by the APS discussion, although medicine is primarily an ethical endeavor, values of different kinds that take part in it also shape to a large extent the profession. Thus, it may be strategic to openly discuss values at play in the elaboration of diagnostic tools and classificatory systems. This task, more than scientifically or politically significant, is ethically important.

Patient advocacy and DSM-5

The revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) provides a useful opportunity to revisit debates about the nature of psychiatric classification. An important debate concerns the involvement of mental health consumers in revisions of the classification. One perspective argues that psychiatric classification is a scientific process undertaken by scientific experts and that including consumers in the revision process is merely pandering to political correctness. A contrasting perspective is that psychiatric classification is a process driven by a range of different values and that the involvement of patients and patient advocates would enhance this process. Here we draw on our experiences with input from the public during the deliberations of the Obsessive Compulsive-Spectrum Disorders subworkgroup of DSM-5, to help make the argument that psychiatric classification does require reasoned debate on a range of different facts and values, and that it is appropriate for scientist experts to review their nosological recommendations in the light of rigorous consideration of patient experience and feedback.

Considering DSM-5: the personal experience of schizophrenia in relation to the DSM-IV-TR criteria

Previous analyses have suggested that the personal experience of schizophrenia might be different from its depiction in the DSM-IV-TR. In this study, 17 people with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder were interviewed about their experiences of the DSM-IV-TR diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia. Descriptive phenomenological analysis was used to analyze the ways in which the personal experiences of the people in this study were similar to or different from the depiction of schizophrenia in the DSM-IV-TR. The personal experience of schizophrenia was similar in some way to each of the five diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia. Participants' personal experiences also went beyond the DSM-IV-TR criteria. Specifically, participants described strong emotional reactions to their symptoms, including fear, sadness, embarrassment, and alienation. Also, participants described intense interest but severe disruptions in goal-directed behavior due to their hallucinations being engrossing, confusing, and distracting. Further, participants described not sharing their experiences in order to avoid social stigma. These findings suggest that the description of schizophrenia in DSM-5 may benefit from a change to DSM-IV-TR criteria to incorporate more of the personal experience of schizophrenia. Further research is needed to establish the representativeness, reliability, and validity of the qualitative findings described here.