Search

Tuesday, April 30, 2019

DSM-5—Long Awaited: Change and Controversy


By: SOPHIA F. DZIEGIELEWSKI

A brief summary of the controversy and changes related to the DSM-5 is provided here.

Similar to previous versions, the American Psychiatric Association continues to develop the DSM to reflect clinical approaches to diagnosis and training. Furthermore, similar to its history, the DSM continues to strive to be compatible with (but not identical to) the issues presented in the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) and, to be preemptive, also includes the codes for the ICD-11 scheduled to be published in 2017.

Prior to the publication of this latest version, DSM-5, criticism remained strong. Debates were extensive about what changes needed to occur. Hoffer (2008) encouraged inclusion of additional supportive information, such as medical and diagnostic tests, that could better clarify the diagnoses identified. Sadler, Fulford, and Phil (2004) requested a more comprehensive approach that would take into account the perspective of patients and their families to support both sound policy and public concerns. Shannon and Heckman (2007) warned about the continued danger of being too quick to “pathologize” behaviors and label them. In the midst of this discussion related to the expected changes, Zachar and Kendler (2007) stated it was probably best to just accept that mental disorders are highly complicated concepts that need to be determined. From this perspective, it becomes possible to accept that some aspects of this mental disorder taxonomy will need to be determined (as opposed to discovered) with practical goals and concerns at the forefront of the diagnostic assessment (Ahn & Kim, 2008). Last were the concerns written in open letters to the APA discussing the long-term hazards that can occur when highlighting neurobiology as the standard basis for treatment, while de-emphasizing sociocultural variations and how they can affect the completion of a comprehensive diagnostic impression.

To support this controversy, Caplan (2012) warned that just having the word statistical in the title could give professionals and the lay public alike a false sense of hope that the professionals who used the book could do so with scientific precision. Because making a mental health diagnosis remains an unregulated diagnostic category, significant differences in professional acumen and judgment would continue. These differences could easily result in differential diagnostic criteria in research and clinical practice and, similar to previous versions of the DSM, could affect problem awareness, knowledge, reporting, and subsequent generalizability of the clinical diagnostic assessments made. Bernstein (2011) questioned how the DSM-5 work groups would recognize the importance of facilitating communication across what could be considered “restrictive diagnostic silos” (p. 29). Yet she remained optimistic that this could be addressed at least to some degree by recognizing the clusters of symptoms that might best characterize what a client is feeling.

Listening carefully to these concerns, the American Psychiatric Association made some significant changes in the DSM-5 to both form and content. Consistent with the professional call for modification, to start this process, major changes were made to the structure and the format of the book, resulting in all chapters being organized in the life span order.

For example, within this new organizational structure, the mental disorders that can occur in infants, children and adolescents are now listed first in each chapter. This led to the elimination of the Child Disorders section outlined in DSM-IV and DSM-IV-TR.

Also, relative to Bernstein’s (2011) request for clustering of symptoms, crosscutting was introduced, where symptoms relative to a closely related disorder could be taken into account without formulating a new diagnostic condition.

In addition, the introduction of the dimensional approach may also help with firming up the diagnosis. This change was one of the revision’s most active debates, as it directly surrounded extending the categorical approach to a more dimensional approach (Helzer et al., 2008). The work groups for DSM-5 hope that the dimensional approach will allow greater flexibility and recognition that mental disorders cannot be easily described by a single diagnostic category (Helzer et al., 2008). Dimensional assessments also appear to permit the practitioner to assess the severity of the symptoms in a particular client while crosscutting or taking into account symptoms relative to a number of different diagnoses that can influence current presentation and behavior.

Despite much controversy, the newest edition of the DSM was unveiled at the APA conference at the end of May 2013 and has been restructured and divided into three sections:

Section One provides an introduction to the manual, some rationale for the changes, and instructions on how to use the updated manual. It is followed by 21 chapters that outline the documented mental disorders found in Section Two (see Quick Reference 1.5). The last section of the manual, Section Three, outlines the conditions that require future research, cultural formulations, and other information.

These proposed revisions within the DSM-5 were supported by a task force of more than 160 world-renowned practitioners and researchers who were selected members of 13 work groups. These work groups reviewed the research literature, consulted with a number of experts, and for the first time sought public comment.

References

SOPHIA F. DZIEGIELEWSK, 2015, DSM-5TM in Action, by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Read Also





Monday, April 29, 2019

Role of Social Workers and Other Mental Health Professional


By: SOPHIA F. DZIEGIELEWSKI

The publisher of the DSM is the American Psychiatric Association, a professional organization in the field of psychiatry. Nevertheless, individuals who are not psychiatrists buy and use the majority of copies. Early in the introductory pages of the book, the authors remind the reader that the book is designed to be utilized by professionals in all areas of mental health,  including psychiatrists, physicians, psychiatric nurses, psychologists, social workers, and other mental health professionals (APA, 2013).

Since there is a need for a system that accurately identifies and classifies biopsychosocial symptoms and for using this classification scheme as a basis for assessing mental health problems, it is no surprise that this book continues to maintain its popularity.

Of the documented 650,500 jobs held by social workers in the United States, more than 57% are in the area of health, mental health, substance abuse, medical social work, and public health, where many are directly involved in the diagnostic process (Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, 2012). When compared with psychiatrists, psychologists, and psychiatric nurses, social workers are the largest group of mental health providers with a significant effect on diagnostic impressions related to the current and continued mental health of all clients served.

Mental health practitioners (also referred to as clinicians), such as social workers, are active in clinical assessment and intervention planning. Back as far as 1988, Kutchins and Kirk reported that when they surveyed clinical social workers in the area of mental health, the DSM was the publication used most often.

Furthermore, since all states in the United States and the District of Columbia require some form of licensing, certification, or registration to engage in professional practice as a social worker (Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, 2012), a thorough knowledge of the DSM is considered essential for competent clinical practice.

Because all professionals working in the area of mental health need to be capable of service reimbursement and to be proficient in diagnostic assessment and treatment planning, it is not surprising that the majority of mental health professionals support the use of this manual (Dziegielewski, 2013; Dziegielewski, Johnson, & Webb, 2002). Nevertheless, historically some professionals such as Carlton (1989), a social worker, questioned this choice. Carlton believed that all health and mental health intervention needed to go beyond the traditional bounds of simply diagnosing a clients mental health condition.

From this perspective, social, situational, and environmental factors were considered key ingredients for addressing client problems. To remain consistent with the person-in-situation stance, utilizing the DSM as the path of least resistance might lead to a largely successful fightyet would it win the war? Carlton, along with other professionals of his time, feared that the battle was being fought on the wrong battlefield and advocated a more comprehensive system of reimbursement that took into account environmental aspects.

Questions raised include:


How is the DSM used?
Is it actually used to direct clinical interventions in clinical practice?Or
Is the focus and use of the manual primarily limited

To ensuring third-party reimbursements, qualifying for agency service, or avoiding a diagnostic label? Psychiatrists and psychologists also questioned how the DSM serves clients in terms of clinical utility (First & Westen, 2007; Hoffer, 2008).

Concerns evolved that clients were not always given diagnoses based on diagnostic criteria and that the diagnostic labels assigned were connected to unrelated factors, such as individual clinical judgment or simply to secure reimbursement. These concerns related directly to professional misconduct caused ethical and legal dilemmas that affected billable and nonbillable conditions that had intended and unintended consequences for clients.

To complicate the situation further, to provide the most relevant and affordable services, many health care insurers require a diagnostic code. This can be problematic, from a social work perspective, when the assistance needed to improve mental health functioning may rest primarily in providing family support or working to increase support systems within the environment. The DSM is primarily descriptive, with little if any attempt to look at underlying causes (Sommers-Flanagan & Sommers-Flanagan,2007).

Therefore, some mental health professionals are pressured to pick the most severe diagnosis so their clients could qualify for agency services or insurance reimbursement. This is further complicated by just the opposite trend, assigning the least severe diagnosis to avoid stigmatizing and labeling (Feisthamel & Schwartz, 2009).

According to Braun and Cox (2005), serious ethical violations can be included, such as asking a client to collude with the assigning ofmental disorders diagnosis for services. A client agreeing to this type of practice may be completely unaware of the long-term consequences this misdiagnosis can have regarding present, continued, and future employment, as well as health, mental health, life, and other insurance services or premiums.

Regardless of the reasoning or intent, erroneous diagnoses can harm the clients we serve as well as the professionals who serve them (Feisthamel & Schwartz, 2009). How can professionals be trusted, if this type of behavior is engaged in? It is easy to see how such practices can raise issues related to the ethical and legal aspects that come with intentional misdiagnosing. These practices violate various aspects of the principles of ethical practice in the mental health profession.

Although use of the DSM is clearly evident in mental health practice, some professionals continue to question whether it is being utilized properly. For some, such as social workers, the controversy over using this system for diagnostic assessments remains. Regardless of the controversy in mental health practice and application, the continued popularity of the DSM makes it the most frequently used publication in the field of mental health. One consistent theme in using this manual with which most professionals agree is that no single diagnostic system is completely acceptable to all. Some skepticism and questioning of the appropriateness of the function of the DSM is useful. 

This, along with recognizing and questioning the changes and the updates needed, makes the DSM a vibrant and emerging document reflective of the times. One point most professionals can agree on is that an accurate, well-defined, and relevant diagnostic label needs to reach beyond ensuring service reimbursement.

Knowledge of how to properly use the manual is needed. In addition, to discourage abuse, there must also be knowledge, concern, and continued professional debate about the appropriateness and the utility of certain diagnostic categories.

References

SOPHIA F. DZIEGIELEWSK, 2015, DSM-5TM in Action, by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Read Also



Making the Diagnostic Assessment

TOOLS THAT FACILITATE THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS

By: SOPHIA F. DZIEGIELEWSKI

Few professionals would debate that the most commonly used and accepted sources of diagnostic criteria are the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5 ) and the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Edition (ICD-10 ) or the International Classification of Diseases(ICD-11).

Across the continents, especially in the United States, these books are considered reflective of the official nomenclature designed to better understand mental health phenomena and are used in most health-related facilities.

The DSM-5 (American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013) is the most current version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association (APA), which replaced the DSM-IV-TR (APA, 2000).

Today, the DSM has similarities to the criteria listed in the ICD in terms of diagnostic codes and the billing categories; however, this was not always the case. In the late 1980s, it was not unusual to hear complaints from other clinicians related to having to use the ICD for clarity in billing while referring to the DSM for clarity of the diagnostic criteria.

Psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, and mental health technicians often complained about the lack of clarity and uniformity of criteria in both of these texts. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that later versions of these texts responded to the professional dissatisfaction over the disparity between the two texts, as well as the clarity of the diagnostic criteria.

To facilitate practice utility, the DSM-5, like its previous versions, serves as a crosswalk between the two books, utilizing the criteria from the DSM to facilitate forming the diagnostic impression and utilizing the ICD for billing. Balancing the use of these two books is essential in formulating a comprehensive diagnostic assessment. Use of these two books, clearly relating them to each other with their closely related criteria and descriptive classification systems, crosses all theoretical orientations.

Historically, most practitioners are knowledgeable about both books, but the DSM is often the focus and has gained the greatest popularity in the United States, making it the resource tool most often used by psychiatrists, psychologists, psychiatric nurses, social workers, and other mental health professionals.

References

SOPHIA F. DZIEGIELEWSK, 2015, DSM-5TM in Action, by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Read Also

A Combination Approach: The Diagnostic Assessment

Sunday, April 28, 2019

Diversity and the Interviewing Process


By: Daniel L. Segal, Andrea June, and Meghan A. Marty

Culture refers to a common sense of beliefs, norms, and values among a group of people. Culture impacts whether individuals seek help, what type of help they seek, what types of coping styles and social support are available, and how much stigma is attached to mental illness (US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), 2001).

The main purposes of a diagnostic interview are to establish a therapeutic relationship with the client and to begin to formulate a clinical diagnosis. Failing to consider issues of diversity can negatively impact both the relationship and the diagnosis, which can ultimately reduce the effectiveness of psychotherapy.

Diversity, as it is discussed here, includes all aspects of cultural identity such as age, gender, geographic location, physical ability, race and ethnicity, religious preference, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status. Consideration of cultural issues is particularly important given the increasing diversity of the United States and the likelihood of clinicians encountering clients from cultural backgrounds different from their own, sometimes markedly so. Three major domains of cultural competence are

(1) Awareness of one’s own assumptions, values, and biases,
(2) Understanding the worldview of culturally diverse clients, and
(3) Knowledge of culturally appropriate intervention strategies and techniques (Sue & Sue, 2008).

Next, we briefly touch upon each of these domains with the caveat that this section provides a general overview of the issues and therefore is not intended to provide the necessary background material for clinicians to adequately assess clients from different cultural groups.

Impact of Diversity on the Therapeutic Relationship

As we have highlighted earlier, a good working alliance is crucial for psychotherapy to be effective. Particularly during the first few sessions, clinicians must create good rapport and establish their credibility in a way that is sensitive to the client’s culture.
It is important to determine external factors related to the presenting problem for clients who have suffered from discrimination such as racism and sexism, in some cases for many years. Finally, assessing the positive assets of culturally diverse clients, such as family, community resources, and religious organizations is essential as well.



Dana (2002) describes a process by which African-American clients may “size up” a mental health clinician, and suggests that African Americans look for signs of genuineness, authenticity, and approachability in mental health clinicians. Individuals from other racial or ethnic groups may find it important to maintain formality with professional helpers.

The clinical and diagnostic interview is often a client’s first experience with the mental health-care system; therefore, it may be necessary to spend time during the interview exploring the client’s expectations regarding psychotherapy. For instance, different meanings for the term clinician can be found across different cultural groups, ranging from physician, to medicine man/woman, to folk healer (Paniagua, 2005).

Understanding the client’s definition of clinician will enhance the clinician’s ability to help the client manage his or her problem. The field of psychology can function as a culture since it provides a lens for viewing the world. Clinicians must be aware of the assumptions and biases of diagnosis and treatment in the practice of traditional psychology.

Sue and Sue (2008) describe several culture-bound values of psychology including: focus on the individual; preference for verbal, emotional, behavioral expressiveness; insight; self-disclosure; scientific empiricism; distinctions between mental and physical functioning; ambiguity; and patterns of communication. Nonverbal communication, such as bodily movements (e.g., eye contact, facial expression, posture), the use and perception of personal and interpersonal space, and vocal cues (e.g., loudness of voice, pauses, rate, inflection) can vary depending on cultural factors (Sue & Sue, 2008).

Clinicians should be aware of their own communication style and anticipate how it may affect clients with a different communication style. To facilitate rapport with clients of a different culture, it may be helpful for clinicians to match the client’s rhythm and pace of speech, maximize awareness of their comfort level with eye contact and physical distance, show respect for hierarchy in the family and extended family, and use appropriate metaphors and symbols (Ingram, 2006).

Adjustments can be made to the interview that may help to increase the comfort level of the client and serve to strengthen the therapeutic relationship. For example, clients with a visual impairment may require large print questionnaires and informed consent forms. Alternatively, the clinician could offer to read printed materials aloud. Hearing amplifiers can be offered to those clients with a hearing impairment. Interpreters can be used when the clinician and client do not share the same language. An interpreter can help to facilitate a client’s sense of belonging at the treatment site, as well as increase client trust in the clinician and the psychotherapeutic process (Paone & Malott, 2008). Professional interpreters should have training in mental health. Due to privacy and confidentiality concerns, use of a client’s family member as an interpreter for psychotherapy is generally not recommended (Paone & Malott, 2008; Sue & Sue, 2008).

Modifications in the diagnostic interview may also include clinicians being more flexible in their role and shifting the traditional boundaries of “clinician.” For example, for a client who has difficulty getting to the mental health clinic because of lack of transportation, the clinician may conduct the interview outside of the office, such as in the client’s home or another convenient location. Having a more active style by offering concrete advice and assistance may be necessary, such as providing information on obtaining social services if they are needed by the client. Consulting family members and paraprofessionals or folk healers may be appropriate in some cases in order to better understand the struggles of culturally diverse clients (Paniagua, 2005).

Impact of Diversity on Clinical Diagnosis

Clinicians must be sensitive to cultural issues not only to more effectively establish a therapeutic relationship, but also because of the impact of diversity on clinical diagnosis. An accurate diagnosis is essential, as it facilitates communication, dictates the nature of treatment, and provides an indication of the likely prognosis and course of the disorder (Segal & Coolidge, 2001).

During the clinical interview, clinicians use the client’s description of the frequency, intensity, and duration of the symptoms; signs from a mental status examination; and the clinician’s own observations and judgment of the client’s behavior to determine a formal diagnosis of a mental disorder. The final diagnosis depends on the clinician’s belief about whether the client’s signs, symptom patterns, and impairment of functioning meet criteria for a given diagnosis, as set forth by the American Psychiatric Association (APA, 2000) in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

Although the symptoms of mental disorders are found worldwide, diagnosis can be challenging because the manifestations of mental disorders vary with age, gender, race, ethnicity, and culture (DHHS, 2001). Culture can account for variation in the ways in which clients communicate their symptoms, which symptoms they report, and the meanings they attach to mental illness.

Clinicians who are unfamiliar with a client’s frame of reference may incorrectly diagnose as psychopathology variations in behavior, belief, or experience that are particular to and normative within the client’s culture. For example, speaking in tongues, hearing the voice of God, or witnessing spiritual beings should probably not be considered pathological for individuals from certain religious communities, whereas it may be considered a problem from someone who is nonreligious (Johnson & Friedman, 2008). Some have suggested that the use of structured and semi-structured interviews can reduce clinician bias with regard to diagnosis (Aklin & Turner, 2006).

The most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR; APA, 2000) provides an outline designed to assist clinicians with developing a culturally appropriate clinical formulation. Clinicians are encouraged to explore and provide a narrative summary for each of five categories, which include:

1. Cultural identity of the client: ethnic or cultural reference groups, degree of involvement with both culture of origin and host culture, language abilities, use, and preference.

2. Cultural explanations of the client’s illness: predominant idioms of distress, meaning and perceived severity of symptoms in relation to norms of cultural group, local illness category used to identify the condition, perceived causes of the illness, preference for and past experience with sources of care.

3. Cultural factors related to psychosocial environment and levels of functioning: culturally relevant interpretations of social stressors, available social supports, levels of functioning and disability.

4. Cultural elements of the relationship between the client and the clinician: differences in culture and social status between the client and the clinician and the problems that these differences may cause in diagnosis and treatment.

5. Overall cultural assessment for diagnosis and care: discussion of how cultural considerations influence diagnosis and care.


The guidelines are meant to “supplement the multi-axial diagnostic assessment and to address difficulties that may be encountered in applying DSM-IV criteria in a multicultural environment” (APA, 2000, p. 897). The DSM-IV-TR also provides a glossary of 30 culture-bound syndromes, which are “localized, folk, diagnostic categories” generally limited to specific societies or cultures and may or may not be linked to a specific diagnostic category (APA, 2000, p. 898). Becoming familiar with the categories listed in the glossary can assist clinicians with recognizing culture-specific conditions that may be apparent in an intake interview and integrated into a diagnostic formulation.



Appraisal of client’s cultural background should be a standard part of any clinical or diagnostic interview. However, a word of caution with regard to issues of diversity: “Although it is critical for clinicians to have a basic understanding of the generic characteristics of counseling and psychotherapy and the culture-specific life values of different groups, overgeneralizing and stereotyping are ever-present dangers” (Sue & Sue, 2008, p. 154). While generalizations are guidelines for behaviors, they should be tentatively applied in new situations and open to change and challenge (Sue & Sue, 2008).

In addition, because each person has multiple identity dimensions, clinicians should be cognizant of the many within-group differences that can exist between members of a cultural group, which can sometimes outnumber the between-group differences. For example, differences between individuals considered to be in the same racial or ethnic group can be due to any number of factors, such as varying national origin, socioeconomic class, level of acculturation, age, or gender, to name a few.

Moreover, clinicians should not automatically assume that the problems of culturally diverse clients are necessarily related to cultural experiences or background. For example, it would be erroneous to assume that an 85-year old-client is depressed because of age alone.

Readers are encouraged to consult a number of sources that cover issues of diversity more comprehensively: DHHS (2001); Paniagua (2005); Pedersen, Draguns, Lonner, and Trimble (2008); and Sue and Sue (2008).

References

Daniel L. Segal and Michel Hersen, Diagnostic Interviewing, Fourth Edition, 2010, Springer

Read Also

The International Classification of Diseases (ICD)
Creating Cultural Competence in Practitioners
Culture, Ethnicity, and Race