Sharp Brains: Brain Fitness and Cognitive Health News

Neuroplasticity, Brain Fitness and Cognitive Health News

Icon

Shall we question the brand new book of human troubles

With three years still left until pub­li­ca­tion, the fights over the new ver­sion of the psy­chi­atric diag­nos­tic man­u­al, the DSM-V, are hot­ting up and The New York Times has a bookcon­cise arti­cle that cov­ers most of the main point of con­tention.

- “What you have in the end,  Mr. Short­er said, “is this process of sort­ing the deck of symp­toms into syn­dromes, and the out­come all depends on how the cards fall.

- Psy­chi­a­trists involved in prepar­ing the new man­u­al con­tend that it is too ear­ly to say for sure which cards will be added and which dropped.

Although I doubt the DSM com­mit­tee are using that exact metaphor, it cer­tain­ly illus­trates the point that the process requires a cer­tain degree of val­ue-judge­ment.

It’s inter­est­ing, how­ev­er, that the pub­lic debate is cur­rent­ly focused on whether cer­tain diag­noses should be includ­ed or not, rather than whether diag­no­sis itself is use­ful for psy­chi­a­try.

We’ve had psy­cho­met­rics for a good 100 years that allow us to mea­sure dimen­sions of human expe­ri­ence and per­for­mance with a much greater degree of accu­ra­cy than clin­i­cal diag­no­sis allows.

The slight­ly obses­sive need to clas­si­fy every­thing is both an inher­i­tance from the infec­tion mod­el of dis­ease, where one either has the pathogen or does not, and is encour­aged by the US health care sys­tem, where insur­ance com­pa­nies will only pay for treat­ment if it is diag­nosed with an ‘offi­cial’ diag­no­sis.

Nev­er­the­less, it is per­fect­ly pos­si­ble to treat some­one based on con­tin­u­ous mea­sures of dis­tress, impair­ment and func­tion­ing using evi­dence-based cut-off points to judge whether a par­tic­u­lar treat­ment should be applied.

In fact, many phys­i­cal dis­eases are treat­ed in exact­ly this way. The def­i­n­i­tions of obe­si­ty, hyper­ten­sion, dia­betes and many oth­ers rely on an evi­dence-based cut-off point on a con­tin­u­ous scale of weight, blood pres­sure and blood glu­cose lev­el.

There is no qual­i­ta­tive­ly dif­fer­ent cut-and-dry dis­tinc­tion between just below the cut-off and just above it — it’s just the point at which out­come stud­ies pre­dict that oth­er things get much worse.

So rather than ques­tion­ing the process, we need also to ques­tion the sys­tem, because diag­noses are tools and we need to know when and where they are most use­ful.

Link to NYT ‘Psy­chi­a­trists Revise the Book of Human Trou­bles’.

Mind Hacks Vaughan BellDr. Vaugh­an Bell, main blog­ger at Mind Hacks, is a clin­i­cal and research psy­chol­o­gist inter­est­ed in under­stand­ing brain injury, men­tal dis­tress and psy­cho­log­i­cal impair­ment. He is cur­rent­ly at the Depart­men­to de Psiquia­tria in the Uni­ver­si­dad de Antio­quia and the Hos­pi­tal Uni­ver­si­tario San Vicente de Paul, in Medellin, Colom­bia, where he’s a vis­it­ing pro­fes­sor. He’s also a vis­it­ing research fel­low at the Depart­ment of Clin­i­cal Neu­ro­science at the Insti­tute of Psy­chi­a­try, King’s Col­lege Lon­don.

Leave a Reply...

Loading Facebook Comments ...

One Response

  1. Gregory says:

    Impor­tant top­ic.

    Diagnosis’s too often resem­ble a sentencing,…condemning a per­son to a sta­t­ic con­di­tion. Where in real­i­ty, noth­ing in life is sta­t­ic, espe­cial­ly the human mind.

    It can some­times be a sim­ple mat­ter of mak­ing a sub­tle yet pow­er­ful shift in lan­guage. IE instead of stat­ing that some­one is (insert diag­no­sis here), it is much more accu­rate and less con­fin­ing to say that a per­son has a spe­cif­ic degree of (insert con­di­tion here).

    After all nobody is their condition…although many peo­ple end up iden­ti­fy­ing with ill­ness the way diag­no­sis are cur­rent­ly giv­en.

    Thanks for excel­lent arti­cle.

Leave a Reply

Categories: Health & Wellness

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,