Analysis & commentary independent review of social and population variation in mental health could improve diagnosis in DSM revisions

Helena Hansen, Zoe Donaldson, Bruce G. Link, Peter S. Bearman, Kim Hopper, Lisa M. Bates, Keely Cheslack-Postava, Kristin Harper, Seth M. Holmes, Gina Lovasi, Kristen W. Springer, Julien O. Teitler

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Abstract

    At stake in the May 2013 publication of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), are billions of dollars in insurance payments and government resources, as well as the diagnoses and treatment of millions of patients. We argue that the most recent revision process has missed social determinants of mental health disorders and their diagnosis: environmental factors triggering biological responses that manifest themselves inbehavior; differing cultural perceptions about what is normal and what is abnormal behavior; and institutional pressures related to such matters as insurance reimbursements, disability benefits, and pharmaceutical marketing. In addition, the experts charged with revising the DSM lack a systematic way to take population-level variations in diagnoses into account. To address these problems, we propose the creation of an independent research review body that would monitor variations in diagnostic patterns, inform future DSM revisions, identify needed changes inmental health policy and practice, and recommend new avenues of research. Drawing on the best available knowledge, the review body would make possible more precise and equitable psychiatric diagnoses and interventions.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    Pages (from-to)984-993
    Number of pages10
    JournalHealth Affairs
    Volume32
    Issue number5
    DOIs
    StatePublished - May 2013

    Fingerprint

    Mental Health
    Mental Disorders
    Disability Insurance
    Social Determinants of Health
    Population
    Biological Factors
    Health Policy
    Marketing
    Insurance
    Research
    Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
    Publications
    Pressure
    Pharmaceutical Preparations
    Therapeutics

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Health Policy

    Cite this

    Hansen, H., Donaldson, Z., Link, B. G., Bearman, P. S., Hopper, K., Bates, L. M., ... Teitler, J. O. (2013). Analysis & commentary independent review of social and population variation in mental health could improve diagnosis in DSM revisions. Health Affairs, 32(5), 984-993. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0596

    Analysis & commentary independent review of social and population variation in mental health could improve diagnosis in DSM revisions. / Hansen, Helena; Donaldson, Zoe; Link, Bruce G.; Bearman, Peter S.; Hopper, Kim; Bates, Lisa M.; Cheslack-Postava, Keely; Harper, Kristin; Holmes, Seth M.; Lovasi, Gina; Springer, Kristen W.; Teitler, Julien O.

    In: Health Affairs, Vol. 32, No. 5, 05.2013, p. 984-993.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Hansen, H, Donaldson, Z, Link, BG, Bearman, PS, Hopper, K, Bates, LM, Cheslack-Postava, K, Harper, K, Holmes, SM, Lovasi, G, Springer, KW & Teitler, JO 2013, 'Analysis & commentary independent review of social and population variation in mental health could improve diagnosis in DSM revisions', Health Affairs, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 984-993. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0596
    Hansen, Helena ; Donaldson, Zoe ; Link, Bruce G. ; Bearman, Peter S. ; Hopper, Kim ; Bates, Lisa M. ; Cheslack-Postava, Keely ; Harper, Kristin ; Holmes, Seth M. ; Lovasi, Gina ; Springer, Kristen W. ; Teitler, Julien O. / Analysis & commentary independent review of social and population variation in mental health could improve diagnosis in DSM revisions. In: Health Affairs. 2013 ; Vol. 32, No. 5. pp. 984-993.
    @article{6a705612c3f94195bcbb282196d0251e,
    title = "Analysis & commentary independent review of social and population variation in mental health could improve diagnosis in DSM revisions",
    abstract = "At stake in the May 2013 publication of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), are billions of dollars in insurance payments and government resources, as well as the diagnoses and treatment of millions of patients. We argue that the most recent revision process has missed social determinants of mental health disorders and their diagnosis: environmental factors triggering biological responses that manifest themselves inbehavior; differing cultural perceptions about what is normal and what is abnormal behavior; and institutional pressures related to such matters as insurance reimbursements, disability benefits, and pharmaceutical marketing. In addition, the experts charged with revising the DSM lack a systematic way to take population-level variations in diagnoses into account. To address these problems, we propose the creation of an independent research review body that would monitor variations in diagnostic patterns, inform future DSM revisions, identify needed changes inmental health policy and practice, and recommend new avenues of research. Drawing on the best available knowledge, the review body would make possible more precise and equitable psychiatric diagnoses and interventions.",
    author = "Helena Hansen and Zoe Donaldson and Link, {Bruce G.} and Bearman, {Peter S.} and Kim Hopper and Bates, {Lisa M.} and Keely Cheslack-Postava and Kristin Harper and Holmes, {Seth M.} and Gina Lovasi and Springer, {Kristen W.} and Teitler, {Julien O.}",
    year = "2013",
    month = "5",
    doi = "10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0596",
    language = "English (US)",
    volume = "32",
    pages = "984--993",
    journal = "Health Affairs",
    issn = "0278-2715",
    publisher = "Project Hope",
    number = "5",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Analysis & commentary independent review of social and population variation in mental health could improve diagnosis in DSM revisions

    AU - Hansen, Helena

    AU - Donaldson, Zoe

    AU - Link, Bruce G.

    AU - Bearman, Peter S.

    AU - Hopper, Kim

    AU - Bates, Lisa M.

    AU - Cheslack-Postava, Keely

    AU - Harper, Kristin

    AU - Holmes, Seth M.

    AU - Lovasi, Gina

    AU - Springer, Kristen W.

    AU - Teitler, Julien O.

    PY - 2013/5

    Y1 - 2013/5

    N2 - At stake in the May 2013 publication of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), are billions of dollars in insurance payments and government resources, as well as the diagnoses and treatment of millions of patients. We argue that the most recent revision process has missed social determinants of mental health disorders and their diagnosis: environmental factors triggering biological responses that manifest themselves inbehavior; differing cultural perceptions about what is normal and what is abnormal behavior; and institutional pressures related to such matters as insurance reimbursements, disability benefits, and pharmaceutical marketing. In addition, the experts charged with revising the DSM lack a systematic way to take population-level variations in diagnoses into account. To address these problems, we propose the creation of an independent research review body that would monitor variations in diagnostic patterns, inform future DSM revisions, identify needed changes inmental health policy and practice, and recommend new avenues of research. Drawing on the best available knowledge, the review body would make possible more precise and equitable psychiatric diagnoses and interventions.

    AB - At stake in the May 2013 publication of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), are billions of dollars in insurance payments and government resources, as well as the diagnoses and treatment of millions of patients. We argue that the most recent revision process has missed social determinants of mental health disorders and their diagnosis: environmental factors triggering biological responses that manifest themselves inbehavior; differing cultural perceptions about what is normal and what is abnormal behavior; and institutional pressures related to such matters as insurance reimbursements, disability benefits, and pharmaceutical marketing. In addition, the experts charged with revising the DSM lack a systematic way to take population-level variations in diagnoses into account. To address these problems, we propose the creation of an independent research review body that would monitor variations in diagnostic patterns, inform future DSM revisions, identify needed changes inmental health policy and practice, and recommend new avenues of research. Drawing on the best available knowledge, the review body would make possible more precise and equitable psychiatric diagnoses and interventions.

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84877989709&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84877989709&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0596

    DO - 10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0596

    M3 - Article

    VL - 32

    SP - 984

    EP - 993

    JO - Health Affairs

    JF - Health Affairs

    SN - 0278-2715

    IS - 5

    ER -