Search results

We sought to evaluate the capacity of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) in discriminating mental disorders other than depression in pregnant women in northern Mexico. Three hundred pregnant women attending prenatal consultations in a public hospital in Durango City, Mexico submitted a validated EPDS and were examined for mental disorders other than depression using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - 4th Ed. (DSM-IV) criteria. Sensitivity and specificity of cut-off points of the EPDS, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated. Of the 300 pregnant women studied, 21 had mental disorders other than depression by the DSM-IV criteria. The best EPDS score for screening mental disorders other than depression was 8/9. This threshold showed a sensitivity of 52.4%, a specificity of 67.0%, a positive predictive value of 11.5%, a negative predictive value of 95.4%, and an area under the curve of 0.643 (95% confidence interval: 0.52-0.76). The EPDS can be considered for screening mental disorders other than depression in Mexican pregnant women whenever a cut-off score of 8/9 is used. However, the tool showed small power to separate pregnant women with and without mental disorders other than depression.

Consideration is given to the extent to which the DSM and ICD approach to psychiatric case definition and treatment supports clinical activity. Their validity as a way of defining ‘mental illness’ is found wanting and they do not, in themselves, usefully guide treatment. These conclusions are set in a critical realist approach to ‘mental illness’, which draws attention to the legitimacy of several differing perspectives, each reflecting their own sets of interests and allegiances. DSM‐V and ICD‐11 are due to be published in 2012 and 2014 respectively, and their architects are called upon to be clear about which of these constituencies they are representing.

The purpose of this paper is to determine: the extent to which an intellectual disability diagnosis meets current diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM) diagnostic criteria; the prevalence of reported autism spectrum disorders (ASD); and the extent to which assessment of developmental issues is central to the diagnosis of psychotic disorder, in patients discharged with a diagnosis of psychotic disorder and intellectual disabilities.

Of all patients discharged with psychotic disorder during a four‐year period (n=3339), chart reviews were completed on those also diagnosed with intellectual disability or borderline IQ.

The findings if this paper are threefold: only 39 percent of the 41 individuals discharged with a diagnosis of psychotic disorder and intellectual disability met documented DSM criteria for intellectual disability; the prevalence of reported ASD was much lower than expected; and the average number of different discharge diagnoses per individual over time was 4.8. Schizophrenia diagnoses were made early in the diagnostic process and tended to persist even when ASD concerns were documented.

The results support the need to systematically assess the developmental issues of patients with intellectual disability as part of the psychiatric diagnostic formulation. Differential diagnoses of psychotic‐like behaviours seen in people with intellectual disability, and alternative frameworks for understanding these behaviours, which in turn should guide more effective interventions and treatment, are discussed.

To examine how clinicians navigate providing treatment to Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) in the context of the DSM 5, deinstitutionalization, and the biomedical model.

We conducted 39 interviews with mental health providers in the United States in a two-year period preceding and following the release of the DSM 5. Using Constructivist Grounded Theory, we analyzed the data for themes that emerged.

Clinicians faced pressures from insurance companies, the DSM categories, and their professional training to focus on biomedical treatments. These treatments, which emphasized pharmaceuticals and short courses of care, were ill-suited to BPD, which has a strong evidence base recommending long-term therapeutic interventions. We term this contradiction a “biomedical mismatch” and use Gidden’s concept of structuration to better understand how clinicians navigate the system of care. Providers ranged in their responses to the mismatch: some championed biomedicine, others were complicit, and a final group behaved as activists, challenging the paradigm. The sum of the strategies had downstream effects which included crisis reinstitutionalization and a discourse of untreatability. Ultimately, we discuss how social factors such as gender bias, stigma, and trauma are insufficiently represented in the biomedical model of care for BPD.

BPD fits poorly within the biomedical underpinnings of the current system. Accordingly, it illuminates the structuration of health care and where the rules of care break down. More precisely, deinstitutionalization was designed to remove patients from long courses of inpatient care. Many patients with BPD have failed to experience this outcome, with some patients now cycling through long courses of short-term crisis reinstitutionalization instead of having effective outpatient care over long periods. This unintended consequence of deinstitutionalization calls for a more biopsychosocial response to BPD.

In this book it was proposed that autistic females and African American autistics are usually not participants in autistic research because they rarely receive an autism diagnosis. If diagnostic services were made more congenial for autistics from these groups, then the prospect of them being diagnosed as autistic and being available to be research participants would increase. To help achieve this outcome, this chapter begins by presenting some typical barriers that autistics encounter when trying to access autism diagnostic services. This is followed by an explanation of some consequences of this exclusion for autistics, their families and the research community. In an attempt to mitigate these consequences, and to increase the pool of potential autistic candidates for research, this chapter concludes with a series of suggestions to improve the public's accessibility to autism diagnostic services as well as suggestions for improving the autism diagnostic process for both children and adults.

The contribution that this chapter makes to the field of autism spectrum research is to provide clinicians with some important concepts that will help autistics feel valued and accepted during the diagnostic process. A potential flow-on effect of this knowledge is that more autistics who have experienced feeling valued and accepted by clinicians will be more inclined to be involved in research.

According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR, American Psychiatric Association (APA), 2000), autistic spectrum disorders (ASD) are a collection of chronic conditions that include Autistic Disorder, Rett's Disorder, Childhood Disintegrative Disorder, Aspeger's Disorder, and Pervasive Developmental Disorder Not Otherwise Specified. Typically, ASD are often identified during infancy or the toddler years. Most individuals with ASD have some degree of mental retardation. According to Deisinger (2001), genetic factors, abnormalities in brain structure and biochemistry, and complications during pregnancy have been implicated as possible causes of these disorders. Generally, students with ASD have difficulties with daily activities such as language, self-care, mobility, and independent functioning. The focus of this chapter examines the many features that must be considered before diagnosing and classifying individuals with ASD.

The 11th revision of the International Classification of diseases which sets global standards for defining, reporting and managing health conditions is under way. The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) underpinning principle of clinical utility is currently poor for persons with Disorders of Intellectual Development (DID) and mental disorders. This impedes access to healthcare resources; services and social inclusion thereby further aggravating their vulnerability. The purpose of this paper is to present a critical overview and evidence informed recommendations within the context of an international collaborative programme, undertaken by the Faculty of Psychiatry of Intellectual Disability, Royal College of Psychiatrists, UK with support from the World Health Organisation (WHO).

The authors carried out: first, a systematic review (SR) of literature, using PRISMA guidelines regarding the reliability, validity and utility of the ICD-10/Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) diagnostic criteria in people with DID (PWDID); second, a national and international consultation exercise with partners, stakeholders and experts; third, a multicentric survey of problem behaviours in PWDID; and finally, information dissemination/dialogues including presentations and workshops at key scientific events, consultation networking, data gathering and consensus building.

The SR revealed a dearth of robust studies – most consisting of weak research methodologies. Significant difficulties were highlighted regarding the application of diagnostic criteria in the current classificatory systems – particularly in people with severe/moderate DID. Recommendations supported the introduction WHERE APPROPRIATE of modifications based on observed phenomena (signs) in PWDID in lieu of reported symptoms to facilitate DIAGNOSIS AND better access to healthcare and the community. Heterogeneity precluded quantitative pooling and meta-analysis. The consensus building exercise globally revealed that problem behaviours were the commonest reasons for referral to healthcare services with significant numbers without a diagnosed mental disorder being prescribed psychoactive medication.

The consensus gathering exercise WAS SELECTIVE AND did not cover all of the 194 member states of WHO due to resource and time constraints and this constitutes the main limitation of our study. Based on the SR and expert consensus, the authors submitted evidence informed pragmatic proposals to the WHO aimed at addressing the shortcomings of the ICD-10. The key recommendations focused on improving clinical utility within the context of epistemic iteration which would consolidate and strengthen the future evidence base. It was also recommended that self-injurious behaviour should form a standalone sub category in view of its relevance for healthcare services and resources which underpin clinical utility.

The ICD-11 is a global, multidisciplinary and multilingual development for public health benefit with 70 per cent of the world's health expenditures assigned using this system for resource allocation. Currently mental disorders in PWDID can be misinterpreted, unrecognised and under reported resulting in barriers to access to treatment and healthcare resources. Conversely disorders may be over diagnosed when the inherent discrepancies between the chronological age and the developmental level of functioning are not considered. Conclusions and recommendations from this study will result in better diagnosis of mental disorders and healthcare resources in this population.

PWDID are a vulnerable sector of the population with an increased prevalence of mental health problems who are marginalised and discriminated by society. Early detection, treatment and management of these conditions will prevent further decompensation and stigmatisation.

To the best of the authors knowledge this is the first comprehensive, large-scale study which evaluates the ICD classificatory system within the context of clinical utility for PWDID, including experts and stakeholders from both lower/middle- and high-income countries. The international consultation/consensus building process culminating in the formulation of evidence informed recommendations, aimed at improving the clinical utility of the ICD-11 for this population, has the potential to improve access to appropriate healthcare and treatment and consequent enhancement of their quality of life.

Purpose – The DSM-III reflected American psychiatry's shift from a dynamic approach to a descriptive diagnostic approach. This chapter seeks to elucidate the implications of this shift for the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness.

Methodology/approach – To shed light on this issue I analyze the diagnosis and treatment implications of this shift for Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD).

Findings – The transition to the diagnostic approach has had three consequences for the handling of ADD, and later Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD): first, it increased the number of children diagnosed with the disorder; second, it encouraged clinicians to treat the disorder with psychostimulants; and third, it expanded the pool of clinicians who could prescribe stimulants.

Contribution to the field – Beyond illuminating the specific cases of ADD and ADHD, this analysis contributes to the medicalization literature by demonstrating that there is more to be studied than merely the expansion or contraction of diagnostic categories. Researchers also have to analyze the implicit assumptions within the diagnostic definitions, which have implications for the prevalence and treatment of illness.

Purpose – This chapter explores the changing definition of bipolar disorder, examining how debates within psychiatry actually construct the definition of mental illness, thereby creating the appearance of an emerging epidemic with increasing prevalence.

Method – I review the recent psychiatric and epidemiological research to reveal that the intellectual and scientific debates that occur in the psychological laboratory and in survey research are in fact falsely increasing the figures that show that an epidemic of bipolar is emerging.

Findings – For centuries, bipolar disorder was equated with severe psychosis and had a prevalence rate between 0.4% and 1.6%. As spectrum and subthreshold conceptions of bipolar disorder become established in official psychiatric diagnostic manuals, however, estimates of the prevalence of bipolar spectrum disorders have risen to almost 25%. I demonstrate that nearly all of this increase is a result of changes in the scientific and intellectual definition of bipolar disorders among psychiatric professionals, and that rates of symptoms are not in fact increasing.

Contribution to field – The arbitrariness of diagnostic thresholds naturally leads researchers to argue for lower thresholds. This allows more individuals who were previously considered psychiatrically normal to be reclassified as psychiatrically disordered. Lowering diagnostic thresholds increases the risk of confusing normal elation or sadness with disordered states, increasing the potential of false-positive diagnoses and the false impression of rising rates of disorder.

This chapter is a comprehensive discussion of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) across the globe (e.g., United States, China, Brazil, Japan and Turkey). Topics that are discussed include the following: diagnostic criteria and approaches; international perspectives of ASD; western and eastern assessment practices; cultural considerations of assessment of ASD; educational and medical interventions; behavioral and emotional interventions; complementary and alternative medical interventions; variations in educational services among countries; early intervention practices; adult services; national and international resources; and current needs and future directions.