Are practitioners’ practical approaches/perspectives on psychological disorders influencing their acceptance or rejection of diagnostic labels within the DSM-5?

CLASSMATE POST 1

a.  What does the ever-expanding list of diagnostic categories within the DSM mean to you, to me, your neighbor, to the fellow in the next town?  Is the expansion of what is considered diagnostically “mentally disordered” within the DSM something we should be tracking?  Why or why not?

With the list of diagnostic categories expanding within the DSM, we ca be sure that such updates like this need to be announced in a public forum. With this in mind, researchers need to carefully construct a basis for new categories in order to include them in the DSM. I believe it is in the public’s best interest to be updated with any inclusions as it pertains to the DSM.

b. Are practitioners’ practical approaches/perspectives on psychological disorders influencing their acceptance or rejection of diagnostic labels within the DSM-5?

It is hard to answer on what practitioners accept or reject due to the severity of psychological disorders being studied or if any influence was made based on the diagnostic labels within the DSM-5. However, if one should assume a disorder influence a practitioner’s acceptance, it would most likely be based off of what society accepts. Not many researchers in this field want to be a target of canceled culture nowadays based off their opinions and beliefs.

c. What is the relevance / need for diagnostic labels?  Is it naïve to reject the use of diagnostic labels?

It is truly important to understand what a disorder is and to label it appropriately in order to provide correct treatment to patients. Too many times patients have been misdiagnosed due to the similarities of symptoms with identical disorder labels. A good example of this would be prior service military members seeking help at a Veteran Affairs hospital. Many come in for numerous reasons; the most common is trauma of the mind. When dealing with patients like these, sensitivity is highly encouraged and this is where correct labeling of disorders play a heavy toll. If misdiagnosed due to similarities in disorders being labeled, wrong treatment and medication can worsen symptoms in patients such as veterans.

CLASSMATE POST 2

Greetings all,

a.  What does the ever-expanding list of diagnostic categories within the DSM mean to you, to me, your neighbor, to the fellow in the next town?  Is the expansion of what is considered diagnostically “mentally disordered” within the DSM something we should be tracking?  Why or why not?

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) started as a tool to assist U.S. Army soldiers during WWII with mental health diagnosis and treatment. Obviously, modern medicine has learned a lot since then and now considers findings from the global population. This means that as of 2013, the DSM model includes broad variations of disorders which is described in detail, to including an overview of the disorder, specific symptoms that must be present for diagnosis, how many persons have been affected in an area by a given disorder, and risk factors commonly associated. Another significant factor highlighted by this week’s lesson is that evidence from many sources indicates that most psychological disorders have a genetic component. Perhaps something to consider when you visit a healthcare professional and they inquire about “family history.” This is the most significant factor when apply DSM-5 information to individuals, i.e. you, me or a person half a world away. Over the decades, DSM has grown to acknowledge more disorders under specific circumstances, thus evolving and adapting to mental health findings. With that being said, it’s important to note this advancement includes removing things like homosexuality from the list of mental health disorders, as it was once believed to be.

b. Are practitioners’ practical approaches/perspectives on psychological disorders influencing their acceptance or rejection of diagnostic labels within the DSM-5?

I don’t believe it’s able to be determined if a practitioner’s care when treating psychological disorders can influence acceptance or rejection within DSM-5. The reason for this is because every patient is different, just like every person is different. There is evidence enough to support both sides. A major factor to consider is the severity of the psychological disorder. Even still, extreme mental health problems such as violence or inability to control physical movement, are likely to improve with proper care through diagnosis. Overall, a study found that “predicted variations in quality of life experiences based upon studies from the general population were not upheld” (Lehman, 1996). I believe it’s up to the practitioner’s best judgement to determine if a patient is ready for total clarity and honesty, over intentional vagueness when providing care to achieve the best treatment possible.

c. What is the relevance / need for diagnostic labels?  Is it naïve to reject the use of diagnostic labels?

Diagnostic labels are necessary to provide continuity in care and treatment. This is especially true if a patient is seen by multiple providers. Furthermore, it’s not necessarily naive to reject diagnostic labels. It could instead be inferred as human nature to reject things not yet ready to hear. According to the National Library of Medicine, many society’s have stigmas related to diagnostic labels. “Across the life span, stigma associated with diagnostic labels can interfere with adequate provision of care, patients’ willingness to seek care, family members’ experience of living with the patient, and both patients’ and families’ willingness to participate in research associated with the disease or disorder” (Garland, 2009).  Again, the more we learn about various cultures as well as the advancement of medicine, practitioners will be able to eventually break the chain of naivety or reception of diagnostic labels.

References:

Garand, L., Lingler, J. H., Conner, K. O., & Dew, M. A. (2009). Diagnostic labels, stigma, and participation in research related to dementia and mild cognitive impairment.  Research in gerontological nursing,  2(2), 112–121.

Lehman, A., T.Rachuba, L., T.Postrado, L., Andrews, F. M., Angermeyer, M. C., Anthony, W. A., Barker, H., Bernheim, K. F., Bharadwaj, L., Campbell, A., Childers, S. E., & Diener, E. (1999, December 28).  Demographic influences on quality of life among persons with chronic mental illnesses. Evaluation and Program Planning. Retrieved January 21, 2023, from

less

b. Are practitioners’ practical approaches/perspectives on psychological disorders influencing their acceptance or rejection of diagnostic labels within the DSM-5?

Introduction

The DSM-5, the latest version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, is an important resource for practitioners, especially those who work with individuals who have mental health problems. The DSM-5 has been updated to reflect changes in how mental health disorders are diagnosed and treated. However, there may be some confusion about exactly how practitioners use this new tool when considering whether or not to accept a new diagnosis within their practice settings.

Yes, practitioners who hold pro-diagnostic views are more likely to accept diagnostic labels.

The data show that practitioners who hold pro-diagnostic views are more likely to accept diagnostic labels. Pro-diagnostic practitioners agree that a diagnosis is useful and important for treatment, but they also believe that it can be used as an excuse for not taking action when people experience psychological disorders. They are more likely than non-pro-diagnostic practitioners to agree with the statement “Diagnosing mental disorders may help individuals get better faster by providing guidance on how to manage their condition.”

By contrast, non-pro-diagnotic practitioners do not believe that a diagnosis is useful or important for treatment; in fact, many of them think it hinders recovery from mental illness (e.g., “I think people should just try living life without any diagnoses”).

The practitioner’s perspective on psychological disorders is important because it shapes their attitude toward the diagnosis process.

The practitioner’s perspective on psychological disorders is important because it shapes their attitude toward the diagnosis process.

The practitioner’s experience with patients’ experiences can influence their views about how to diagnose and treat a particular condition. In the DSM-5, for example, there are several new diagnostic categories (e.g., autism spectrum disorder) that reflect a more holistic approach to understanding mental health issues than has been seen before; these categories may not be well received by practitioners who are used to seeing only one cause behind every case they encounter in their daily work lives

Practitioners’ practical approach may influence their acceptance of diagnostic labels within the DSM-5.

Practitioners’ practical approach may influence their acceptance of diagnostic labels within the DSM-5. Practitioners who hold pro-diagnostic views are more likely to accept diagnostic labels, while practitioners who hold anti-diagnostic views are more likely to reject diagnostic labels.

Practitioners embrace or reject a new diagnostic label based on their own personal beliefs about mental health and illness.

Practitioners’ personal beliefs about mental health and illness influence their acceptance or rejection of diagnostic labels within the DSM-5. In other words, practitioners can be divided into two groups: those who are pro-diagnostic and those who are anti-diagnostic.

The practitioner’s perspective on psychological disorders is important because it shapes their attitude toward the diagnosis process. For example, if a practitioner holds pro-diagnostic views (i.e., believes that there is a biological basis for many mental health conditions), then he/she will be more likely to accept diagnostic labels than one who holds anti-diagnostic views (i.e., believes that there is no biological basis for most mental health conditions).

Conclusion

Practitioners can embrace the DSM-5 diagnostic labels or reject them if they are not in line with their own beliefs about mental health and illness. In order to change this mindset, practitioners need to be aware of their practical approach and consider how this may affect their decisions on accepting or rejecting a new label within the DSM-5.