ArticleHealth affairs (Project Hope)2013
Independent review of social and population variation in mental health could improve diagnosis in DSM revisions.
Article in Health affairs (Project Hope), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cause and context: place-based approaches to investigate how environments affect mental health.Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology · 2016Review
- Beliefs and perception about mental health issues: a meta-synthesis.Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment · 2016Review
- Beyond recidivism: changes in health and social service involvement following exposure to drug treatment court.Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy · 2015Article
- The Psychometric Properties of the Brief Symptom Inventory in Men under Criminal Justice Involvement: Implications for Forensic Social Workers in Practice Settings.British journal of social work · 2015Article
- Emergency department visits by adults for psychiatric medication adverse events.JAMA psychiatry · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
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 in behavior; 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 in mental 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.