ArticleThe Hastings Center report
Why Should People with Lived Experience Be Included in the DSM Revision Process?
Article in The Hastings Center report. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The DSM needs more than revision: five blind spots and a case for dialogical redesign.Psychological medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Increasingly, scholars and advocates are recognizing the importance of including individuals with lived experience of mental health issues in the development of psychiatric research and policy. Here, we hope to contribute to discussions regarding the specific context of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) revision process. We argue that this process is not inclusive enough, but also that those who have advocated for better inclusivity have not been responsive enough to the risks reported from other inclusive mental health contexts (in research, practice, and policy). In particular, tokenism and lack of uptake of input from people with lived experience are likely to loom large in relation to DSM efforts at inclusivity as well. In light of this, we suggest that disentangling the reasons for inclusion can help to overcome these problems, and we offer practical recommendations for a more inclusive DSM revision process.
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.