Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-mwx4w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-30T10:49:26.170Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The DSM-5 Clinical and Public Health Committee (CPHC): operations, mechanics, controversies and recommendations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 August 2020

John S. McIntyre Open the ORCID record for John S. McIntyre [Opens in a new window] ,
Joel Yager ,
Anita Everett ,
Cathryn A. Galanter ,
Jeffrey M. Lyness ,
James Nininger ,
Victor I. Reus  and
Michael Vergare
John S. McIntyre*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA
Joel Yager
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Denver, CO, USA
Anita Everett
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center, Baltimore, MD, USA
Cathryn A. Galanter
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, State University of New York Downstate, Kings County Hospital Center, New York, NY, USA
Jeffrey M. Lyness
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA
James Nininger
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA
Victor I. Reus
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA, USA
Michael Vergare
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, Thomas Jefferson University Hospitals, Philadelphia, PA, USA
*
Author for correspondence: John S. McIntyre, E-mail: jack.mcintyre@rochesterregional.org
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

For DSM – 5, the American Psychiatric Association Board of Trustees established a robust vetting and review process that included two review committees that did not exist in the development of prior DSMs, the Scientific Review Committee (SRC) and the Clinical and Public Health Committee (CPHC). The CPHC was created as a body that could independently review the clinical and public health merits of various proposals that would fall outside of the strictly defined scientific process.

Methods

This article describes the principles and issues which led to the creation of the CPHC, the composition and vetting of the committee, and the processes developed by the committee – including the use of external reviewers.

Results

Outcomes of some of the more involved CPHC deliberations, specifically, decisions concerning elements of diagnoses for major depressive disorder, autism spectrum disorder, catatonia, and substance use disorders, are described. The Committee's extensive reviews and its recommendations regarding Personality Disorders are also discussed.

Conclusions

On the basis of our experiences, the CPHC membership unanimously believes that external review processes to evaluate and respond to Work Group proposals is essential for future DSM efforts. The Committee also recommends that separate SRC and CPHC committees be appointed to assess proposals for scientific merit and for clinical and public health utility and impact.

Keywords

Clinical and Public Health CommitteeDSM-5nosology
Type
Original Article
Information
Psychological Medicine , Volume 51 , Issue 14 , October 2021 , pp. 2493 - 2500
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed., pp. 7). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association.Google Scholar
Fischer, B. (2012). A review of American psychiatry through Its diagnoses. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 200, 1022–1030.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kendler, K. (2013). A history of the DSM-5 scientific review committee. Psychological Medicine, 43, 1793–1800.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Narrow, W., Clarke, D., Kuramoto, S., Kraemer, H., Kupfer, D., Greomer, L., & Regier, D. (2013). DSM-5 Field trials in the United State and Canada, part III: Development and reliability testing of a cross-cutting symptom assessment for DSM-5. American Journal of Psychiatry, 170, 71–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nemeroff, C., Weinberger, D., Rutter, M., MacMillan, H., Bryant, R., Wessely, S., … Lysaker, P. (2013). DSM-5: A collection of psychiatrist views on the changes, controversies, and future direction. BioMed Central Medicine, 11, 202.Google Scholar
Regier, D., Kuhl, E., & Kupfer, D. (2013). The DSM-5: Classification and criteria changes. World Psychiatry, 12, 92–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spitzer, R., Endicott, J., & Robins, E. (1978). Research diagnostic criteria: Rationale and reliability. Archives of General Psychiatry, 35, 773–782.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zachar, P., Krueger, R. F., & Kendler, K. S. (2016). Personality disorder in DSM-5: An oral history. Psychological Medicine, 46, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar