joeylittle
Administrator
Two studies that are relevant to this thread...
From Finalizing PTSD in DSM 5 (Journal of Traumatic Stress, MJ Friedman, 2013), Abstract:
From Trauma and Stressor-Related Disorders: Diagnostic conceptualization in DSM 5 (The Neurologist/Der Nervenarzt, HP Kapfhammer), Abstract:
@siniang - re: your question here -
It's important to remember that determining these things isn't philosophy, its taxonomy - which is a much narrower science, and entirely about reducing something to its component parts. It doesn't allow for interpretive nuance. Physicians are free to introduce that nuance, if they believe its warranted/will help them treat their patient.
But - lets say they don't think it's PTSD - that doesn't mean one is left diagnosis-less, or without a code for their diagnosis. DSM-5/ICD-10 have multiple options under the trauma and stressor disorders umbrella.
Finally (and others have said this too) - it's a moving target. More research creates more data, creates more specificity, creates new understandings. Traumatic grief, for instance, is something that is fairly recognized in the field pf psychology. There's still a struggle to get the taxonomy right, and make sure it's differentiated properly from the adjustment disorder subtypes, etc, etc .... but it's not like people don't think it exists.
From Finalizing PTSD in DSM 5 (Journal of Traumatic Stress, MJ Friedman, 2013), Abstract:
Specific issues discussed about the DSM-5 PTSD criteria themselves include a broad versus narrow PTSD construct, the decisions regarding Criterion A, the evidence supporting other PTSD symptom clusters and specifiers, the addition of the dissociative and preschool subtypes, research on the new criteria from both Internet surveys and the DSM-5 field trials, the addition of PTSD subtypes, the noninclusion of complex PTSD, and comparisons between DSM-5 versus the World Health Association's forthcoming International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) criteria for PTSD.
From Trauma and Stressor-Related Disorders: Diagnostic conceptualization in DSM 5 (The Neurologist/Der Nervenarzt, HP Kapfhammer), Abstract:
The full papers are also really interesting. But the abstracts do a good job.The former A2 criterion of an intense emotional reaction to trauma has been removed. A deliberately broad approach to clinical PTSD phenomenology has created an empirically driven new cluster of persistent negative alterations in cognition and mood due to experiencing traumatic events. The ASD has been reconceptualized as an intense stress syndrome with a clear need of acute treatment during the early course after traumatic exposure. Adjustment disorders continue to emphasize maladaptive emotional and behavioral responses to unspecific, non-traumatic stressors in an intensity that is beyond social or cultural norms. Neither complex PTSD nor prolonged grief disorders have received an independent diagnostic status within DSM-5. With respect to stress-related disorders major divergences between DSM-5 and the future International Classification of Diseases 11 (ICD-11) are to be expected.
@siniang - re: your question here -
The things that are categorized under 'natural unexpected traumatic death' will all be connected to the human body malfunctioning from within. Accidental/violent etc. death will source from outside the organic physiognomy.I'm really just trying to understand the difference between "natural unexpected traumatic death" and "accidental/violent unexpected traumatic death" of someone close from a biological standpoint.
It's important to remember that determining these things isn't philosophy, its taxonomy - which is a much narrower science, and entirely about reducing something to its component parts. It doesn't allow for interpretive nuance. Physicians are free to introduce that nuance, if they believe its warranted/will help them treat their patient.
But - lets say they don't think it's PTSD - that doesn't mean one is left diagnosis-less, or without a code for their diagnosis. DSM-5/ICD-10 have multiple options under the trauma and stressor disorders umbrella.
- Other specified trauma- and stressor-related disorder is the diagnostic for something that meets a lot of the PTSD criteria, but is sub-threshold in a certain area (including not aligning with Criterion A)
- Unspecified trauma- and stressor-related disorder is nearly the same - the only difference is, in this instance the physician (or patient) is unable to identify what the inciting traumatic incident was.
I honestly don't think this is a real concern. I quickly read the article you linked to (before it went behind a paygate) - and while I understand why those individuals expressed worry over the further narrowing of criteria in ICD-11, they weren't taking a broad look at the entire trauma and stressor area. Conditions that no longer meet PTSD criteria invariably are addressed elsewhere.But how many people are denied (specific) treatment by insurance because they don't quite fit a diagnosis?
Finally (and others have said this too) - it's a moving target. More research creates more data, creates more specificity, creates new understandings. Traumatic grief, for instance, is something that is fairly recognized in the field pf psychology. There's still a struggle to get the taxonomy right, and make sure it's differentiated properly from the adjustment disorder subtypes, etc, etc .... but it's not like people don't think it exists.