What is traumatic enough for a PTSD diagnosis?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
According to the DSM-5 and ICD-11, traumatic events that may lead to a PTSD diagnosis include exposure to actual or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violence. Examples of such events may include combat exposure, sexual or physical assault, serious accidents, natural disasters, or witnessing a violent death.What is traumatic enough for a PTSD diagnosis?
You raise an important point. While the DSM-5 and ICD-11 provide specific criteria for diagnosing PTSD, it is recognized that not all traumatic events will meet the criteria. Individuals can experience traumatic events that are not necessarily life-threatening or involve physical harm, but still cause significant emotional distress and can lead to PTSD symptoms.Ok, but does this criterion accurately cover the breadth of events that happen to people that can cause the same symptomatic outcome, yet not meet criterion A?
Which brings me to the burning question: does criterion A accurately account for those that meet PTSD? As you outlined, health professionals may diagnose clients with PTSD even though they don't meet criterion A, which is one of the required criterion. Does this not say that diagnostic criterion is more a guide than a fixed policy?In such cases, mental health professionals may still diagnose PTSD, but may need to rely on clinical judgment and a thorough assessment of the individual's symptoms and experiences.
Yes, you are correct that diagnostic criteria for PTSD, including criterion A which specifies the type of traumatic event needed to meet the diagnosis, is more of a guideline than a fixed policy. While the DSM-5 and ICD-11 sets out the criteria for the diagnosis of PTSD, mental health professionals use their clinical judgment to explore an individual's experiences, symptoms, and functioning to determine if a diagnosis is appropriate.Which brings me to the burning question: does criterion A accurately account for those that meet PTSD? As you outlined, health professionals may diagnose clients with PTSD even though they don't meet criterion A, which is one of the required criterion. Does this not say that diagnostic criterion is more a guide than a fixed policy?
Horowitz and his colleagues initially developed the criterion A for PTSD as part of their research into the emotional and behavioural reactions of Vietnam veterans. However, as our understanding of trauma has become more comprehensive, researchers have recognized that other types of events can lead to the same symptomatic outcomes as those seen in PTSD.Does this not open the door to events that Horowitz never intended? Is there a future to criterion A considering it is based on the event and criterion B to E are the response?
While it is possible for individuals to pretend to have PTSD or exaggerate their symptoms, malingering is generally uncommon in clinical settings. Most individuals seeking psychological services are motivated to get better and are genuine in their reports of symptoms.Will we not see more malingering if criterion are not adhered? For example, I have read many a times that people claim they have PTSD, have been diagnosed with PTSD, for very normal life events, such as relationship breakdowns, minor bone fractures from minor accidents.
There is a possibility that future revisions of the classification systems may refine or update the criteria for PTSD, including a revised version of criterion A2. A2, which referred to the individual's subjective response to the traumatic event, was removed in the DSM-5, and criteria A was redefined to focus solely on the objective nature of the event.Do you see a return to the DSM IV criterion A2 in the future, in a refined manner? That criterion was good, yet poorly implemented, according to the experts. What about the capacity to measure psychobiological responses?