Mental illness and mental health: is the glass half empty or half full?

During the past century, the scope of mental health intervention in North America has gradually expanded from an initial focus on hospitalized patients with psychoses to outpatients with neurotic disorders, including the so-called worried well. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), Fifth Edition, is further embracing the concept of a mental illness spectrum, such that increasing attention to the softer end of the continuum can be expected in the future. This anticipated shift rekindles important questions about how mental illness is defined, how to distinguish between mental disorders and normal reactions, whether psychiatry is guilty of prevalence inflation, and when somatic therapies should be used to treat problems of living. Such debates are aptly illustrated by the example of complicated bereavement, which is best characterized as a form of adjustment disorder. Achieving an overarching definition of mental illness is challenging, owing to the many different contexts in which DSM diagnoses are used. Careful analyses of such contextual utility must inform future decisions about what ends up in DSM, as well as how mental illness is defined by public health policy and society at large. A viable vision for the future of psychiatry should include a spectrum model of mental health (as opposed to exclusively mental illness) that incorporates graded, evidence-based interventions delivered by a range of providers at each point along its continuum.

The six most essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis: a pluralogue part 3: issues of utility and alternative approaches in psychiatric diagnosis

In face of the multiple controversies surrounding the DSM process in general and the development of DSM-5 in particular, we have organized a discussion around what we consider six essential questions in further work on the DSM. The six questions involve: 1) the nature of a mental disorder; 2) the definition of mental disorder; 3) the issue of whether, in the current state of psychiatric science, DSM-5 should assume a cautious, conservative posture or an assertive, transformative posture; 4) the role of pragmatic considerations in the construction of DSM-5; 5) the issue of utility of the DSM - whether DSM-III and IV have been designed more for clinicians or researchers, and how this conflict should be dealt with in the new manual; and 6) the possibility and advisability, given all the problems with DSM-III and IV, of designing a different diagnostic system. Part 1 of this article took up the first two questions. Part 2 took up the second two questions. Part 3 now deals with Questions 5 & 6. Question 5 confronts the issue of utility, whether the manual design of DSM-III and IV favors clinicians or researchers, and what that means for DSM-5. Our final question, Question 6, takes up a concluding issue, whether the acknowledged problems with the earlier DSMs warrants a significant overhaul of DSM-5 and future manuals. As in Parts 1 & 2 of this article, the general introduction, as well as the introductions and conclusions for the specific questions, are written by James Phillips, and the responses to commentaries are written by Allen Frances.

Diagnostic and prognostic significance of Schneiderian first-rank symptoms: a 20-year longitudinal study of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder

OBJECTIVE

This research addresses the following questions: what is the prevalence and severity of first-rank symptoms (FRS) during an extended period of time in patients with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder with psychosis? Are the specific FRS listed in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM, Third Edition, Revised/Fourth Edition Criterion A for schizophrenia diagnosis (a voice keeping a running commentary or voices conversing) more prevalent and severe in patients with schizophrenia than bipolar disorder with psychosis? Lastly, do FRS at index hospitalization in patients with schizophrenia predict the absence of later recovery?

METHODS

This research follows a sample of patients with psychotic disorders who were evaluated at index hospitalization and then prospectively followed-up at 6 evaluations during next 20 years (n = 86). All patients were evaluated as part of a prospective research study designed to measure multiple factors of phenomenology, severity of illness, course of illness, prognosis, and global outcome.

RESULTS

First-rank symptoms are not exclusive to schizophrenia; they also occur in some bipolar patients. However, they are more frequent and more severe in patients with schizophrenia than bipolar disorder. Schizophrenia patients with FRS during the acute phase are more likely to have poorer long-term outcome than schizophrenia patients who do not have FRS during the acute phase.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate FRS at the acute phase are not a clinicopathologic correlate specific to schizophrenia. However, the presence and severity of any FRS and specifically of the 2 FRS associated with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Third Edition, Revised/Fourth Edition Criterion A are more prevalent and more severe in patients with schizophrenia than patients with bipolar disorder.

Challenges of introducing new biomarker products for neuropsychiatric disorders into the market

There are many challenges associated with the discovery and development of serum-based biomarkers for psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia. Here, we review these challenges from the point of view of psychiatrists, general practitioners, the regulatory agencies, and biomarker scientists. There is a general opinion in psychiatric medicine that improvements over the current subjective tests are essential. Despite this, there is a reluctance to accept that peripheral molecules can do the job any better. In addition, psychiatrists find it difficult to accept that peripheral molecules, such as those found in blood, can reflect what is happening in the brain. However, the regulatory health authorities now consider biomarkers as important for the future of drug development and have called for efforts to modernize methods, tools, and techniques for the purpose of developing more efficient and safer drugs. We also describe here the development of the first ever molecular blood test for schizophrenia, and its reception in the market place, as a case in point.

The borders of mental disorder in psychiatry and the DSM: past, present, and future

Over the past 60 years, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) has evolved from early efforts to collect statistical information to a modern compendium of mental disorders that can be reliably diagnosed, but have not been validated. Throughout this history, DSM architects have struggled with the seemingly fundamental, but complex question of how to define a mental disorder. Current proposals indicate that a spectrum model of mental illness will be embraced in DSM-5, prompting renewed concern and debate about pathologizing normal existence. While a spectrum view of mental illness may reflect biologic reality and help pave the path towards validated models of psychiatric disorder, diagnostic expansion does have important practical implications and could give rise to problems in clinical work and society at large, including the further sanctioning of a shift from psychiatric treatment to neuroenhancement. Debates about what should or should not be considered a mental illness in DSM-5 are likely to remain unresolved and, in the future, must be framed according to contextual utility. Diagnosis and thresholds of pathology are ultimately value-based so that careful analysis and perhaps even different definitions of disorder may be required to guide decision-making in research, clinical work, and public policy.

Schizophrenia, reification and deadened life

Recent debates concerning the abolition of the schizophrenia label in psychiatry have focused upon problems with the scientific status of the concept. In this article, I argue that rather than attacking schizophrenia for its lack of scientific validity, we should focus on the conceptual history of this label. I reconstruct a specific tradition when exploring the conceptual history of schizophrenia. This is the concern with the question of the sense of life itself, conducted through the confrontation with schizophrenia as a form of life that does not live, or as Robert Jay Lifton termed it "lifeless life" (1979: 222-39). I conclude by arguing that the contemporary attempt to deconstruct or abolish the schizophrenia concept involves a fundamental shift in concern. The attempt both to normalize psychotic experiences, and to conceive them purely in terms of cognitive processes that can be mapped onto brain function, results in a fundamental move away from the attempt to understand the experience of madness.

Hallucinations in nonpsychotic disorders: toward a differential diagnosis of "hearing voices"

While auditory hallucinations (AH) are prototypic psychotic symptoms whose clinical presence is often equated with a psychotic disorder, they are commonly found among those without mental illness as well as those with nonpsychotic disorders not typically associated with hallucinations in DSM-IV. This incongruity presents a significant challenge for clinical work and efforts to revise the next iteration of the DSM. Auditory hallucinations found among "normal" people suggest that either AH are not as pathologic as they are typically taken to be, or that less-than-hallucinatory experiences are routinely mischaracterized as AH. Such hallucinations in the context of conversion disorder, trauma, sensory deprivation, and certain cultural settings strengthen an association between AH and psychopathology but suggest limited diagnostic specificity and relevance. It may be useful to think of AH like coughs-common experiences that are often, but not always, symptoms of pathology associated with a larger illness. Although these issues have been known for many years, they are rarely discussed in American psychiatry and need to be addressed in future research and clinical work.

Psychiatric comorbidities and schizophrenia

Psychiatric comorbidities are common among patients with schizophrenia. Substance abuse comorbidity predominates. Anxiety and depressive symptoms are also very common throughout the course of illness, with an estimated prevalence of 15% for panic disorder, 29% for posttraumatic stress disorder, and 23% for obsessive-compulsive disorder. It is estimated that comorbid depression occurs in 50% of patients, and perhaps (conservatively) 47% of patients also have a lifetime diagnosis of comorbid substance abuse. This article chronicles these associations, examining whether these comorbidities are "more than chance" and might represent (distinct) phenotypes of schizophrenia. Among the anxiety disorders, the evidence at present is most abundant for an association with obsessive-compulsive disorder. Additional studies in newly diagnosed antipsychotic-naive patients and their first-degree relatives and searches for genetic and environmental risk factors are needed to replicate preliminary findings and further investigate these associations.