Dissociative Disorders in DSM-5

Department of Psychiatry, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, USA.
Depression and Anxiety (Impact Factor: 4.29). 03/2013; 28(12):E17-45. DOI: 10.1002/da.20923
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We present recommendations for revision of the diagnostic criteria for the Dissociative Disorders (DDs) for DSM-5. The periodic revision of the DSM provides an opportunity to revisit the assumptions underlying specific diagnoses and the empirical support, or lack of it, for the defining diagnostic criteria.
This paper reviews clinical, phenomenological, epidemiological, cultural, and neurobiological data related to the DDs in order to generate an up-to-date, evidence-based set of DD diagnoses and diagnostic criteria for DSM-5. First, we review the definitions of dissociation and the differences between the definitions of dissociation and conceptualization of DDs in the DSM-IV-TR and the ICD-10, respectively. Also, we review more general conceptual issues in defining dissociation and dissociative disorders. Based on this review, we propose a revised definition of dissociation for DSM-5 and discuss the implications of this definition for understanding dissociative symptoms and disorders.
We make the following recommendations for DSM-5: 1. Depersonalization Disorder (DPD) should include derealization symptoms as well. 2. Dissociative Fugue should become a subtype of Dissociative Amnesia (DA). 3. The diagnostic criteria for DID should be changed to emphasize the disruptive nature of the dissociation and amnesia for everyday as well as traumatic events. The experience of possession should be included in the definition of identity disruption. 4. Dissociative Trance Disorder should be included in the Unspecified Dissociative Disorder (UDD) category.
There is a growing body of evidence linking the dissociative disorders to a trauma history, and to specific neural mechanisms.

  • Source
    Psikiyatri. Istanbul Tıp Fakültesi 185.Yıl Ders Kitapları Serisi, 1., edited by Raşit Tükel, Sibel Çakır, 07/2013: chapter Dissosiyatif Bozukluklar (Dissociative Disorders): pages 60-72; Ankara Nobel Kitapçılık.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Problem theory distinguishes between six general problems of everyday life, which people work through in turn during childhood, learning to switch between them. One of them requires the protection of a cut-out and an override. People who develop Alzheimer’s disease, (AD), and apolipoprotein allele epsilon 4 carriers, are preoccupied with this problem, or readily switch back to it. It is the freedom problem, of raising hope or confidence of freedom or power to control. Here people try to raise hope of success with any task on which attention happens to rest. This indiscriminateness means that there is no basis for giving up on a task, or for avoiding dangerous environments. Thus the cut-out is needed when someone becomes stuck on a mental task and the override is needed so as to help in avoiding danger. Activity relevant to the freedom problem is confined to the left hemisphere and the right hemisphere operates the cut-out and override. In providing these two forms of protection the right hemisphere can be said to act as a backup. Accordingly EEG, metabolism, and atrophy findings indicate that both cut-out and override are active in mild clinical impairment, especially among patients who later develop AD. The pattern of atrophy of AD matches what would be expected from disuse caused by an overactive cut-out followed by an overactive override. A parallel loss of testosterone might contribute to the weakening of resistance to infections leading to autoimmune effects.
    Medical Hypotheses 01/2015; 84(3). DOI:10.1016/j.mehy.2015.01.004 · 1.15 Impact Factor
  • Source


Available from
May 22, 2014