↓ Skip to main content

Seeking Legitimacy for DSM-5: The Bereavement Exception as an Example of Failed Process

Overview of attention for article published in The AMA Journal of Ethic, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
44 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Seeking Legitimacy for <i>DSM-5</i>: The Bereavement Exception as an Example of Failed Process
Published in
The AMA Journal of Ethic, February 2017
DOI 10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.2.pfor2-1702
Pubmed ID
Authors

James E Sabin, Norman Daniels

Abstract

In 2013 the American Psychiatric Association (APA) published the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). Even before publication, DSM-5 received a torrent of criticism, most prominently over removal of the "bereavement exclusion" for the diagnosis of major depression. We argue that while the APA can claim legitimate authority for deciding scientific questions, it does not have legitimacy for resolving what is ultimately a question of ethics and public policy. We show how the "accountability for reasonableness" framework for seeking legitimacy in health policy could have been used to achieve a better resolution of the conflict than actually occurred.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 44 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 25%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Professor 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Other 4 20%
Unknown 6 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 4 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 10%
Environmental Science 1 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Other 3 15%
Unknown 5 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 38. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 October 2019.
All research outputs
#1,138,369
of 26,582,041 outputs
Outputs from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#316
of 2,823 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,271
of 431,688 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#14
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,582,041 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,823 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 431,688 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.