↓ 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 AMA Journal of Ethics, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
48 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 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 DSM-5: The Bereavement Exception as an Example of Failed Process
Published in
AMA Journal of Ethics, February 2017
DOI 10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.2.pfor2-1702
Pubmed ID
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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 48 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 18%
Student > Master 3 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 6%
Other 3 18%
Unknown 5 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 18%
Psychology 2 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 6%
Other 4 24%
Unknown 4 24%