English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Authors: Phillipa Hay (corresponding author) [1,2]; Stephen Touyz [3] Editorial Some of us can recall the fervour and excitement surrounding the introduction of the third revision of the American Psychiatric Association?s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) [1] onto the international psychiatric stage in 1980. History will judge the fifth revision of the DSM (DSM-5) [2] and whilst the response thus far appears more muted there are a number of substantive changes already impacting on clinicians and academics. For example, lecturers revising their power-points find it a much simpler system to explain with no axes to distinguish it from general medical classifications or to be a proxy for a simplified formulation. In assessment, Engel [3] and colleagues? ?biopsychosocial? approach to psychiatric formulation may thus resume importance in capturing the understanding of the patient?s problems beyond the diagnosis. Whether the WHO disability scale [4] will have the utility and familiarity as the Global Assessment of Function (GAF [5]) is also unknown, particularly given the highly variable use of the GAF. Beyond the clinician what do the changes mean for academics? Already instruments like the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview [6] need urgent official upgrades. Fortunately the gold standard assessment instrument in Eating Disorders research, the Eating Disorder Examination (EDE) [7] and its self-report sister instrument the EDE-Q [8] require little adaptation and indeed have benefited from the alignment of criteria for presence of bulimia behaviours across disorders. Thus researchers will no longer have to inquire about binge eating over the past 6-months (as it is now diagnosed over 3-months) and the final question on menstrual function is no more a diagnostic item for anorexia nervosa. Will Journal of Eating Disorders accept papers using DSM-IV [5] criteria? The short answer is in most instances ?no?, unless authors make a compelling argument. For example in a longitudinal study it is usually not possible to reclassify participants diagnosed according to DSM-IV criteria at entry to the study. There will be an expectation that authors doing systematic reviews carefully check the criteria used for diagnoses in papers. Many applied broad criteria for bulimia nervosa or anorexia nervosa (e.g., the ?Oxford? criteria of once weekly binge eating [7]) that now accord with DSM-5 criteria and this should be reported in the review. What about the alternate international scheme, the World Health Organisation?s International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD)? The tenth revision of the ICD (ICD-10) and DSM-IV schemes currently use similar diagnostic terms and the same numerical systems. This assisted hospital administrators who need to convert DSM-IV into ICD-10 for government data collection and similar purposes, but it was of less interest to researchers and academics. Now however there is potential for confusion with the DSM-5 using some ICD-10 terms, e.g., ?atypical? anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa, with different criteria. In addition, the 11th revision of the ICD [9] may remove the requirement of an objectively large amount in the criterion for binge eating episodes. These changes are of notable concern to researchers attempting to estimate incidence and prevalence data across time and space. With loosening of some diagnostic criteria (e.g., removal of the amenorrhoea criteria for anorexia nervosa) and expansion of the field to new and added disorders of feeding and eating (e.g., Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder (ARFID)), care will need to be taken to avoid artificial increases in estimates of burden. And looking forward? We anticipate a stream of papers with reference to the new eating disorders, in particular ARFID. This is both from the child and adolescent and the adult fields as ARFID encompasses both. The area is wide open for research on ARFID assessment, epidemiology, treatment and outcome. …

2013 and ‘DSMitis’: implications for the Journal of Eating Disorders and its authors