The Evolution and Impact of Mood Disorder Classification: A Review

This essay delves into the classification of mood disorders, tracing their historical context from Hippocrates and Aretaeus to the modern diagnostic criteria outlined in the DSM-5. It highlights the DSM-5's approach, emphasizing its updates, including dimensional measurement, new specifiers, and the inclusion of contemporary depressive issues. The essay discusses the two-week symptom evaluation period, focusing on key symptoms like depressed mood and loss of interest, while also addressing the exclusion criteria related to substance abuse and other mental conditions. Furthermore, it examines the removal of the bereavement exclusion in DSM-5 and the shift towards differentiating between ordinary sadness and clinical conditions. The essay references key publications like those by Surís, Holliday & North, Parker, Regier, Kuhl & Kupfer, and Shelton, providing a comprehensive overview of the evolution and current understanding of mood disorder classification.

Running head: MOOD DISORDER
Mood Disorder
Name of the student
Name of the university
Author’s name

1MOOD DISORDER
Change process of mood disorder classification
Diagnosis of mood disorders continues to pose a threat to the modern world. Mood
disorders have been in existence since a long time and have been acknowledged clinically since
orthodox times. Hippocrates in 400 BC and Aretaeus in 2nd century AD described the mood
disorders. Mood disorders are prevalent as it is the primary concern of to more than 300 million
people across the world as mood disorders are major depressive disorder. It is a disorder that
accounts for around 8.2% of the global problem (Surís, Holliday & North, 2016). Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) defines the modern diagnostic requirements of mood
disorder and is the primary diagnostic model used in psychiatric research. DSM-5 which was
established in May 2013 signifies the first publication after the DSM-4 which was published in
1994. Amendments in the DSM were mostly well-versed by the progress in neuroscience,
scientific, and public health requirements, and recognized issues with the classification model
and standards put forth in the DSM-4 (Surís, Holliday & North, 2016).
In the new approach of DSM-5 most of the things are mostly unchanged with a few
significant exclusions: an innovative evaluation apparatus for the mental conditions based on
dimension measurement, a fresh structure of specifiers for the mood disorders, the introduction
of few more modern-day depressive issues, and acknowledgment of catatonia as a distinct
medical unit (Parker, 2014). The DSM-5 approach was formulated with an aim to reduce the
margins in the DSM-IV while assembling the modern technical and experimental proof on the
experiential source of mental condition (Regier, Kuhl & Kupfer, 2013).
The DSM-5 approach assesses the symptoms of an individual for a two week period
duration, where it evaluates two specific symptoms, depressed mood, and loss of interest or

2MOOD DISORDER
pleasure. If the individual is seen be depressed almost most of the times, feels tired, feels
worthless, the occurrence of thoughts of suicide, inability to think or concentrate during most of
the times, then that individual will require the diagnosis for the mood disorder. DSM-5 lays
another condition that these symptoms must not be arisen due to any abuse of the drug or any
mental condition. Then only the DSM-5 approach will apply to the person. According to me, this
is a correct approach, as it decreases that confusion that causes various hindrance. In a very
general approach, mental disorders are assessed based on the behaviour of an individual and not
categorizing the factors that lead to mood disorders (Shelton, 2019).
If a new type of system had to be constructed for the classification of mental disorder,
then new disorders can be included based on the existing evidence from neuroscience, scientific,
and public health requirements, and a bunch of newly recognized disorders which were elevated
in the DSM-4. Hoarding condition directs the random assortment of unusable substances,
containing debris, which commonly outcomes in perilous living circumstances for patients and
their relatives (Regier, Kuhl & Kupfer, 2013). Elimination of the deprivation, which was the
primary reason for most of the depressive events was a contentious suggestion for the DSM-5.
From the perspective of DSM-IV, people showing signs of depression were removed from
analysis if also they were deprived for a long time. The objective was to inhibit people from
facing sorrow due to the loss of their close one and from being mentioned as having a mental
illness. Thus, the elimination of the deprivation was removed and altered with more artistic
direction on the discrepancy among the indications characterizing the ordinary unhappiness and
those that are signs of a clinical condition (Regier, Kuhl & Kupfer, 2013).

3MOOD DISORDER
REFERENCES
Kalk, N. J., & Young, A. H. (2017). Footnotes to Kraepelin: changes in the classification of
mood disorders with DSM-5. BJPsych open, 3(3), e1-e3.
Parker, G. F. (2014). DSM-5 and psychotic and mood disorders. Journal of the American
Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 42(2), 182-190.
Regier, D. A., Kuhl, E. A., & Kupfer, D. J. (2013). The DSM‐5: Classification and criteria
changes. World Psychiatry, 12(2), 92-98.
Shelton, J. (2019). Depression Definition and DSM-5 Diagnostic Criteria. Retrieved 10 August
2019, from https://www.psycom.net/depression-definition-dsm-5-diagnostic-criteria/
Surís, A., Holliday, R., & North, C. (2016). The evolution of the classification of psychiatric
disorders. Behavioral Sciences, 6(1), 5.