Exploring DSM-5: Diagnostic Criteria, Mental Illness, and Labeling

This discussion post examines the use of the DSM-5 in diagnosing mental disorders, focusing on the diagnostic criteria and the potential issues associated with labeling individuals. It highlights the importance of understanding the DSM-5's structure, including the clinical disorders in infancy, diagnostic criteria and codes, and emerging measures and models. The post addresses the problems that arise from labeling, such as prolonged symptoms, negative societal evaluations, and less effective treatment. It suggests that providing knowledge and addressing cultural beliefs can reduce stigma, improve treatment response, and enhance coping mechanisms. The author emphasizes the role of education and awareness in mitigating social stigma and improving the overall understanding and acceptance of mental illness within society.

Running head: DMS-5
DMS-5
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1
DMS-5
DMS defined as diagnosis and statistical manual of mental disorder, which is handbook
for mental health professional in United States to guide in diagnosis of mental disorder (Rehbein
et al., 2015). It contains most up to date criteria for diagnosis, descriptive text that consists of
common language for clinicians to communicate with patient. First criteria is considering clinical
disorder found in infancy and it aid in evaluating any onset symptoms of disorder where culture
plays crucial part (Stinchfield et al., 2016). The Second criterion is diagnosis criteria and codes,
which contain descriptive texts for detail analysis for establishment of mental illness (
Rehbein et al., 2015). The Third criterion is emerging measures and models to establish
mental illness (Stinchfield et al., 2016).
There are certain issues regarding labeling of mental illness that causes difficulties for
mentally ill patient. According to Rosales et al. (2015), the problem with the labeling is this
symptoms are prolongs and persistent which sometimes confuse people with other criteria.
Moreover, some of the psychiatric diagnosis leads to negative evaluations by society and family
members, even patients themselves (Stinchfield et al., 2016). Consequently, these issues lead to
less effective treatment.
According to Rosales et al. (2015), expansion of correct knowledge about any issues potentially
resolves the issue. Therefore, the possible way of resolving the issues is to providing the
knowledge to the society and family members can reduce the stigma, which can improve the
treatment response and coping mechanism of the patient ( Rehbein et al., 2015). Considering
cultural beliefs while treating are proved to resolve the issue.

2
DMS-5
From my point of the view, issues are presents because of knowledge and personal,
cultural beliefs of society. This can be solved proper education and spreading awareness in order
to reduce social stigma (Rehbein et al., 2015).

3
DMS-5
References:
Rehbein, F., Kliem, S., Baier, D., Mößle, T., & Petry, N. M. (2015). Prevalence of internet
gaming disorder in German adolescents: Diagnostic contribution of the nine DSM‐5
criteria in a state‐wide representative sample. Addiction, 110(5), 842-851.
Rosales, A. G., Vitoratou, S., Banaschewski, T., Asherson, P., Buitelaar, J., Oades, R. D., ... &
Chen, W. (2015). Are all the 18 DSM-IV and DSM-5 criteria equally useful for
diagnosing ADHD and predicting comorbid conduct problems?. European child &
adolescent psychiatry, 24(11), 1325-1337.
Stinchfield, R., McCready, J., Turner, N. E., Jimenez-Murcia, S., Petry, N. M., Grant, J., ... &
Winters, K. C. (2016). Reliability, validity, and classification accuracy of the DSM-5
diagnostic criteria for gambling disorder and comparison to DSM-IV. Journal of
gambling studies, 32(3), 905-922.