Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
DSM-5 and culture: The need to move towards a shared model of care
within a more equal patientphysician partnership
K.S. Jacob
Christian Medical College, Vellore 632002, India
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Keywords:
DSM-5
Culture
Mental disorders
The universal models employed by psychiatry de-emphasise the role of context and culture. Despite
highlighting the impact of culture on psychiatric diagnosis and management in the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5, most of the changes suggested remain in the introduction and
appendices of the manual. Nevertheless, clinical and biological heterogeneity within phenomenological
categories mandates the need to individualise care. However, social and cultural context, patient beliefs
about causation, impact, treatment and outcome expectations are never systematically elicited, as they
were not essential to diagnosis and classification. Patient experience and narratives are trivialised and
the biomedical model is considered universal and transcendental. The need to elicit patient perspectives,
evaluate local reality, assess culture, educate patients about possible interventions, and negotiate a
shared plan of management between patient and clinician is cardinal for success. The biopsychosocial
model, which operates within a paternalistic physician-patient relationship, needs to move towards a
shared approach, within a more equal patient-clinician partnership.
! 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
90
and issues related to mental health and illness. Even the proposed
Research Domain Criteria (NIMH, 2013) underemphasizes the role
of development, environment, and culture and need correction.
Nevertheless, despite the inadequate understanding about the
aetiology and pathophysiology of mental disorders, they have to be
managed in clinical practice. The disadvantages of diagnostic
categorization (e.g. overlap between categories, indistinct boundaries, generation of stereotypes, need to force patients into illfitting categories, need to follow ill-suited treatment protocols,
legal implications of diagnosis) mandate individualized assessments and treatment to optimize care. Consequently, the
Biopsychosocial model (Engel, 1980) soon became standard
perspective in medicine and psychiatry. It attempted to integrate
multiple and interacting components including the psychosocial
dimensions (personal, emotional, family, community, culture,
spirituality) in addition to the biological aspects (disease) of all
patients.
Nevertheless, the difficulties with integrating the diverse and
contradictory strands, which predispose, precipitate and maintain
mental disorders often meant a very superficial and idiosyncratic
approach to its implementation. While the elicitation of psychological and social issues in causation is possible, their management
in practice is much more difficult. Psychotherapeutic strategies
require time and expertise while social interventions are beyond
most psychiatrists. Consequently, the biopsychosocial model is
often praised and yet it is the biomedical model, which is routinely
practiced (Jacob, 2013).
Despite its attempts at patient-centred medicine, psychiatry
continues to be undergirded by the doctor-centred biomedical
model. Social and cultural issues are often on the back burner. In
fact, many issues related to patient beliefs about causation, impact,
treatment and outcome expectations are never systematically
elicited, as they were not essential to diagnosis and classification.
This resulted in a neglect of large swathes of information about the
patients background, concepts, culture and local reality.
Many patients and relatives hold multiple and often contradictory causal explanatory models (Saravanan et al., 2005) and
simultaneously seek interventions from practitioners of modern
and traditional medicine and healing across the globe (Jacob, 1999;
McCabe and Priebe, 2004). Consequently, patients and their
physicians are often on the opposite ends of many divides:
illnessdisease, healingcure, mindbody, and subjective experienceobjective clinical phenomena dichotomies. These distinctions in medicine are also hierarchical with disease, cure, body, and
laboratory results privileged over illness, healing, mind and
subjective symptoms. Patients subjective experiences are translated into universal concepts of structural and functional
dysfunction (disease). Patient experience and narratives are
trivialized and clinical phenomena and results of laboratory
investigations considered universal and transcendental (Jacob,
2012). Their singularity and incommensurability with medical
perspectives are dismissed when universal theoretical formations
are applied to clinical practice. The physicianpatient divide
prevents good communication and impacts on most aspects of
clinical interaction including informed consent procedures.
The biopsychosocial model operated within the paternalistic
medical culture, where psychiatrists decided the diagnostic
formulation and chose management solutions. The universal
models employed by psychiatry deemphasized the role of context
and culture, which encouraged medication-based solutions. The
increasing realization of the importance of the patients context
and culture and its impact on diagnosis and management argues
for the need to upgrade the biopsychosocial model. The need to
elicit patient perspectives, evaluate local reality, assess culture,
educate patients about possible interventions and negotiate a
shared plan of management between patient and clinician is
91
Conflict of interest
The author does not have any conflict of interest to declare.
References
American Psychiatric Association, 2013. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth ed. American Psychiatric Association, Arlington, VA.
Engel, G.L., 1980. The clinical application of the biopsychosocial model. Am. J.
Psychiatry 137, 535544.
Insel, T., 2013. Transforming diagnosis., http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/
index.shtml (accessed 25.05.13).
Jacob, K.S., 1999. Mental disorders across cultures: the common issues. Int. Rev.
Psychiatry 2/3, 111115.
Jacob, K.S., 2012. Patient experience and psychiatric discourse. Psychiatrist 36, 414
417.
Jacob, K.S., Kuruvilla, A., 2012. Psychotherapy across cultures: the formcontent
dichotomy. Clin. Psychol. Psychother. 19, 9195.
Jacob, K.S., 2013. Depression: disease, distress and double bind. Aust. N.Z. J.
Psychiatry 47, 304308.
Jacob, K.S., Kallivayalil, R.A., Mallik, A.K., Gupta, N., Trivedi, J.K., Gangadhar, B.N.,
Praveenlal, K., Vahia, V., Rao, T.S.S., 2013. Diagnostic and statistical manual-5:
position paper of the Indian Psychiatric Society. Indian J. Psychiatry 55, 1230.
Kleinman, A., 1980. Patients and Healers in the Context of Culture: An Exploration of
the Borderland Between Anthropology, Medicine, and Psychiatry. University of
California Press, Berkeley.
McCabe, R., Priebe, S., 2004. Explanatory models of illness in schizophrenia:
comparison of four ethnic groups. Br. J. Psychiatry 185, 2530.
National Institute of Mental Health, 2013. NIMH Research Domain Criteria (RDoC).,
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/research-funding/rdoc/nimh-research-domain-criteria-rdoc.shtml (accessed 03.06.13).
Saravanan, B., David, A., Bhugra, D., Prince, M., Jacob, K.S., 2005. Insight in people
with psychosis: the influence of culture. Int. Rev. Psychiatry 17, 8387.