Talk:Dissociative identity disorder/Archive 13

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

DID remains a controversial diagnosis

Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments6 people in discussion

The lead should reflect what is in the body of this article, namely that this diagnosis has been and still is controversial. The following properly cited sentence was removed from the lead. "It remains a controversial diagnosis." It is UNDUE to remove a single sentence mentionioning this fact from the lead. Here are just a few of the citations which backup the word the literal word "controversial" let alone the general notion of this being a contested diagnosis:

"Despite recognition in the current and past versions of the DSM, DID remains a controversial psychiatric disorder, which hampers its diagnosis and treatment."^[1]
Current text in the "Controversy" section: "DID is among the most controversial of the dissociative disorders and among the most controversial disorders found in the DSM-5." This has been supported by recent consensus and the following 3 RS:
1"Although dissociative disorders remain controversial..." "Dissociative disorders are among the most controversial..."^[2]
2“..estimates of the prevalence of dissociative (sic) disorders vary widely and are associated with considerable controversy.”^[3]
3"Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) is a complex and controversial diagnosis that has undergone multiple revisions in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual..."^[4]
Next, here is a current Psychology Today opinion piece that may not qualify as RS, but certainly provides WP:TERTIARY support, per policy "Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight. "In psychiatry, there’s no more controversial diagnosis than dissociative identity disorder (DID)" LINK

I can keep doing this, but I think it's clear at this point that DID remains controversial. It is UNDUE to keep any mention of that fact out of the lead, and it goes against WP:DUE, WP:BALANCE, WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Cheers. DolyaIskrina (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

^ Reinders, Antje A. T. S.; Veltman, Dick J. (2020-10-07). "Dissociative identity disorder: out of the shadows at last?". The British Journal of Psychiatry. 219 (2): 413–414. doi:10.1192/bjp.2020.168. ISSN 0007-1250. PMID 33023686. S2CID 222182562.
^ Stern TA, Fava M, MD, Wilens TE, MD, Rosenbaum JF (2015). Massachusetts General Hospital Comprehensive Clinical Psychiatry. Elsevier Health Sciences. pp. 395–397. ISBN 978-0323295079.
^ Lynn, S.J.; Berg, J.; Lilienfeld, S.O.; Merckelbach, H.; Giesbrecht, T.; Accardi, M.; Cleere, C. (2012). "Chapter14 - Dissociative disorders". In Hersen, M.; Beidel, D.C. (eds.). Adult Psychopathology and Diagnosis. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 497–538. ISBN 978-1-118-13882-3.
^ Blihar D, Delgado E, Buryak M, Gonzalez M, Waechter R (September 2019). "A systematic review of the neuroanatomy of dissociative identity disorder". European Journal of Trauma & Dissociation. 9 (3): 100148. doi:10.1016/j.ejtd.2020.100148.

Absolutely agree with this, though I think "remains a controversial diagnosis" is rather vague and obscures the nature of the controversy.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 10:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes. It should probably resemble something closer to the Johns Hopkins Guide on DID: https://www.hopkinsguides.com/hopkins/view/Johns_Hopkins_Psychiatry_Guide/787069/all/Dissociative_Identity_Disorder The article has been overrun by those in the pro-trauma model camp, which is controversial. The sidebox is also enormous. Zenomonoz (talk) 07:36, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

اكتب 37.40.121.109 (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

DID is definetly controversial, at least. For what it's worth, I remember my undergrad psychology textbooks explicitly stating that DID isn't a valid condition. It gave the impression that there was no shot it was valid. I'm not an expert and I don't claim to remember at the details, but I was thoroughly convinced that DID didn't exist as a valid disorder construct despite my initial skepticism due to the DSM-V. In addition, assuming DID is valid, the "trauma-only" camp is at best pseudoscientific. Chamaemelum (talk) 00:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1863557/

"Studies have shown that the hippocampus and amygdala may be as much as 16% smaller in people with BPD and have suggested that experiences of trauma may lead to these neuroanatomical changes."

"They found that BPD subjects had overall reduced grey and increased white matter volume in areas 24 and 31."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S246874992030017X?via%3Dihub

"When compared to the brains of normal controls, DID patients show smaller cortical and subcortical volumes in the hippocampus, amygdala,"

"DID patients also show larger white matter tracts that are responsible for information communication between somatosensory association areas," Kate the mochii (talk) 00:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
A critic would say that you're simply measuring people who are susceptible to iatrogenesis, or are just seeing the results due to comorbidities. Chamaemelum (talk) 04:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, I believe that the symptoms of DID can be real, as I have seen it in a person I knew very well who was diagnosed with DID. That doesn't convince me of the validity of the construct, though. Chamaemelum (talk) 04:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

[Shadows-1] Reinders, Antje A. T. S.; Veltman, Dick J. (2020-10-07). "Dissociative identity disorder: out of the shadows at last?". The British Journal of Psychiatry. 219 (2): 413–414. doi:10.1192/bjp.2020.168. ISSN 0007-1250. PMID 33023686. S2CID 222182562.

[Stern-2] Stern TA, Fava M, MD, Wilens TE, MD, Rosenbaum JF (2015). Massachusetts General Hospital Comprehensive Clinical Psychiatry. Elsevier Health Sciences. pp. 395–397. ISBN 978-0323295079.

[Hersen2012-3] Lynn, S.J.; Berg, J.; Lilienfeld, S.O.; Merckelbach, H.; Giesbrecht, T.; Accardi, M.; Cleere, C. (2012). "Chapter14 - Dissociative disorders". In Hersen, M.; Beidel, D.C. (eds.). Adult Psychopathology and Diagnosis. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 497–538. ISBN 978-1-118-13882-3.

[Blihar-4] Blihar D, Delgado E, Buryak M, Gonzalez M, Waechter R (September 2019). "A systematic review of the neuroanatomy of dissociative identity disorder". European Journal of Trauma & Dissociation. 9 (3): 100148. doi:10.1016/j.ejtd.2020.100148.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]