Diagnostic dissonance and negotiations of biomedicalisation: mental health practitioners’ resistance to theDSMtechnology and diagnostic standardisation

Abstract

Previous research demonstrates that biomedicalisation and diagnostic processes are intertwined in American mental health care, but few studies examine practitioners’ negotiations. This study examines how Mental Health Practitioners (MHPs) negotiate the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM), diagnosis, standardisation and biomedicalisation‐in‐practice. Feminist grounded theory analysis of 42 semi‐structured interviews with licensed adolescent MHPs reveals accounts of discursive, everyday resistance to the DSM technology and standardisation, which I regard as key aspects of biomedicalisation. Findings demonstrate MHPs seemingly practice what I term diagnostic dissonance: a deep conflict between their professional theoretical orientations and the biomedical model legitimated in the DSM technology and insurers’ diagnostic standardisation. MHPs enact dissonance by undermining the DSM, working around standardisation and by coding the social. Coding the social refers to the employment of V‐codes – illegitimate secondary diagnoses – which convey social and relational conditions of mental distress. MHPs’ contestations of the DSM and standardisation are responses to a healthcare infrastructure that decontextualises mental health. Practitioner resistance to biomedicalisation‐in‐diagnosis is important because the biomedicalisation of mental health takes focus away from the social and relational conditions and solutions to individual and community health and illness.

Mapping mental health inequalities: The intersecting effects of gender, race, class, and ethnicity on ADHD diagnosis

“…Uncertainty and reservation amongst clinicians and patients may, for example, be central to the diagnostic process, particularly in cases such as ADHD for which objective tests are absent and some scepticism (both medical and public) remains (Rafalovich, 2005). Tensions may arise between a clinician's professional orientation, diagnostic guidelines, and coding practices for insurance (Nelson, 2019). Children and their caregivers are equally situated in sociocultural circumstances which may promote or impede biomedical responses to behaviours related to a diagnosis (Bergey et al, 2018; Conrad & Bergey, 2014).…”

Cultivated co-production: Sexual health, human rights, and the revision of the ICD

“…In particular, it is hard to gauge what health providers will do with the diagnostic labels made available to them. One might assume that clinicians necessarily take their cues from formal nosologies, but studies have shown that clinicians often resist their logics or negotiate their use of them (Armstrong, 2011;Nelson, 2019).…”

Psychologist attitudes toward DSM-5 and its alternatives.

“…A 2016 World Health Organization global survey looked at attitudes about diagnostic classifications more broadly, finding psychologists value them to inform treatment and facilitate communication but prefer flexible diagnostic guidelines over strict criteria and worry about culture bias (Evans et al, 2013). Research on other professions shows, not surprisingly, that psychiatrists generally hold a positive view of DSM (Jampala et al, 1992; Junek, 1983; Kortan et al, 2000; Maser et al, 1991; Setterberg et al, 1991; Someya et al, 2001), while social workers and counselors use it and appreciate its scientific and practical benefits but are concerned about potential bias, stigmatization, medicalization, and over-pathologizing (Frazer et al, 2009; Gayle & Raskin, 2017; Hitchens & Becker, 2014; Nelson, 2019; Newman et al, 2007; Probst, 2012; Strong et al, 2012).…”