Film image

Soundcloud Clips from ‘Why Did I Go Mad?’

‘I went from a whole, healthy little girl into a shattered mind’ ~ Abuse as a catalyst to psychosis

Dr Eleanor Longdon ~ Voices can be recruited as part of the healing journey.

Talking with your foe ~ Rai and Dirk explore the power of dialogue with the adversarial voice

Psychiatrist Sir Robin Murray in conversation with Dr David Strange.

Dr David Strange in conversation with Professor Richard Bentall for BBC Horizon

Professor Swaran Singh on the links between social marginalisation and psychosis.

Jacqui Dillon and Rachel Waddingham interviewed by Rachel Burden for BBC Five Live

Jacqui Dillon

Jacqui on BBC Horizon’s ‘Why Did I Go Mad?’

HorizonFor hundreds of years, psychiatry has treated voices and hallucinations as an enemy – regarding them as ‘insanity’ or ‘madness’ and seeing them as something to be quashed and even frightened of. But today, new scientific and psychological insights into how the brain works are leading to a radical rethink on what such experiences are – and how they should be treated.

Horizon follows three people living with voices, hallucinations and paranoia, to explore what causes this kind of phenomena. Providing a rare first-hand insight into these experiences, they reveal just what it is like to live with them day to day. They examine the impact of social, biological and environmental influences on conditions traditionally associated with insanity, such as schizophrenia and psychosis, and within the film they look at how new ways of understanding the brain are leading to a dramatic change in treatments and approaches, and examine whether targeting the root causes of psychosis can lead to recovery. Above all, they try to uncover why it happened to them – and whether it could happen to you.

Jacqui Dillon

See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006mgxf

Hearing Voices Research and Development Fund receives $250,000 in funding

FEMHC_Logo_horizontal(1)

Coming to a town near you: real help for voice hearers

The Foundation for Excellence in Mental Health Care is pleased to announce that its Hearing Voices Research and Development Fund has received $250,000 in funding for a 3-year project to bring Hearing Voices peer support groups to communities across the United States and to research the mechanisms by which these peer-support groups work.

The project will train more than 100 facilitators in 5 regions of the country and create a stronger regional and local infrastructure of Hearing Voices peer support groups across the US. People who hear voices, see visions, or experience other unusual perceptions, thoughts, or actions have long been diagnosed as psychotic and given a poor prognosis. Medications provide only partial help and their benefits typically diminish over time while destructive physical and psychological side effects become increasingly problematic.

For the past 25 years, the Hearing Voices Network (HVN), an international collaboration of professionals, people with lived experience, and their families and friends has worked to develop an alternative approach to coping with voices, visions, and other extreme states that is empowering and useful and does not start from the assumption of chronic illness (see www.hearing-voices.org, www.hearingvoicesusa.org, www.intervoiceonline.org). A large scientific literature now provides support for key aspects of this approach, and the hundreds of peer-support groups that have developed in 30 countries on 5 continents are enabling voice hearers – even those who have been chronically disabled – to learn to cope more effectively or to rid themselves of the negative effects of their voices.

The US lags far behind other countries in offering this important new approach, and the new funding provides crucial support as more and more mental health organizations across the country seek training to start their own hearing voices peer-support groups. An open competition will be launched in April to choose the 5 project regions, with participants selected using a rigorous model in which mental health professionals and voice hearers collaborate in an intensive shared learning experience that itself illustrates HVN’s concepts and methods.

Equally crucial to the project is an ongoing research component that will allow identification of the distinctive components of hearing voices peer-support groups and better explain what enables them to provide such an effective and positive alternative for people diagnosed with psychosis. “This effort promises to be a movement that will measurably advance mental wellness and recovery for people in distress, their families and the community across the nation,” said Gina Nikkel, President and CEO of the Foundation for Excellence in Mental Health Care. “Hearing voices can be truly terrifying for the person experiencing them and for their loved ones. Hearing Voices Network support groups transform the fear into understanding and then empowerment.”

The Hearing Voices Research and Development Fund is jointly administered by Gail A. Hornstein, Professor of Psychology, Mount Holyoke College, and Jacqui Dillon, National Chair, Hearing Voices Network, England. Their more than 10-year collaboration models the kind of engaged research and advocacy that the project seeks to foster. More background on the project administrators can be found here. Read their recent article on hearing voices groups here.

Key partners in the project include Mount Holyoke College and the Western Massachusetts Recovery Learning Community, based in Holyoke, MA, which has pioneered the training of HVN facilitators in the US as part of its broader mission to “create conditions that can support healing and growth for individuals and the community as a whole.”

Jacqui Dillon on RTE.ie Radio 1 talking about Hearing Voices

What do you hear when you stop and listen to what’s going on in your head? A song that was on the radio yesterday? A snippet of this mornings conversation with your sister? Or nothing….? Are you debating the best route to take home? Are you saying a prayer? What does that sound like?

Jacqui Dillon hears voices. In her head. Lots of them.Voices that sound as real as you or me. Voices that wake her up. Voices that tell her to go to sleep. Voices that disagree with her, and voices that encourage her. And the voices have been there for as long as she can remember.So you might think Jacqui is mad, but this is the story of a woman who has come a long way with the voices in her head.

Twenty years ago Jaqqui’s experience of her voices drove her to psychiatric services…. and that’s where the story really begins because it was when she was told that the voices weren’t real, and that she was lying about her past that she really began to get mad. And that’s when Jacqui realised she had to learn to live with her voices and understand why they were there.

This is a story about hearing voices and about learning to live with them. A story about how your past shapes your future until you start to understand it .

If you have ever wondered what it would be like to hear voices, or have always thought that people who hear voices are plain mad, this documentary just might make you think twice.

Jacqui Dillon is the national Chair of the Hearing Voices Network in England. She is Honorary Lecturer in Clinical Psychology at the University of East London.

Narrated and produced by Leeanne O’Donnell

Production Supervision by Liam O’Brien

Click here for more information on Hearing Voices Network

Click here for more information on Jacqui Dillon

First Broadcast December 7th 2013

‘Documentary on One is the home of Irish radio documentaries and the largest library of documentary podcasts available anywhere in the world. We tell stories in sound, mostly Irish ones, and each documentary tells its own story’

Listen:

You can listen here: http://www.rte.ie/radio1/doconone/radio-documentary-sounds-mad-hearing-voices-psychology.html

A presentation by Jacqui Dillon at Carina Håkansson’s Family Care Conference in Sweden from Mad In America

BAD THINGS THAT HAPPEN TO YOU CAN DRIVE YOU CRAZY

Jacqui Dillon, the national chair of the Hearing Voices Network in England, discusses the work of the Hearing Voices Movement at the recent conference  ‘Presence and Participation: Arguments for the Humanistic and Sustainable Work We Do’ hosted by Carina Håkansson’s Family Care Foundation in Sweden (25-27 April 2013). To listen to Jacqui’s presentation, please click here.

The full conference proceedings are available via live streaming video on MadinAmerica.com.

DSM-5 Protest Tuesday 4th June 4.30pm onwards at the Institute of Psychiatry

Speak Out Against Psychiatry (SOAP) are a group of former patients, carers, mental health professionals and concerned citizens who are campaigning for humane treatment for people experiencing mental distress. SOAP are opposed to forced treatment, electro-shock therapy and the psychiatric drugging of children. SOAP also promote humane alternative ways of helping people in distress.

SOAP are organizing a demonstration to coincide with a forthcoming Institute of Psychiatry conference on the DSM-5 (the latest of edition of the “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders” a book published by the American Psychiatric Association which is widely used throughout the world to classify mental disorders).

The protest will be on Tuesday 4th June from 4.30pm till early evening at the Institute of Psychiatry, De Crespigny Park, London, SE5 8AF.

SOAP are organizing the protest as they feel that the DSM-5 makes it easier for normal human experiences to be labeled as mental illness. For example people experiencing grief can be more easily given the label “Major Depressive Disorder”, and children with temper tantrums can now be diagnosed as having “Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder”. 

A spokesperson for SOAP says “The DSM encourages a tick-box approach to understanding human distress which serves the interests of professionals and drug companies rather than the people who really need help. With the DSM-5 things have been taken a step further: even mainstream organizations such as the National Institute for Mental Health and the British Psychological Society are distancing themselves from the DSM-5, claiming it is unscientific. ”

SOAP feels the DSM-5 will increase the number of people stigmatized by a mental health diagnosis, increase prescriptions of mind-altering drugs, and further what they see as a worrying trend of everyday human problems being put in the hands of highly paid experts and pharmaceutical companies rather than our families and communities.

SOAP also objects to the DSM approach in general, where new disorders are created by committees without any objective biological evidence. SOAP highlights the fact that in earlier versions of the DSM, homosexuality was classed as a disorder but this has since been removed as it is no longer socially acceptable.   SOAP feel that, while mental disorders are frequently being changed by the professionals, patients are still forced to accept them.

A SOAP advocate says, “In the UK mental health system, if a patient rejects the psychiatric label, they are described as ‘lacking insight into their condition’ and the Mental Health Act is used to force them to take medication. How can a person be expected to agree to a label when they are changing every time the latest guide book comes out?”

The protest will give people the chance to voice their concerns about the DSM-5, and allow survivors of the psychiatric system to speak out about their experiences of labelling and forced treatment. SOAP will also be holding a memorial service for a former member who tragically took her own life following decades of forced medical treatment.

SOAP invites anybody who is concerned about the DSM-5, or other aspects of the mental health system, to come along on Tuesday 4th June – from 4.30pm till the early evening, at the Institute of Psychiatry, De Crespigny Park,London, SE5 8AF.

PDF press release available here: SOAP-DSM-5PressRelease

Hearing Voices Network Launches Debate on DSM 5 and Psychiatric Diagnoses

 

IT’S THE BAD THINGS THAT HAPPEN TO YOU THAT CAN DRIVE YOU CRAZY!

The Hearing Voices Network in England has issued a position statement on DSM 5 and the wide issue of psychiatric diagnoses following last week’s debate on the need for a new paradigm in mental health services, reported largely as a ‘turf war’ between psychiatry and psychology. Concerned that this debate can all too easily sound ‘academic’ and miss the voices of the very people these systems impact upon – those diagnosed with mental health problems – HVN are taking the debate back to the people.

We believe that people with lived experience of diagnosis must be at the heart of any discussions about alternatives to the current system.

Jacqui Dillon, Hearing Voices Network, Chair.

In their statement, the Hearing Voices Network (HVN) state that psychiatric diagnoses are both scientifically unsound and can have damaging consequences. HVN suggest that asking ‘what’s happened to you?’ is more useful than ‘what’s wrong with you?’.

Concerned that essential funds are being wasted on expensive and futile genetic research, they call for the redirection of funds to address the societal problems known to lead to mental health problems and provide the holistic support necessary for recovery.

This is part of a growing, international movement by survivors of the psychiatric system who are questioning the adequacy of a biomedical model to make sense of and respond to madness and distress (see: http://www.intervoiceonline.org/ http://www.mindfreedom.org/ http://psychdiagnosis.weebly.com/ http://www.madinamerica.com/ http://www.occupypsychiatry.net/ http://www.youtube.com/openparadigmproject )

HVN invites people with lived experience of diagnosis and their supporters to engage in a discussion about the issues and help plan a way forwards.

People who use services are the true experts on how those services could be developed and delivered; they are the ones that know exactly what they need, what works well and what improvements need to be made. This is not just an academic or professional issue – it’s one that affects our lives.”

Jacqui Dillon, Hearing Voices Network, Chair

 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Notes for the editor

 

  • The Hearing Voices Network (England) is a national, user-led charity that supports people who hear voices, see visions or have other unusual experiences. The Hearing Voices Network is part of the rapidly expanding global Hearing Voices Movement with 26 Hearing Voices Networks operating, across 5 continents. The Hearing Voices Network’s position statement can be read, and commented on, via their website http://www.hearing-voices.org/

 

 

Please SIGN THE PETITION to prevent DSM-5 from compromising patient safety and scientific integrity.

 

Statement of Concern – Complete Version

 

Note: DSM-5 refers to the American Psychiatric Association’s fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders; a handbook for psychiatric diagnosis and classification, scheduled for publication for 20th May, 2013.

 

Statement of Concern about the Reliability, Validity, and Safety of DSM-5

We, the undersigned, are concerned that the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition (DSM-5):

  • Includes many diagnostic categories with questionable reliability, which may lead to misleading assumptions about their scientific validity;

Prior to the publication of DSM-III in 1980, psychiatric diagnoses were frequently criticized for their substandard reliability, as clinicians too commonly disagreed on diagnostic decisions even when presented with the same information. Thus, a major impetus for those who developed the diagnostic model featured in DSMs III and IV was the improvement of interrater reliability, or the likelihood that two or more professionals would agree on a particular diagnosis (Feighner et al., 1972; Spitzer, Forman, & Nee, 1979). This goal was achieved with marked success, leading to hopes that the next step of achieving validity (i.e., empirical support for the real-world legitimacy of DSM-defined mental disorders) was close within reach (see Robins & Guze, 1970). However, subsequent research –and in fact a large body of data collected over the last 30 years– did not yield consistent validity evidence for DSM-defined categorical diagnoses. Instead, the gradual accumulation of inconsistent data has led some researchers to call for a root-and-branch review of diagnostic classification in psychiatry.

The DSM-5 development process was –especially at first– one effort to conduct that review. In the words of DSM-5 Task Force members (Regier, Narrow, Kuhl, & Kupfer, 2009), “As we began the DSM-V developmental process in 1999, a major concern was to address a range of issues that had emerged over the previous 30 years,” including “the basic definition of a mental disorder” (para. 7). There was hope for a “paradigm shift” in psychiatric diagnosis (Kupfer, First, & Regier, 2002, p. xix), and even though that aspiration has since been pushed to the back-burner (Kendler et al., 2009), the new manual will be published with markedly liberal revisions to DSMs III and IV.

The DSM-5 field trials (conducted in one phase, due the cancellation of plans for a second phase revealed an unexpected change from the previous two editions of the manual: reliability estimates for many major disorder categories had dropped well below not only those for DSM-III/IV-designed disorders, but also below commonly accepted standards (see Frances, 2012c). Furthermore, primary care doctors (family physicians and general practitioners) were not included in the field trials (American Psychiatric Association, 2011), despite the fact that they provide the majority of mental health treatment (Wang et al., 2007) and prescribe the majority of psychiatric medications (Mark, Levit, & Buck, 2009).

A primary tenet of empirical research holds that reliability is a necessary precondition for validity, as scientists cannot make stable claims about a concept that fluctuates empirically or lacks consensus among observers. Thus, before achieving common reliability standards, it is premature and untenable to introduce the DSM-5 revisions into hospitals, clinics, and general practice. Clinical research, likewise, should seek to establish psychometric stability before proceeding on the assumption that DSM-5 diagnostic categories are valid empirical entities. Epidemiological investigations may suffer from inconclusive findings and lack of continuity with research conducted using previous diagnostic definitions.

  • Did not receive a much-needed and widely requested external scientific review;

We recognize and appreciate that numerous professionals have worked hard to produce DSM-5, and have done so in good faith. However, many experts in the field have also spoken out in good faith about flaws in the document, and most of these flaws have not been resolved by the DSM-5 Task Force.

On January 9, 2012, the Open Letter Committee of the Society for Humanistic Psychology (Division 32 of the American Psychological Association) called for an external scientific review of the DSM-5 proposals by an independent group of researchers who are not affiliated with DSM-5 or the American Psychiatric Association (the full text can be found here: http://dsm5-reform.com/the-open-letter-committee-calls-for-independent-review-of-dsm-5/). This request was made in light of widespread reservation about the scientific status and safety of DSM-5 among mental health professionals and patient advocacy groups. An open letter to the DSM-5 Task Force and the American Psychiatric Association detailing these concerns (http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/dsm5/) was endorsed by more than 14,000 individuals and over 50 professional organizations, including 16 divisions of the American Psychological Association.

  • May compromise patient safety through the implementation of lowered diagnostic thresholds and the introduction of new diagnostic categories that do not have sufficient empirical backing;

DSM-5 has been criticized for lowering numerous diagnostic thresholds, i.e., reducing the number and severity of diagnostic criteria that are considered sufficient for a diagnosis to be made. The anticipated result is broad increase in the number of persons who qualify for a diagnosis of mental disorder, especially among individuals whose symptoms would have been considered subclinical in DSMs III and IV. In the third draft of the manual (formerly available for public viewing on dsm5.org), lowered diagnostic thresholds appeared in the proposed definitions for Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Somatic Symptom Disorder, Bulimia Nervosa, and Alcohol Use Disorder, among other diagnoses.

DSM-5 also introduces new disorders that did not appear in earlier editions of the manual. Among them: Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder, Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder, Somatic Symptom Disorder, and Mild Neurocognitive Disorder. These new diagnoses have generated significant controversy as a result of their questionable research backing and their potential for application to vulnerable populations, including children, the elderly, and persons with chronic medical illnesses. Some of the feared consequences of these new categories are as follows:

  • Somatic Symptom Disorder (a modification of the Somatoform Disorders in DSM-IV-TR) includes a new stipulation that will allow for the diagnosis of mental disorder in persons with chronic medical illness complaining of excessive pain. As a result, doctors may prematurely jump to the conclusion that “it’s all in the head” (Frances, 2012b, para. 3).
  • Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder may be diagnosed in children and adolescents displaying significant mood swings (temper tantrums), which may be developmentally normal and resolve without treatment. Although the new category was invented with the aim of precluding the controversial practice of diagnosing Pediatric Bipolar Disorder, the latter diagnosis never existed in previous editions of the manual due to its questionable validity.
  • Mild Neurocognitive Disorder appears to describe normal cognitive decline that may be expected in elderly populations. Over-diagnosis of mental disorder and psychiatric treatment in the elderly –especially elderly populations in nursing homes– is already a nationwide problem in the US and other countries.
  • Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder transforms severe PMS into a psychiatric disorder. In the past, similar proposals have been excluded from previous editions of the DSM due to substantial controversy and attention from women’s rights groups because of the risk of pathologizing women’s experience.

Altogether, the lowering of diagnostic thresholds and introduction of new disorders in DSM-5 has led to increasing concern about patient safety. Though it has been suggested that psychotropic medication may not be the first line of treatment for some of these diagnoses, the vast majority of psychiatric diagnoses are made in fast-paced treatment settings by general medical practitioners who do not have time to critically evaluate the research literature behind the DSM and often have few alternatives to prescribing medications.

Our duty in the medical and helping professions is, first and foremost, to do no harm. Thus, as mental health practitioners and researchers, we are greatly concerned about the introduction of empirically questionable diagnostic concepts into psychiatric and general medical practice.

  • Is the result of a process that gives the impression of putting institutional needs ahead of public welfare.

Several aspects of the DSM-5 development process reflect an apparent prioritization of institutional needs above patient safety and general public welfare. For example, the DSM-5 field trials were designed for implementation in two stages; the first was intended to address reliability, the second quality control. The second stage of the field trials was ultimately cancelled due to delays in the development process. Despite the importance of assessing quality control before the manual is used in patient care, DSM-5 will proceed with its expected May 2013 publication. For more information about the conduct and findings of the DSM-5 field trials, see Frances (2012a).

Additional concerns about the DSM-5 development process include hiring of a pubic relations firm (GYMR) to influence public opinion about the manual through a PR website (http://dsmfacts.org/), the lack of external scientific evaluation of the proposals, and the lack of a formal forensic review.

Because of the above, we fear that DSM-5:

  • May result in the mislabeling of mental illness in people who would fare better without a psychiatric diagnosis;

We have no doubt that many of the issues considered by DSM-5 constitute clinical and societal problems. It is worrying that many people are so affected by economic crises that they contemplate taking their own lives. Excessive alcohol or recreational drug use are dilemmas for individuals and societies. We have aging populations, troubled and disruptive children. It is a marker of humanitarian progress that we attempt to help people in distress. But, to take one example of many, it is unhelpful to suggest that a child throwing temper tantrums or a woman experiencing ‘period pains’ is mentally ill. It is unhelpful to suggest that a consumer seeking help from medical doctors is, by virtue of multiple complaints or visiting multiple doctors, mentally ill. Clients and the general public are negatively affected by the continued and continuous medicalization of their natural and normal responses to their experiences; responses which undoubtedly have distressing consequences that demand helping responses, but which do not reflect illnesses so much as normal individual variation. The mental health professions are uniquely suited for helping to create a better global society. But the application of inappropriate psychiatric labels is not a solution.

  • May result in unnecessary and potentially harmful treatment, particularly with psychiatric medication;

It is highly likely that, if a person receives a diagnosis under DSM-5, recommended treatment will involve medication. Recently, mounting empirical evidence has suggested that psychiatric medication, though helpful when used properly, may lead to iatrogenic consequences when used inappropriately. For example, antipsychotic medications, which are increasingly used to treat non-psychotic symptoms such as depression and anxiety, may lead to metabolic syndrome, obesity, diabetes, Parkinson’s-like movement disorders, neurocognitive decline, psychotic symptoms, reduced brain volume, and significantly shortened lifespan (Ho, Andreasen, Ziebell, Pierson, & Magnotta, 2011; Olfman & Robbins, 2012; Robbins, Higgins, Fisher, & Over, 2011; Whitaker, 2010). .

  • May divert precious mental health resources away from those who most need them.

Mental health problems affect one person in every four, making them the leading cause of disability worldwide (World Health Organization, 2012), at an estimated cost of $2,500 billion in 2010 (Bloom et al, 2011). The provision of high-quality and appropriate mental health care is an urgent global issue. Although the aspiration to improve the well-being of all citizens may be laudable, the use of scientifically unstable diagnoses will only confuse a complex picture and lead to the inappropriate investment of scarce resources. Since mental health problems disproportionately affect poor and socially excluded people, questionable diagnostic systems risk further disadvantaging the most vulnerable.

Committee Members

Richard Bentall; Professor of Clinical Psychology, University of Liverpool, UK

Mary Boyle; Emeritus Professor of Clinical Psychology, University of East London, UK

Pat Bracken; Consultant Psychiatrist and Clinical Director of Mental Health Services, West Cork, Eire

Joanne Cacciatore; Assistant Professor; Arizona State University School of Social Work, USA

Tim Carey; Associate Professor, Flinders University, Australia

David Castle; Professor of Psychiatry, University of Melbourne, Australia

Jack Carney; Licenced Psychologist, Alabama, USA

Anne Cooke; Clinical Psychologist, Canterbury Christ Church University, UK

Jacqui Dillon; Chair; Hearing Voices Network, UK

Suman Fernando; Consultant Psychiatrist, UK

Daniel Fisher; Consultant Psychiatrist, National Empowerment Centre, USA

Dave Harper; Reader in Clinical Psychology, University of East London, UK

Louis Hoffman; Continuing Education Coordinator, Society for Humanistic Psychology, USA

Lucy Johnstone; Clinical Psychologist, Bristol UK

Dayle Jones; Associate Professor, University of Central Florida, USA

Sarah Kamens; Society for Humanistic Psychology, USA

Peter Kinderman; Professor of Clinical Psychology, University of Liverpool, UK

Patrick Landman; Psychiatrist and Psychoanalyst; Paris, France

Eleanor Longden; Psychologist, London UK

Jason McCarty; Psychotherapist, British Columbia, Canada

Nancy McWilliams; Psychologist and Psychoanalyst, Rutgers University, USA

Gordon Milson; Clinical Psychologist, Manchester, UK

Bradley Olsen; President-Elect, Division 48 of American Psychological Association; President, Psychologists for Social Responsibility, Chicago, USA

Ana Padilla; University College London, London UK

Richard Pemberton; Chair, British Psychological Society Division of Clinical Psychology, UK

Dave Pilgrim; Professor of Health and Social Policy, University of Liverpool, UK

John Read; Professor of Clinical Psychology, University of Auckland, NZ

Melissa Raven; Research Fellow, Flinders University, Australia

Brent Robbins; President, Society for Humanistic Psychology, Div32 American Psychological Association, USA

Dave Traxsom; Educational Psychologist, UK

Sara Tai; Senior Lecturer in Clinical Psychology, University of Manchester, UK

Phil Thomas; Honorary Visiting Professor, University of Bradford, formerly consultant psychiatrist, UK

Sam Thompson; University of East London, UK

Sami Timimi; Consultant Psychiatrist, UK

Steve Trenchard; Chair, International Society for the Psychological Treatment of Schizopnrenia and other Psychoses

Martin Whitely; MLA, Parliament of Western Australia, Australia

References

American Psychiatric Association. (2011, March 18). Protocol for DSM-5 field trials in routine clinical practice settings. Retrieved 17 March from http://www.dsm5.org/Research/Documents/DSM5%20FT%20RCP%20Protocol%2003-19-11%20revlc.pdf

Bloom, D.E., Cafiero, E.T., Jané-Llopis, E., Abrahams-Gessel, S., Bloom, L.R., Fathima, S. … Weinstein, C. (2011) The global economic burden of noncommunicable diseases. Geneva: World Economic Forum. Retrieved from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Harvard_HE_GlobalEconomicBurdenNonCommunicableDiseases_2011.pdf

Feighner, J. P., Robins, E., Guze, S. B., Woodruff, R. A., Winokur, G., & Munoz, R. (1972). Diagnostic criteria for use in psychiatric research. Archives of General Psychiatry, 26, 57-63. http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=490573

Frances, A. (2012a, October 31). DSM-5 field trials discredit the American Psychiatric Association. Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allen-frances/dsm-5-field-trials-discre_b_2047621.html

Frances, A. (2012b, December 28). Mislabeling medical illness as mental disorder. DSM-5 in Distress: Psychology Today. Retrieved February 18, 2013 from http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dsm5-in-distress/201212/mislabeling-medical-illness-mental-disorder

Frances, A. (2012c, May 6). Newsflash from APA meeting: DSM-5 has flunked its reliability tests. Psychology Today: DSM-5 in Distress. Retrieved from http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dsm5-in-distress/201205/newsflash-apa-meeting-dsm-5-has-flunked-its-reliability-tests

Ho, B-C., Andreasen, N. C., Ziebell, S., Pierson, R., & Magnotta, V. (2011). Long-term antipsychotic treatment and brain volumes. Archives of General Psychiatry, 68, 128-137. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3476840/

Mark, T. L., Levit, K. R., & Buck, J. A. (2009). Datapoints: psychotropic drug prescriptions by medical specialty. Psychiatric Services, 60(9), 1167. Retrieved from http://ps.psychiatryonline.org/data/Journals/PSS/3889/09ps1167.pdf

Olfman, S., & Robbins, B.D. (2012). Drugging our children. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger. http://www.abc-clio.com/product.aspx?isbn=9780313396830

Papanikolaou, P. N., Churchill, R., Wahlbeck, K., & Ioannidis, J. P. (2004). Safety reporting in randomized trials of mental health interventions. American Journal of Psychiatry, 161(9), 1692-1697. Retrieved from http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleid=177043

Regier, D. A., Narrow, W. E., Kuhl, E. A., & Kupfer, D. J. (2009). The conceptual development of the DSM-V. American Journal of Psychiatry, 166(6), 645-650. Retrieved from http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleid=100852

Robbins, B.D., Higgins, M., Fisher, M., & Over, K. (2011). Conflicts of interest in research on antipsychotic treatment of pediatric bipolar disorder, temper dysregulation disorder, and attenuated psychotic symptoms syndrome: Exploring the unholy alliance between big pharma and psychiatry. Journal of Psychological Issues in Organizational Culture, 1(4), 32-49. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jpoc.20039/abstract

Robins, E., & Guze, S. B. (1970) Establishment of diagnostic validity in psychiatric illness: its application to schizophrenia. American Journal of Psychiatry, 126, 983-987. http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleID=151746

Spitzer, R. L., Forman, J. B., & Nee, J. (1979). DSM-III field trials: I. initial interrater diagnostic reliability. American Journal of Psychiatry, 136, 815-817.

​Wang, P. S., Aguilar-Gaxiola, S., Alonso, J., Angermeyer, M. C., Borges, G., Bromet, E. J. … Wells, J. E. (2007). Use of mental health services for anxiety, mood, and substance disorders in 17 countries in the WHO world mental health surveys. Lancet, 370(9590), 841-850. Retrieved from

Whitaker, R. (2010). Anatomy of an epidemic. New York, NY: Random House. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Anatomy-Epidemic-Bullets-Psychiatric-Astonishing/dp/0307452425/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1363113445&sr=8-1

World Health Organization. (2012) Global status report on non-communicable diseases 2010. Geneva: World Health Organization. www.who.int/nmh/publications/ncd_report_full_en.pdf