The DSM-5 Clinical and Public Health Committee (CPHC): operations, mechanics, controversies and recommendations.

BACKGROUND: For DSM - 5, the American Psychiatric Association Board of Trustees established a robust vetting and review process that included two review committees that did not exist in the development of prior DSMs, the Scientific Review Committee (SRC) and the Clinical and Public Health Committee (CPHC). The CPHC was created as a body that could independently review the clinical and public health merits of various proposals that would fall outside of the strictly defined scientific process. METHODS: This article describes the principles and issues which led to the creation of the CPHC, the composition and vetting of the committee, and the processes developed by the committee - including the use of external reviewers. RESULTS: Outcomes of some of the more involved CPHC deliberations, specifically, decisions concerning elements of diagnoses for major depressive disorder, autism spectrum disorder, catatonia, and substance use disorders, are described. The Committee's extensive reviews and its recommendations regarding Personality Disorders are also discussed. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of our experiences, the CPHC membership unanimously believes that external review processes to evaluate and respond to Work Group proposals is essential for future DSM efforts. The Committee also recommends that separate SRC and CPHC committees be appointed to assess proposals for scientific merit and for clinical and public health utility and impact.

Who's your expert? Use of an expert opinion survey to inform development of American Psychiatric Association practice guidelines.

OBJECTIVE: For many clinical questions in psychiatry, high-quality evidence is lacking. Credible practice guidelines for such questions depend on transparent, reproducible, and valid methods for assessing expert opinion. The objective of this study was to develop and demonstrate the feasibility of a method for assessing expert opinion to aid in the development of practice guidelines by the American Psychiatric Association (APA). METHODS: A "snowball" process initially soliciting nominees from three sets of professional leaders was used to identify experts on a guideline topic (psychiatric evaluation). In a Web-based survey, the experts were asked to rate their level of agreement that specific assessments improve specific outcomes when they are included in an initial psychiatric evaluation. The experts were also asked about their own practice patterns with respect to the doing of the assessments. The main outcome measures are the following: number of nominated experts, number of experts who participated in the survey, and number and nature of quantitative and qualitative responses. RESULTS: The snowball process identified 1,738 experts, 784 (45 %) of whom participated in the opinion survey. Participants generally, but not always, agreed or strongly agreed that the assessments asked about would improve specified outcomes. Participants wrote 716 comments explaining why they might not typically include some assessments in an initial evaluation and 1,590 comments concerning other aspects of the topics under consideration. CONCLUSIONS: The snowball process based on initial solicitation of Psychiatry's leaders produced a large expert panel. The Web-based survey systematically assessed the opinions of these experts on the utility of specific psychiatric assessments, providing useful information to substantiate opinion-based practice guidelines on how to conduct a psychiatric evaluation. The considerable engagement of respondents shows promise for using this methodology in developing future APA practice guidelines.