Autism Numbers May Decline Under New DSM

[King_Oni]

Autism Numbers May Decline Under New DSM

After years of escalating growth, a new study looking at data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggests that autism rates could drop off thanks to new diagnostic criteria for the developmental disorder.

In a review of surveillance data on 8-year-olds with autism collected by the CDC in 2006 and 2008, researchers found that nearly 1 in 5 of the youngsters would not have qualified for a diagnosis on the autism spectrum under updated criteria in the latest edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

Last year, a fifth edition of the DSM was published which included sweeping and controversial changes to the diagnosis of autism. The new version of the manual altered the diagnostic criteria and did away with Asperger’s syndrome, childhood disintegrative disorder and pervasive developmental disorder, not otherwise specified, instead creating an umbrella classification of “autism spectrum disorder” with clinicians indicating a level of severity.

The change was met with significant trepidation among many in the autism community who were concerned that individuals might be stripped of their diagnosis and lose needed services. In response, those behind the DSM update appended the autism entry with a note indicating that people with an existing diagnosis on the spectrum should retain the label.

In an effort to assess how this change could impact autism prevalence going forward, researchers looked at medical and educational records for 6,577 kids diagnosed with autism under the previous edition of the DSM who were part of the CDC’s surveillance efforts. They found that only 81 percent of the children would qualify for an autism diagnosis under the DSM-5 definition, according to the study published Wednesday in JAMA Psychiatry.

“Autism spectrum disorder prevalence estimates will likely be lower under DSM-5 than under DSM-IV-TR diagnostic criteria, although this effect could be tempered by future adaptation of diagnostic practices and documentation of behaviors to fit the new criteria,” the authors wrote.

Many of the kids who no longer appeared to qualify were missing just one criteria for the diagnosis, said Matthew J. Maenner of the CDC’s National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities who led the study.

“It is important to point out that we cannot predict what will happen in the future with how individuals with ASD are diagnosed, or how (or when) professionals will adapt to the new diagnostic criteria,” Maenner said.

Source; Autism Numbers May Decline Under New DSM - Disability Scoop

 

[LoneHeart]

Wow! Just wow! I think that is absolutely ridiculous!

 

[MoCoffee]

I really hope this doesn't turn out to be true! It's so hard for kids who are different as it is, and too many might not get the help they need.

 

[Judge]

Serious pressure exerted from government and from shareholders at the same time. If you can't effectively reduce the cost of healthcare and insurance, you begin to explore ways to reduce the reasons for providing it. Difficult for me to draw another conclusion.

 

[Warwick C]

Just another attempt to sweep Aspergers Syndrome under the carpet. It appears to be a case of experts saying it is getting to hard for us, lets simplify it.

May be We Aspies need to protest, and say we are not going to go away.

 

[King_Oni]

I find this an interesting, albeit expected development.

I commented on the article back when I read it;

Just because they don’t qualify for a diagnosis because the criteria are more strict doesn’t mean these people will have no problems. Yes, people who are really mild cases now might fall of the radar, and those might already be the people that don’t need any support to start with. At some point you will end up with only the severe cases and that’s the only group services are geared towards. You can only qualify if you got the full package. And in years we’ll probably notice how a lot of people are “healthy” but still fail to function and we don’t have a clue why they don’t just “get along”. If anything, I think the new criteria are a way to make diagnosis more black and white rather than shades of grey that we used to have. Too bad that mental illness doesn’t deal in these exact absolutes…

I actually believe it's not Asperger's and autism that needs fixing by trying to artificially decrease numbers, but perhaps it would be more in order how people have difficulties and most likely they'll conclude that society by itself is causing more people to fail and function properly. Human nature hasn't changed a lot, but society has.

 

[GallacticGorilla]

This is a done deal. The DSM-V has removed Aspergers. While I guess the diagnosis still exists under the pseudonym "High Functioning ASD". I dont care what its called as long as people admit that it exists. But some people are saying it doesn't exist at all. That this clutch of symptoms doesnt have life altering enough consequences. That the symptoms could just simply mean a person is simply awkward, or that the symptoms are too inconsistent from case to case to document. I say its MALARKY! The symptoms are very specific. As someone who just discovered my specific clutch of symptoms has a name (Aspergers) this information is frustrating as heck.! I felt relief for a minute, only to have that reliefe taken from me by the DSM-V

As so many things in life, this may have to do with money and healthcare disability checks and nothing to do with the actual prognosis.

i ve read a bit on this topic the past couple weeks, and I personally think it is a terrible idea. Science is always about classifying and sub classifying. WHen in history has science ever made less sub classifications instead of more?

I think it is grade A bologna! But i'd love to hear someone tell me why they think it is a good idea.

 

[Judge]

When in history has science ever made less sub classifications instead of more?

Science isn't necessarily objective when on occasion government and corporate grant$ may hang in the balance.

That's how I believe such decisions can happen- almost always behind closed doors.

It's like we're film winding up on a cutting room floor. A business decision instead of real people with real issues. I guess the only worse thing they could do is to cite that we constitute two percent of the public so we're considered to be fiscally expendable.

 

[oscar2012]

its just another excuse because the medical board are not clued up about this it makes me very angry

 

[Carlito]

I am, on the "High Functioning Autism Spectrum Disorder" and there are many things that alter my life. Things people don't think about having anything to do with Autism (which is a neurological disorder). For example, I have a very strong sense of smell and taste (which I now Know is related to my Aspergers). It is to the point where I will become physically ill at the smell of pickles or mustard. I am afraid to accept dinner invitations because I eat such a limited amount of foods. I also will only order simple "safe" things when at a restaurant because I am afraid they will put something on my food that will make me ill!! I love sports and play on various softball and basketball teams. It is very hard to go out with them afterward!! This is just one example of how it can affect people. It also has a major impact on my relationship with my neurotypical girlfriend! Too much to get into, but it definitely should not be eliminated from the Spectrum!!

 

[AspieSam]

This is an interesting thread, I too agree that I wish they didn't clump us all together. With that said. There are some pluses to it. Like the fact that some now who have ASD are often more eligible for certain gov. services now!

 

[King_Oni]

This is an interesting thread, I too agree that I wish they didn't clump us all together. With that said. There are some pluses to it. Like the fact that some now who have ASD are often more eligible for certain gov. services now!

Right now this might be the case... until governments like the one in my country figure out there's too many people on disability benefits and they'll drastically cut down the numbers by changing the criteria to apply...

 

[Warwick C]

I think you have summed up the real idea behind the change

 

[Turnip]

This is a done deal. The DSM-V has removed Aspergers. While I guess the diagnosis still exists under the pseudonym "High Functioning ASD". I dont care what its called as long as people admit that it exists. But some people are saying it doesn't exist at all. That this clutch of symptoms doesnt have life altering enough consequences. That the symptoms could just simply mean a person is simply awkward, or that the symptoms are too inconsistent from case to case to document. I say its MALARKY! The symptoms are very specific. As someone who just discovered my specific clutch of symptoms has a name (Aspergers) this information is frustrating as heck.! I felt relief for a minute, only to have that reliefe taken from me by the DSM-V

As so many things in life, this may have to do with money and healthcare disability checks and nothing to do with the actual prognosis.

i ve read a bit on this topic the past couple weeks, and I personally think it is a terrible idea. Science is always about classifying and sub classifying. WHen in history has science ever made less sub classifications instead of more?

I think it is grade A bologna! But i'd love to hear someone tell me why they think it is a good idea.

"High Functioning ASD" is not a pseudonym for Asperger's, the former could refer to someone with AS but it could also refer to someone on the spectrum who does not fit the exact criteria for AS. Someone with the "specific clutch of symptoms" which you assert "has a name (Aspergers)", would not necessarily be diagnosed with Asperger's under the DSM IV either and it depended it would depend on who you went to be be diagnosed, for example if there was a speech delay when you were a baby, irrespective of how you presented during the evaluation you would not have received the AS diagnosis. Now what sense does that make?

I don't see the problem with moving away from having an Asperger's cool kids club at one end of the spectrum which only certain "high functioning" people on the spectrum can be a part of based upon some distinctions which were arbitrary.

It's threads like this that make me happy not to be an "aspie".

EDIT: just to clarify I am only responding to the removal, not the further changes and their effect on rates of diagnosis.

 

[King_Oni]

Here's a follow up from the same website that got published a few days ago;

Under New DSM, Autism Diagnoses May 'Significantly Decrease' - Disability Scoop

 

[Turnip]

An odd coincidence with the earlier figure of 1 in 5 losing their diagnosis would be, unless my maths is wrong, that the 1 in 88 figure would go back to the earlier 1 in 110.

 

[King_Oni]

An odd coincidence with the earlier figure of 1 in 5 losing their diagnosis would be, unless my maths is wrong, that the 1 in 88 figure would go back to the earlier 1 in 110.

Even the 1 in 88 number seems to vary. Last year I've read a report that said it was 1 in 50 even. And for some odd reason it tends to vary per country as well. Last I've read 1 in 100 tends to be on the spectrum in my country.

These numbers in general seem to be guesswork I think.

 

[Turnip]

This describes how the 1 in 88 figure was arrived at: Prevalence of Autism Spectrum Disorders — Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, 14 Sites, United States, 2008

 

[Warwick C]

Thanks for the link Turnip, so often reports or claims are made but they do not tell you how they arrived at the figure. I have only scanned over part of it so far I will look at it later when I have more time

 

[Spinosaurus kin]

Serious pressure exerted from government and from shareholders at the same time. If you can't effectively reduce the cost of healthcare and insurance, you begin to explore ways to reduce the reasons for providing it. Difficult for me to draw another conclusion.

Same is happening for schizophrenia. They have been put on a lower quality drug probably cos it's cheaper.

I hate ****ing capitalism.