I'm happy to see such results be "properly" recognized. The DSM is imo helpful only as a baseline, especially in contexts where without it, doctors might have (significant) personal bias. And... this might ruffle some feathers with the "live and die by the book" crowd, but a good, perceptive doctor doesn't need the DSM to diagnose anything.
I've had video calls with a doc who took maybe 5 minutes at most of hearing subjective experiences to confidently reach a conclusion. I've also had a 45 minute "by the book" DSM-based session where boxes were being ticked... and the questions were f---ing *terrible*, if you pardon my French. "Do you have trouble concentrating" is terribly vague and can always be justified either way. Not to mention, it takes maybe a few moments to "catch on" on how to answer which questions; which seems to be a terrible way of introducing bias into the answers (as also mentioned in the article). Having someone describe their personal life is in many ways much better because it cannot be a rigid yes/no question.
And all this talk is without mentions of other aspects that also need addressing, like the continuous spectrum of many conditions...
I've had video calls with a doc who took maybe 5 minutes at most of hearing subjective experiences to confidently reach a conclusion. I've also had a 45 minute "by the book" DSM-based session where boxes were being ticked... and the questions were f---ing *terrible*, if you pardon my French. "Do you have trouble concentrating" is terribly vague and can always be justified either way. Not to mention, it takes maybe a few moments to "catch on" on how to answer which questions; which seems to be a terrible way of introducing bias into the answers (as also mentioned in the article). Having someone describe their personal life is in many ways much better because it cannot be a rigid yes/no question.
And all this talk is without mentions of other aspects that also need addressing, like the continuous spectrum of many conditions...