Why Should People with Lived Experience Be Included in the DSM Revision Process

Datos Bibliográficos

ID17536162
AutoresAnne-Marie Gagné-Julien (0000-0001-6586-2371), Anne‐Marie Gagné‐Julien, Phoebe Friesen (0000-0002-1529-916X)
Año2026
Volumen56
Número2
Páginas46-56
Fecha de publicación2026-03-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaThe Hastings Center Report (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0093-0334 • E-ISSN: 1552-146X
EditorialWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1002/hast.70051
PMID41840765
OpenAlexW7138372101
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas1
Referencias citadas32

Increasingly, scholars and advocates are recognizing the importance of including individuals with lived experience of mental health issues in the development of psychiatric research and policy. Here, we hope to contribute to discussions regarding the specific context of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) revision process. We argue that this process is not inclusive enough, but also that those who have advocated for better inclusivity have not been responsive enough to the risks reported from other inclusive mental health contexts (in research, practice, and policy). In particular, tokenism and lack of uptake of input from people with lived experience are likely to loom large in relation to DSM efforts at inclusivity as well. In light of this, we suggest that disentangling the reasons for inclusion can help to overcome these problems, and we offer practical recommendations for a more inclusive DSM revision process

Context (archaeology) · Inclusion (mineral) · Lived experience · Mental health · Relation (database) · Tokenism · Mental Health and Psychiatry · Mental Health Treatment and Access · Personality Disorders and Psychopathology