0
Get Alert
Please Wait... Processing your request... Please Wait.
You must sign in to sign-up for alerts.

Please confirm that your email address is correct, so you can successfully receive this alert.

1
Editorial   |    
Depression, Bereavement, and “Understandable” Intense Sadness: Should the DSM-IV Approach Be Revised?
Mario Maj, M.D., Ph.D.
Am J Psychiatry 2008;165:1373-1375. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2008.08071047

The issue of the differentiation between depression and “understandable” intense sadness (representing a “normal” response to an adverse life event) has significant clinical, scientific, political, and ethical implications, which have become particularly visible in the past few decades, in parallel with the escalation of the prevalence rates of depression in the community, of the estimated social costs of depression, of the number of people on treatment for depression, and of the prescriptions of antidepressant medications (1). Psychiatry has been accused of inappropriately medicalizing the ordinary experience of sadness in order to expand the range of its jurisdiction (2), and the high prevalence rates of depression reported by community studies have been regarded as unbelievable even by some prominent psychiatrists, who have emphasized the risk to misdiagnose “normal reactions to a difficult environment” as a mental disorder (3).

According to DSM-IV, periods of sadness are inherent aspects of the human experience, which should not be diagnosed as a major depressive episode unless criteria are met for severity, duration, and clinically significant distress or impairment. The implication of this statement is that “understandable” intense sadness following an adverse life event does qualify for the diagnosis of major depression if the severity, duration, and impairment criteria are fulfilled. In other terms, the context in which the depressive symptoms occur is not relevant to the diagnostic decision; what counts is the clinical picture.

The only exception to this rule is represented by bereavement. If the symptoms begin within 2 months of the death of a loved one and do not persist beyond these 2 months, the diagnosis of major depression should not be made, unless the symptoms are associated with marked functional impairment or include morbid preoccupation with worthlessness, suicidal ideation, psychotic symptoms, or psychomotor retardation. The rationale for this exclusion criterion can be found in the Introduction to DSM-IV: in order to represent a mental disorder, a condition “must not be merely an expectable and culturally sanctioned response to a particular event, for example, the death of a loved one” (p. xxi). A depressive state is an expectable and culturally sanctioned response to the death of a loved one and, as such, does not represent a mental disorder. Some empirical support to this position is provided by the high prevalence of a major depressive syndrome, ranging from 35% to 58%, 1 month after the death of a loved one (4, 5) and by the fact that most bereaved people describe themselves as being what they would have expected to be given the circumstances, whereas depressed patients experience their condition as a “change,” “not usual self” (4).

The asymmetry introduced by DSM-III/IV between the death of a loved one and other major adverse life events has, not surprisingly, attracted the attention of researchers. In this issue, Kendler et al. (6) report that the similarities between bereavement-related and other life stressor-related depression far outweigh their differences, arguing against the continued use of the bereavement exclusion criterion in DSM-V. In another recent paper, Wakefield et al. (7), on the basis of similar findings, proposed to exclude both bereavement-triggered and other loss-triggered uncomplicated intense sadness from the DSM-V diagnosis of major depression (i.e., to introduce a “contextual” criterion excluding intense sadness that appears “proportionate” to a loss).

These opposite proposals based on the same research evidence are likely to divide our field and the public opinion for several years. Of course, both proposals have significant treatment implications. On the one hand, the risk is to medicalize an adaptive response, thus disrupting the individual’s coping processes. On the other, the risk is to deprive a person with a full depressive syndrome of a treatment that may be needed. Furthermore, the impact of the implementation of either proposal on the prevalence rates of major depression is likely to be substantial: for instance, in the community sample studied by Wakefield et al. (7), uncomplicated other loss-triggered cases accounted for 20.1% of all cases of major depression, and uncomplicated bereavement-triggered cases for 6.5%.

The issue is even more complex than it may appear to an unsophisticated thinker. The death of a loved one is a clear-cut, easily ascertainable life event that is usually out of the person’s control, but other adverse life events may be quite different in these respects. The presence itself of a depressive state may impair the accuracy of a person’s report of recent life events or may expose a person to adverse events. The experimental induction of depressed mood has been found to produce an increase in reports of past stressful events (8), and the relationship between depression and “dependent” events (i.e., events that can be explained by the depressive state, such as being fired from a job) has been found to be stronger than the relationship between depression and “independent” events (9).

Furthermore, whether an adverse life event has been really decisive in triggering a depressive state may be difficult to establish in several cases. This is well known since the 1960s, when Aubrey Lewis, testing a set of criteria aimed to distinguish between “contextual” and “endogenous” depression, concluded that most depressive cases were “examples of the interaction of organism and environment,” so that “it was impossible to say which of the factors was decidedly preponderant” (10).

Further research is clearly needed to explore the applicability and reliability of a “contextual” criterion in the diagnosis of major depression and the clinical utility of such a criterion for the prediction of treatment response and clinical outcome. The limited available research evidence suggests that definite “situational” major depression does not differ from definite “nonsituational” major depression on many clinical and psychosocial variables (11) and that response to antidepressant medications is unrelated to whether or not major depression is preceded by a life event (12). At the present state of knowledge, it may be therefore unwise to disallow the diagnosis of major depression in a person meeting the severity, duration, and impairment criteria for that diagnosis just because the depressive state occurs in the context of a significant life event.

On the other hand, the removal of the bereavement exclusion criterion from the DSM-V diagnosis of major depression—a move that may be perceived as a further step in psychiatry’s attempt to pathologize normal human processes—requires strong and unequivocal research evidence. Some differences between bereavement-related and other life stressor-related depression found by Kendler et al. (6) (the lower percentage of bereaved individuals who sought treatment; the lower levels of neuroticism in those people) and by Wakefield et al. (7) (the lower proportion of bereaved people who reported that their condition interfered with life a lot) seem to point in the DSM-IV direction and deserve further investigation. Moreover, bereavement may be a quite different experience after the death, for instance, of a son or a friend (these events were included in the same category in the study by Kendler et al.) or in the elderly compared to younger people (the mean age at index episode, in Kendler et al.’s sample, was 35 years). Finally, if we expect DSM-V to be more widely used in various cultural contexts than DSM-IV, some cross-cultural validation of Kendler et al.’s findings is probably warranted.

1.Horwitz AV, Wakefield JC: The Loss of Sadness: How Psychiatry Transformed Normal Sorrow Into Depressive Disorder. Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press, 2007
 
2.Kutchins H, Kirk SA: Making Us Crazy. DSM: The Psychiatric Bible and the Creation of Mental Disorders. New York, The Free Press, 1997
 
3.Spitzer RL, Wakefield JC: DSM-IV diagnostic criterion for clinical significance: does it help solve the false positives problem? Am J Psychiatry 1999; 156:1856–1864
 
4.Clayton PJ, Herjanic M, Murphy GE, Woodruff R Jr: Mourning and depression: their similarities and differences. Can Psychiatr Assoc J 1974; 19:309–312
 
5.Harlow SD, Goldberg EL, Comstock GW: A longitudinal study of the prevalence of depressive symptomatology in elderly widowed and married women. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1991; 48:1065–1068
 
6.Kendler KS, Myers J, Zisook S: Does bereavement-related major depression differ from major depression associated with other stressful life events? Am J Psychiatry 2008; 165: 1449–1455
 
7.Wakefield JC, Schmitz MF, First MB, Horwitz AV: Extending the bereavement exclusion for major depression to other losses: evidence from the National Comorbidity Survey. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2007; 64:433–440
 
8.Cohen LH, Towbes LC, Flocco R: Effects of induced mood on self-reported life events and perceived and received social support. J Pers Soc Psychol 1988; 55:669–674
 
9.Williamson DE, Birmaher B, Anderson BP, Al-Shabbout M, Ryan ND: Stressful life events in depressed adolescents: the role of dependent events during the depressive episode. J Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 1995; 34:591–598
 
10.Lewis A: Melancholia: a clinical survey of depressive states, in Inquiries in Psychiatry: Clinical and Social Investigations. Edited by Lewis A. New York, Science House, 1967, pp 30–72
 
11.Hirschfeld RMA, Klerman GL, Andreasen NC, Clayton PJ, Keller MB: Situational major depressive disorder. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1985; 42:1109–1114
 
12.Anderson IM, Nutt DJ, Deakin JFW, on behalf of the Consensus Meeting and endorsed by the British Association for Psychopharmacology: Evidence-based guidelines for treating depressive disorders with antidepressants: a revision of the 1993 British Assocociation for Psychopharmacology guidelines. J Psychopharmacol 2000; 14:3–20
 

+Received July 17, 2008; accepted July 22, 2008. From the Department of Psychiatry, University of Naples SUN, Naples, Italy. Address correspondence and reprint requests to Prof. Maj, Department of Psychiatry, University of Naples SUN, Largo Madonna delle Grazie, 80138 Naples, Italy; majmario@tin.it (e-mail). Editorial accepted for publication July 2008 (doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2008.08071047).

+Prof. Maj reports no competing interests.

+

References

1.Horwitz AV, Wakefield JC: The Loss of Sadness: How Psychiatry Transformed Normal Sorrow Into Depressive Disorder. Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press, 2007
 
2.Kutchins H, Kirk SA: Making Us Crazy. DSM: The Psychiatric Bible and the Creation of Mental Disorders. New York, The Free Press, 1997
 
3.Spitzer RL, Wakefield JC: DSM-IV diagnostic criterion for clinical significance: does it help solve the false positives problem? Am J Psychiatry 1999; 156:1856–1864
 
4.Clayton PJ, Herjanic M, Murphy GE, Woodruff R Jr: Mourning and depression: their similarities and differences. Can Psychiatr Assoc J 1974; 19:309–312
 
5.Harlow SD, Goldberg EL, Comstock GW: A longitudinal study of the prevalence of depressive symptomatology in elderly widowed and married women. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1991; 48:1065–1068
 
6.Kendler KS, Myers J, Zisook S: Does bereavement-related major depression differ from major depression associated with other stressful life events? Am J Psychiatry 2008; 165: 1449–1455
 
7.Wakefield JC, Schmitz MF, First MB, Horwitz AV: Extending the bereavement exclusion for major depression to other losses: evidence from the National Comorbidity Survey. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2007; 64:433–440
 
8.Cohen LH, Towbes LC, Flocco R: Effects of induced mood on self-reported life events and perceived and received social support. J Pers Soc Psychol 1988; 55:669–674
 
9.Williamson DE, Birmaher B, Anderson BP, Al-Shabbout M, Ryan ND: Stressful life events in depressed adolescents: the role of dependent events during the depressive episode. J Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 1995; 34:591–598
 
10.Lewis A: Melancholia: a clinical survey of depressive states, in Inquiries in Psychiatry: Clinical and Social Investigations. Edited by Lewis A. New York, Science House, 1967, pp 30–72
 
11.Hirschfeld RMA, Klerman GL, Andreasen NC, Clayton PJ, Keller MB: Situational major depressive disorder. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1985; 42:1109–1114
 
12.Anderson IM, Nutt DJ, Deakin JFW, on behalf of the Consensus Meeting and endorsed by the British Association for Psychopharmacology: Evidence-based guidelines for treating depressive disorders with antidepressants: a revision of the 1993 British Assocociation for Psychopharmacology guidelines. J Psychopharmacol 2000; 14:3–20
 
+
+

CME Activity

There is currently no quiz available for this resource. Please click here to go to the CME page to find another.
Submit a Comments
Please read the other comments before you post yours. Contributors must reveal any conflict of interest.
Comments are moderated and will appear on the site at the discertion of APA editorial staff.

* = Required Field
(if multiple authors, separate names by comma)
Example: John Doe



Web of Science® Times Cited: 26

Related Content
Books
The American Psychiatric Publishing Textbook of Psychiatry, 5th Edition > Chapter 11.  >
The American Psychiatric Publishing Textbook of Geriatric Psychiatry, 4th Edition > Chapter 15.  >
Textbook of Psychotherapeutic Treatments > Chapter 11.  >
The American Psychiatric Publishing Textbook of Psychopharmacology, 4th Edition > Chapter 53.  >
Dulcan's Textbook of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry > Chapter 18.  >
Topic Collections
Psychiatric News
APA Guidelines
PubMed Articles