The claim that psychiatric diagnosis is “an art, not a science” is a dangerous myth, often perpetuated to the detriment of those struggling with mental illness. This misconception implies a reliance on subjective guesswork rather than the rigorous application of scientific principles that underpin other medical fields. While psychiatric diagnosis certainly presents unique complexities, it is undeniably grounded in scientific methodology. The idea of “art vs. science” in psychiatric diagnosis is squarely challenged. This exploration covers the science behind diagnosis, its challenges, the place of objective assessment, and clinical judgment. It will be seen how psychiatry, like all branches of medicine, is underpinned by the pursuit of scientific truth, striving to bring relief and understanding to those who suffer. This article follows on from The Fundamentals of Psychiatric Diagnosis (July 2023) and explores what the scientific basis of psychiatric diagnosis ought to be. Under the microscope will be the challenges and limitations of diagnosis, highlighting the role of objective measures, clinical judgement, and the evolving understanding of mental illness.
Despite the abundance of scientific research applicable to psychiatry, the profession faces significant challenges due to limited time and resources. These constraints, largely unspoken outside of professional circles, has persisted for over two decades and is exacerbated by a recent looming economic crisis in the UK. Consequently, there is growing concern that psychiatry is being compelled to adopt a more ‘artistic’ approach, potentially compromising its scientific foundations. This raises critical questions about whether a majority of psychiatrists are accepting a ‘new norm’ and whether the profession risks being relegated to the role of ‘artists’ rather than medical doctors.
The Scientific Foundation of Psychiatric Diagnostics
Psychiatric diagnostics, like all medical disciplines, involves systematically gathering information, evaluating evidence, and applying knowledge to reach a diagnosis. This complex process is meant to embrace scientific principles. Throughout this article, ‘diagnostics‘ is distinguished from ‘diagnosis‘ though both are inseparable. Diagnostics is the process of gathering evidence – the empirical scientific approach – be it from interviews, observatons of others, reports from relatives, and psychometic tests. Diagnosis is the application of that evidence in a recognised diagnostic framework e.g. ICD-11 or DSM-V. Those classificatory systems – which themselves have strong scientific foundations – provide detailed criteria for mental disorders, enabling clinicians to make diagnoses with improved reliability and consistency once sound evidence applied.
The diagnostic process in psychiatry typically involves gathering comprehensive information about the individual patient:
- Thorough history taking: This involves gathering information about the individual’s symptoms, experiences, personal and family history, and social context. It is important to consider the individual’s narrative and understanding of their illness.
- Mental status examination: This is a structured assessment of the individual’s appearance, behaviour, mood, thought processes, and cognitive function. It includes evaluating the individual’s capacity to relabel psychotic symptoms as abnormal, attribute symptoms to mental illness, and recognise the function of treatment.
- Collateral information: This involves obtaining information from family members, friends, or other healthcare professionals to gain a broader perspective on the individual’s condition.
- Objective measures: This includes utilising standardised rating scales and assessments to quantify symptoms, track progress, and aid in the diagnostic process.
- Integration of information: This final step involves synthesising all the gathered information to formulate a diagnosis and develop a personalised treatment plan.
In addition to diagnosis, formulation plays a vital role in providing a comprehensive understanding of the patient’s illness experience and potential treatment options. Formulation considers the individual’s unique circumstances, including psychosocial factors, cultural background, and personal history, to provide context and shape therapies.
These steps, while relying on clinical judgement, are grounded in empirical observation, standardised assessments, and a holistic approach to understanding the individual, reflecting a scientific approach to diagnosis.
Challenges and Limitations in Psychiatric Diagnostics
The massive list of challenges below highlight the need for diligence, better use of diagnostic tools, and a critical approach to psychiatric diagnosis. It is important to acknowledge the limitations of current diagnostic systems and strive for a more individualised understanding of mental illness. In order to do science where there is so much ‘noise’, it is is absolutely important that psychiatrists have the necessary time and resources to deliver reliable diagnoses and sound tmatching treatments within the biopsychosocial model.
- Subjectivity of Symptoms: Many psychiatric symptoms are subjective and rely on self-reporting, making objective quantification and measurement challenging. This can lead to variability in diagnosis and potential for bias.
- Heterogeneity of Presentations: Individuals with the same diagnosis can present with diverse symptoms and experiences, making diagnosis more complex. This highlights the limitations of relying solely on categorical schemes and the need to consider normality as a continuum.
- Comorbidity: The frequent co-occurrence of multiple mental disorders can complicate diagnosis and treatment. This requires careful consideration of the interplay between different conditions and their impact on the individual’s presentation.
- Lack of Definitive Biomarkers: While there are exceptions, such as the use of biomarkers in Alzheimer’s disease, psychiatry currently lacks definitive biomarkers for most mental disorders. This makes diagnosis reliant on clinical observation and interpretation, which can contribute to variability and challenges in reaching a consensus.
- Evolving Diagnostic Criteria: Diagnostic criteria for mental disorders are subject to ongoing revisions and updates, reflecting the evolving understanding of mental illness. This can lead to challenges in maintaining consistency and accuracy in diagnosis over time.
- Over-medicalisation of Normal Experiences: The reliance on subjective observation in diagnosis carries the risk of over-medicalising normal experiences, particularly those related to trauma, abuse, or neglect.
- Diagnostic Shifts: Individuals may experience diagnostic shifts, where their diagnosis changes over time due to various factors, including changes in symptomatology, differences in clinical opinion, and evolving diagnostic criteria. These shifts can both promote and undermine clinical trust and self-understanding.
- Influence of Power Dynamics and Social Context: Diagnostic shifts can be influenced by power dynamics and social context, highlighting the need to consider these factors in the diagnostic process.
- Diagnostic Bias: Clinician and patient characteristics, such as age, gender, socioeconomic status, and ethnicity, can influence the diagnostic process, potentially leading to bias and inaccuracies.
- Subjectivity of Symptoms: Many psychiatric symptoms are subjective and rely on self-reporting, making objective quantification and measurement challenging. This can lead to variability in diagnosis and potential for bias.
- Heterogeneity of Presentations: Individuals with the same diagnosis can present with diverse symptoms and experiences, making diagnosis more complex. This highlights the limitations of relying solely on categorical schemes and the need to consider normality as a continuum.
- Affective Influences: Emotions, feelings, preconceived notions, stereotypes, and personal biases can sway clinical judgement and impact diagnostic decisions.
- Environmental Factors: Environmental circumstances, such as noise levels and interruptions, can affect clinical judgement and potentially lead to diagnostic errors.
- Clinician’s Mood and Anxiety: The clinician’s own mood and anxiety levels can influence their diagnostic decisions, highlighting the importance of self-awareness and reflection in clinical practice.
- Distinguishing Medical and Psychiatric Diseases: It can be challenging to distinguish between medical and psychiatric diseases, particularly when medical conditions present with mental symptoms or vice versa.
- Missing Psychiatric Diagnoses in Elderly Patients: There is a risk of missing psychiatric diagnoses in elderly patients who present with physical complaints, potentially leading to inadequate care.
- Over-treatment of Elderly Patients: There is concern about the potential for over-treatment of elderly patients with psychotropic medications, highlighting the need for careful consideration of medication management in this population.
- Cognitive Biases: Cognitive biases, such as the fundamental attribution error, can influence psychiatric diagnosis and contribute to diagnostic errors.
- Different Decision-Making Rules Some psychiatrists use different decision-making rules
- Symptom Overlap: There can be significant overlap in symptoms between diagnoses, potentially leading to diagnostic uncertainty.
- Assumption of Distress as Disorder: Diagnostic systems may wrongly assume that all distress results from disorder, potentially overlooking the role of contextual factors and normal human experiences.
- Cultural Perspectives: The Western model of mental health diagnosis may overlook broader cultural and social factors, potentially leading to misdiagnosis or ineffective treatment for individuals from diverse backgrounds.
- Limitations of Categorical Schemes and the Continuum of Normality: Categorical schemes in diagnosis have limitations. It is essential to consider normality as a continuum, recognising the individual and cultural variability in the severity and expression of symptoms.
- Influence of Values and Social/Cultural Contexts: Values and social/cultural contexts influence the definition of adaptive functions and normality, highlighting the need for cultural sensitivity in diagnosis.
- Family Aggregation and Alternative Explanations: While family aggregation can be a factor in the development of diagnostic criteria, it is important to consider alternative explanations for this phenomenon, such as shared environment and learning history.
Ethical Considerations in Psychiatric Diagnosis
Ethical considerations are paramount in psychiatric diagnosis, given the potential impact of diagnostic labels on individuals’ lives. The principles of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice should guide all aspects of mental health practice, including diagnosis [The four principles of medical ethics, Feb 2024]
Respecting patient autonomy requires ensuring that individuals are fully informed about their diagnosis, treatment options, and the potential risks and benefits of different interventions. This includes providing information about the limitations of psychiatric diagnosis, the potential for diagnostic uncertainty, and the possibility of diagnostic shifts.
Furthermore, clinicians must be mindful of the potential for diagnostic labels to contribute to stigma and discrimination. It is important to communicate diagnoses sensitively and in an empowering manner, emphasising the individual’s strengths and potential for recovery.
Informed consent is a critical ethical consideration in psychiatric practice. Individuals have the right to receive comprehensive information about their diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment options, including the risks and benefits of each option. Consent must be complete, effective, explicit, current, and informed, ensuring that the individual understands the implications of their decisions. Patients who are not found not to be of capacity or where capacity does not apply (in law), still ought to be provided with information.
Assessing capacity to consent can be challenging in patients with mental disorders, particularly those with cognitive impairments or acute symptoms. Clinicians must carefully evaluate the individual’s capacity to understand information, appreciate the consequences of their decisions, and communicate their choices.
The subjective nature of psychiatric diagnosis and the lack of definitive biomarkers can lead to ethical dilemmas related to labelling, stigma, and access to appropriate care. Clinicians must be vigilant in recognising and addressing these ethical challenges, ensuring that their practice is guided by principles of respect, beneficence, and justice.
Objective Measures and Biomarkers in Psychiatry
While objective measures offer promising avenues for advancing psychiatric diagnosis, they are not a replacement for clinical judgement and a holistic understanding of the individual. Due to the cost and limited availability of these measures, they are often reserved for the most complex cases. In everyday practice, clinical judgement, experience, and diligence become the key factors in accurate psychiatric diagnosis.
This does not negate the scientific approach in psychiatry. Even without access to sophisticated technology, psychiatrists can still employ a scientific mindset, utilising systematic observation, hypothesis testing, and evidence-based reasoning to arrive at a diagnosis. Just as scientists of the past made significant discoveries with limited resources, psychiatrists can utilise their clinical skills and knowledge to make accurate diagnoses and provide effective treatment.
Some investigatory avenues
- Neuroimaging: Techniques like fMRI and PET scans are used to identify brain abnormalities associated with mental illness. These techniques can provide valuable insights into brain structure and function, potentially aiding in diagnosis and treatment planning.
- Genetics: Research is ongoing to investigate genetic variations that may contribute to the development of mental disorders. Identifying specific genes or gene combinations associated with mental illness could lead to earlier detection, more targeted treatments, and a better understanding of disease mechanisms.
- Electrophysiology: EEG is employed to measure brain activity and identify patterns associated with specific disorders. This non-invasive technique can provide real-time data on brain function, potentially aiding in diagnosis and monitoring treatment response.
- Blood-based biomarkers: Researchers are exploring potential blood markers that may indicate the presence of mental illness. Identifying reliable blood-based biomarkers could revolutionise psychiatric diagnosis, providing a more objective and accessible method for detecting mental disorders.
- Dopamine D2 Receptor Occupancy: Studies have investigated the role of dopamine D2 receptor occupancy as a potential biomarker for predicting response to antipsychotic medications. This could help personalise treatment and improve outcomes for individuals with schizophrenia.
- Grey Matter Morphometry and Gyrification Index: Research suggests that grey matter morphometry and the gyrification index, which reflects neurodevelopmental trajectories, may be useful biomarkers for predicting treatment response and long-term clinical outcomes in schizophrenia.
- Digital Tools: Digital tools have the potential to quantify clinical data and operationalise decision models in psychiatry. This could improve the objectivity and efficiency of psychiatric assessment and contribute to more personalised treatment.
To maximise the potential of these objective measures, standardised data collection protocols are essential. This includes standardised procedures for deep clinical phenotyping, cognitive assessments, biological sampling, and electrophysiological and imaging procedures.
The Role of Clinical Judgement and Experience
Despite the increasing use of objective measures, clinical judgement and experience remain important in psychiatric diagnostics. Experienced clinicians develop an understanding of mental illness, allowing them to:
- Interpret subjective symptoms: Gather and evaluate information about the individual’s experiences, considering cultural and personal factors, and recognising the potential for bias and subjectivity.
- Recognise patterns and variations: Identify subtle signs and symptoms that may not be captured by standardised assessments, drawing on their knowledge and experience with diverse presentations.
- Integrate information from multiple sources: Synthesise data from interviews, observations, objective measures, and collateral information to formulate a comprehensive diagnosis.
- Tailor treatment plans: Develop individualised treatment strategies based on the individual’s specific needs, circumstances, preferences, and cultural background.
- Assess Insight: Evaluate the patient’s understanding of their illness, considering their capacity to relabel psychotic symptoms as abnormal, attribute symptoms to mental illness, recognise the function of treatment, and acknowledge the need for care.
- Consider Symptomatology: Take into account the patient’s level of present-state positive symptomatology when assessing insight, differentiating between high levels of symptomatology and low insight.
- Assess Competence to Consent: Evaluate the individual’s capacity to understand information, appreciate the consequences of their decisions, and communicate their choices, particularly in the context of treatment decisions.
- Utilise Standardised Tools: Incorporate standardised tools, such as the EICT scale, to assess competence to consent to treatment in healthcare and legal contexts.
- Recognise the Limitations of Compliance: Understand that compliance with treatment is not always an indicator of insight and requires contextual investigation.
Clinical judgement, though subjective, is not arbitrary. It is informed by knowledge, experience, an understanding of the complexities of mental illness, and a commitment to ethical practice. The ability to integrate objective data with subjective experiences and clinical expertise is essential for effective diagnosis and treatment in psychiatry.
Furthermore, clinical experience plays a significant role in increasing the reliability of psychiatric diagnosis. Experience in different clinical settings, with diverse patient populations, and with structured interviews can enhance a clinician’s ability to recognise and accurately diagnose various psychiatric disorders.
Diagnostic Rating Scales in Psychiatry
Diagnostic rating scales are valuable tools in psychiatric practice, providing standardised measures of symptom severity and change over time. These scales offer a structured approach to assessment, enhancing objectivity and facilitating communication among clinicians and researchers.
Rating scales can be used for various purposes:
- Screening: Identifying individuals who may have a mental disorder and require further evaluation.
- Diagnosis: Assisting in making a diagnosis by providing a structured assessment of symptoms and their severity.
- Monitoring: Tracking changes in symptom severity over time and in response to treatment.
- Research: Evaluating the effectiveness of different treatments and interventions.
- Measuring Specific Symptoms, Functioning, and Quality of Life: Assessing the severity and monitoring changes in specific symptoms, general functioning, quality of life, and overall outcome.
Rating scales are available in different formats, such as checklists and observation guides, to suit various clinical needs and settings.
Some widely used rating scales in psychiatry include:
- Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS): A broad spectrum scale covering a wide range of symptoms, including thought disturbance, emotional withdrawal, anxiety, depression, and hostility.
- Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS): Used to assess the positive, negative, and general psychopathology symptoms of schizophrenia.
- Scale for the Assessment of Positive Symptoms (SAPS): Measures the positive symptoms of schizophrenia, such as hallucinations, delusions, and bizarre behaviour.
- Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS): Assesses the negative symptoms of schizophrenia, such as affective flattening, alogia, avolition, anhedonia, and attentional impairment.
- Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D): A widely used scale for assessing the severity of depression.
Despite their benefits, diagnostic rating scales are underutilised in the UK. Barriers to their use include:
- Lack of familiarity: Many clinicians are not familiar with the available scales or their applications.
- Time constraints: Administering and scoring scales can be time-consuming, particularly in busy clinical settings.
- Perceived interference with rapport: Some clinicians believe that using scales can interfere with building rapport with patients, potentially hindering the therapeutic relationship.
Overcoming these barriers requires education, training, and integration of rating scales into routine clinical practice.
Conclusion
While challenges exist, psychiatric diagnostics is grounded in scientific principles, utilising a systematic process of gathering information, evaluating evidence, and applying knowledge. The evolving use of objective measures and biomarkers holds promise for improving diagnostic accuracy, while clinical judgement and experience remain important for interpreting complex presentations and tailoring treatment plans. By embracing both the art and science of diagnosis, psychiatry can continue to advance in its understanding and treatment of mental illness.
The subjective nature of psychiatric diagnosis and the lack of definitive biomarkers can lead to ethical dilemmas related to labelling, stigma, and access to appropriate care.
Ultimately, effective psychiatric diagnosis requires a balance of objective measures and clinical judgement. While objective measures provide valuable data, clinical judgement remains essential for interpreting these measures in the context of the individual’s unique presentation and experiences. By integrating scientific knowledge, clinical expertise, and a compassionate understanding of the individual, psychiatry can continue to strive towards more accurate, ethical, and person-centred care.
There is considerable experience-based evidence among psychiatrists – not in journals and publications – that a lack of resources and time affect the application of science in psychiatry. The perception of psychiatric diagnosis as more art than science is a misconception arising from economic stringency applied to the profession. That perception ought not to become a reality or a ‘new norm’.
References
- The past, present and future of psychiatric diagnosis – PMC https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3683254/
- Making a good mental health diagnosis: Science, art and ethics – RACGP https://www1.racgp.org.au/ajgp/2020/december/making-a-good-mental-health-diagnosis
- Psychiatric diagnosis and treatment in the 21st century: paradigm shifts versus incremental integration – PMC – PubMed Central https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9453916/
- Mental illness – Diagnosis and treatment – Mayo Clinic https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/mental-illness/diagnosis-treatment/drc-20374974
- What kind of science for psychiatry? – Frontiers https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/human-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00435/full
- Factors underlying clinicians’ judgements of patient insight and confidence in using clinical judgement in psycho-legal settings https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7144324/
- Rating scales in psychiatric disorders – why? – International Journal Of Community Medicine And Public Health https://www.ijcmph.com/index.php/ijcmph/article/download/11671/7106/54121
- (PDF) Rating scales in psychiatric disorders – why? – ResearchGate https://www.researchgate.net/publication/375140357_Rating_scales_in_psychiatric_disorders_-_why
- The Pros and Cons of Mental Health Diagnosis – MHM Group https://mhmgroup.com/the-pros-and-cons-of-mental-health-diagnosis/
- Benefits and Challenges of Diagnosis in Mental Health – Rock Pool Life C.I.C https://rockpool.life/benefits-and-challenges-of-diagnosis-in-mental-health/
- Biomarkers for clinical use in psychiatry: where are we and will we ever get there? – PMC https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10168147/
- Challenges in understanding psychiatric disorders and developing therapeutics: a role for zebrafish – PubMed Central https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4486859/
- 5 Mental Health Diagnostic Challenges: Update on “To Err Is Human” – Psychiatric Times https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/5-mental-health-diagnostic-challenges-update–err-human
- Decision Models and Technology Can Help Psychiatry Develop Biomarkers – Frontiers https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychiatry/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.706655/full
- How Does It Feel to Have One’s Psychiatric Diagnosis Altered? Exploring Lived Experiences of Diagnostic Shifts in Adult Mental Healthcare – Frontiers https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychiatry/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.820162/full
- Clinical Judgment: What Is It, and How Does It Contribute to Diagnostic Errors? | MedPro Group https://www.medpro.com/clinical-judgment-cah-removed
- Reliability of clinical judgment for evaluation of informed consent in mental health settings and the validation of the Evaluation of Informed Consent to Treatment (EICT) scale – Frontiers https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1309909/full
- Implementing Measurement-Based Care in Behavioral Health: A Review – PubMed Central https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6584602/
- Neuroimaging Biomarkers in Schizophrenia | American Journal of Psychiatry https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ajp.2020.20030340
- Advances, challenges, and prospects of electroencephalography-based biomarkers for psychiatric disorders: a narrative review https://www.e-jyms.org/journal/view.php?number=2859
- Biomarkers in Psychiatry: Concept, Definition, Types and Relevance to the Clinical Reality https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7243207/
- How “Objective” Are Psychiatric Diagnoses? (Guess Again) – PMC – PubMed Central https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2860522/
- The Complex Role of Clinical Judgment in Diagnostic Errors – MedPro Group https://www.medpro.com/complex-role-of-clinical-judgment-in-diagnostic-errors-removed
- Psychiatry vs. Psychology – MHM Group https://mhmgroup.com/psychiatry-vs-psychology/
- The Clinician’s Guide to Improve the Reliability of Psychiatric Diagnosis – PMC https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2990547/
- List of diagnostic classification and rating scales used in psychiatry – Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_diagnostic_classification_and_rating_scales_used_in_psychiatry