The landscape of mental health diagnosis in the United States relies heavily on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), a publication of the American Psychiatric Association (APA). This manual, essential for healthcare professionals, has undergone several revisions to refine its diagnostic criteria and systems. A significant shift occurred between the fourth edition (DSM-IV) and the fifth edition (DSM-5), most notably the removal of the multi-axial system.
Previously, the DSM-IV employed a five-axis system to provide a comprehensive overview of a patient’s mental health profile. This system aimed to offer a more holistic and nuanced diagnostic approach by categorizing information across five distinct dimensions, or “Axes.”
These Axes were structured as follows:
- Axis I: Clinical Disorders – This axis encompassed the primary clinical syndromes, excluding personality disorders and mental retardation.
- Axis II: Personality Disorders and Mental Retardation – This axis addressed long-standing personality disorders and mental retardation (now termed Intellectual Development Disorder).
- Axis III: General Medical Conditions – This axis documented any physical health conditions potentially relevant to understanding or managing the individual’s mental disorder.
- Axis IV: Psychosocial and Environmental Problems – This axis highlighted significant psychosocial and environmental stressors impacting the individual’s mental state.
- Axis V: Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) – This axis provided a numerical score representing the clinician’s judgment of the individual’s overall level of functioning.
However, the DSM-5, released in 2013, moved away from this multi-axial approach, adopting a non-axial system.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/five-axes-of-the-dsm-iv-multi-axial-system-1067053_final-de64cd6b001f472f86ec6ed5b226ad3f.png)
Image alt text: Diagram illustrating the five axes of the DSM-IV multi-axial system used in psychiatric diagnosis, showing the categories of clinical disorders, personality disorders & mental retardation, general medical conditions, psychosocial & environmental problems, and global assessment of functioning.
The Historical Context of the Multi-Axial System
The multi-axial system was introduced in the DSM-III, the third edition of the manual, by the APA. It was conceived as a structured method for clinicians to record supplementary diagnostic information beyond just the principal diagnosis.
The intention behind this system was to enrich the diagnostic process. For instance, a patient diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder (Axis I) could have further relevant details noted, such as lack of social support (Axis IV) or a significant impairment in overall functioning (Axis V). This multi-faceted approach aimed to paint a more complete picture of the individual’s condition and circumstances.
Despite its initial promise, the APA eventually concluded that the scientific evidence supporting the separation of disorders into these distinct axes was lacking. Consequently, the multi-axial system was discontinued with the advent of the DSM-5 in 2013.
How the Multi-Axial System Was Utilized
The primary purpose of the multi-axial system was to enhance the efficiency and comprehensiveness of patient diagnosis and data collection for clinicians.
By organizing diagnostic information across separate axes, the system was designed to provide a standardized framework. This structured approach was intended to assist healthcare professionals in systematically evaluating diagnostic information, axis by axis, to determine the relevant factors for each patient. It was envisioned as a tool to ensure that a broad range of factors, beyond just the primary diagnosis, were considered.
Nevertheless, the multi-axial system was not without its critics. It faced challenges, including ambiguities in differentiating between mental health and medical conditions, and questions regarding the conceptual clarity of the axes themselves.
The DSM-5’s non-axial system represents a shift away from this categorical separation. It integrates the former Axes I, II, and III, while incorporating relevant information previously captured in Axes IV and V through separate supplementary notations. This non-axial approach is now generally favored by mental health professionals utilizing the DSM.
A Closer Look at Each Axis
To fully grasp the 5-axis system, it’s crucial to understand the specific focus of each axis:
Axis I: Clinical Disorders
Axis I was dedicated to clinical disorders, representing the acute psychiatric conditions that bring individuals to clinical attention. This category encompassed a wide spectrum of mental health and substance use disorders, excluding personality disorders and intellectual disabilities, which were categorized under Axis II. Examples of disorders classified under Axis I included:
- Disorders Typically Diagnosed in Infancy, Childhood, or Adolescence
- Delirium, Dementia, and Amnestic and Other Cognitive Disorders
- Mental Disorders Due to a General Medical Condition
- Substance-Related Disorders
- Schizophrenia and Other Psychotic Disorders
- Mood Disorders
- Anxiety Disorders
- Somatoform Disorders
- Factitious Disorders
- Dissociative Disorders
- Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders
- Eating Disorders
- Sleep Disorders
- Impulse-Control Disorders Not Elsewhere Classified
- Adjustment Disorders
- Other Conditions That May Be a Focus of Clinical Attention
Changes in DSM-5: The DSM-5 brought about several changes to the categories previously listed under Axis I. Notably, “Mental Disorders Due to a General Medical Condition,” “Factitious Disorders,” and “Adjustment Disorders” were removed as distinct categories, with conditions formerly classified under these headings being re-categorized within the DSM-5’s revised structure. “Eating Disorders” was broadened to “Feeding and Eating Disorders.”
Furthermore, “Mood Disorders” was divided into two separate, more specific categories: “Bipolar and Related Disorders” and “Depressive Disorders.” “Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders” was revised to encompass “Sexual Dysfunctions,” “Gender Dysphoria,” and “Paraphilic Disorders.” The DSM-5 also introduced new categories, reflecting an evolving understanding of mental health conditions.
Axis II: Personality Disorders and Mental Retardation
Axis II focused on personality disorders and mental retardation (intellectual disability). These conditions are characterized by long-standing patterns of behavior and cognitive deficits that are typically evident from early adulthood or childhood, respectively. Disorders included in Axis II were:
- Paranoid Personality Disorder
- Schizoid Personality Disorder
- Schizotypal Personality Disorder
- Antisocial Personality Disorder
- Borderline Personality Disorder
- Histrionic Personality Disorder
- Narcissistic Personality Disorder
- Avoidant Personality Disorder
- Dependent Personality Disorder
- Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder
- Personality Disorder Not Otherwise Specified
- Mental Retardation
Changes in DSM-5: While the personality disorder categories remained largely consistent in DSM-5, a significant change was made to “Mental Retardation,” which was updated to Intellectual Disability. The DSM-5-TR (text revision) further refined this terminology to Intellectual Development Disorder, while still acknowledging “Intellectual disability” in parentheses for continued reference and alignment with international classifications.
Axis III: General Medical Conditions
Axis III was dedicated to documenting general medical conditions that might be pertinent to understanding or treating an individual’s mental health. This axis recognized the intricate interplay between physical and mental health.
For example, a patient undergoing cancer treatment and experiencing subsequent anxiety or depression would have their cancer diagnosis noted on Axis III. This acknowledgment highlighted the potential influence of physical health issues on mental well-being.
Changes in DSM-5: In the DSM-5, the information that was previously categorized under Axis III is still considered clinically relevant. The DSM-5 non-axial system integrates the consideration of medical conditions directly within the diagnostic formulation, eliminating the need for a separate axis. Clinicians are expected to document relevant medical conditions as part of a comprehensive patient assessment.
Axis IV: Psychosocial and Environmental Problems
Axis IV was used to record significant psychosocial and environmental factors that could be contributing to or exacerbating an individual’s mental health issues. This axis acknowledged the impact of life circumstances and social context on mental well-being. Examples of factors noted on Axis IV included:
- Problems with primary support group
- Problems related to social environment
- Educational problems
- Occupational problems
- Housing problems
- Economic problems
- Problems with access to healthcare services
- Problems related to interaction with the legal system/crime
- Other psychosocial and environmental problems
Changes in DSM-5: Information pertaining to psychosocial and environmental problems, formerly on Axis IV, is now integrated into the DSM-5 as supplementary notations. These notations allow clinicians to record these contextual factors alongside the primary diagnosis, recognizing their importance in understanding the individual’s overall situation.
Axis V: Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF)
Axis V employed the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) scale, a numerical rating from 0 to 100 designed to represent a clinician’s overall judgment of an individual’s psychological, social, and occupational functioning. The GAF score served as a single quantitative measure of the individual’s level of impairment and well-being. Key points on the GAF scale included:
- 100-91: Superior functioning across a wide range of areas.
- 90-81: Minimal symptoms; good functioning in all areas.
- 80-71: Transient and expectable reactions to psychosocial stressors.
- 70-61: Mild symptoms and some difficulty in social, occupational, or school functioning.
- 60-51: Moderate symptoms and moderate difficulty in social, occupational, or school functioning.
- 50-41: Serious symptoms and any serious impairment in social, occupational, or school functioning.
- 40-31: Some impairment in reality testing or communication; major impairment in several areas.
- 30-21: Behavior considerably influenced by delusions or hallucinations; serious impairment in communication or judgment.
- 20-11: Some danger of hurting self or others; occasional failure to maintain minimal personal hygiene.
- 10-1: Persistent danger of severely hurting self or others; persistent inability to maintain minimal personal hygiene; serious suicidal act.
Changes in DSM-5: Similar to Axis IV, the concept of assessing functioning remains crucial in DSM-5. However, the DSM-5 replaced the GAF with the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) 2.0, which provides a more nuanced and internationally recognized measure of disability and functioning. The DSM-5 also incorporates functional assessment as a component of the overall clinical picture, rather than relying on a single axis score.
Drawbacks of the Multi-Axial System
Despite its intentions, the multi-axial system faced criticism and was ultimately deemed to have several limitations by mental health professionals.
A primary concern was the artificial separation between Axis I and Axis II disorders. The distinction was often perceived as arbitrary, leading to confusion about where certain conditions should be classified. Some diagnoses didn’t neatly fit into either category, blurring the lines and complicating the diagnostic process.
Furthermore, the GAF scale (Axis V) was criticized for its limited scope. It was argued that the GAF did not adequately capture critical aspects of a patient’s condition, such as suicide risk or the impact of disabilities. Its single-number summary was seen as overly simplistic and potentially misleading in complex cases.
Ultimately, the consensus among many healthcare professionals was that the multi-axial system was not essential for accurate diagnosis and comprehensive patient care. Clinicians demonstrated the ability to effectively diagnose patients, considering the complexities and nuances of each individual case, without the constraints of the five-axis framework.
Updates in DSM-5-TR
The most recent revision, the DSM-5-TR (text revision), represents ongoing efforts to refine diagnostic criteria and improve the clinical utility of the DSM. The DSM-5-TR updated the diagnostic criteria for over 70 disorders and introduced new codes to document suicidal behavior and non-suicidal self-injury. It also focused on refining language to enhance clarity and address potential racial and cultural biases within the diagnostic framework.
Key Takeaways
The 5-axis system was a historical approach within the DSM-IV, designed to capture a broader spectrum of information relevant to psychiatric diagnosis. However, due to a lack of strong empirical support and practical limitations, it was removed in the DSM-5.
While no longer in use, understanding the 5-axis system provides valuable historical context for how mental health conditions were previously conceptualized and diagnosed. It highlights the evolution of diagnostic approaches and the ongoing efforts to create more clinically relevant and scientifically sound systems for understanding and addressing mental health. The shift to the non-axial system in DSM-5 reflects a move towards a more integrated and less categorical approach to diagnosis, emphasizing a holistic understanding of the individual and their unique circumstances.
