In the realm of mental health diagnosis within the United States, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA), serves as the authoritative guide for healthcare professionals. Over its various editions, the DSM has undergone significant revisions to refine diagnostic practices. A notable shift occurred with the transition from the DSM-IV to the DSM-5, marked by the elimination of the multi-axial system, a framework that previously structured psychiatric evaluations.
The DSM-IV, the fourth edition, employed a multi-axial system where diagnoses were categorized across five distinct Axes. This system aimed to provide a comprehensive and multi-dimensional perspective on a patient’s condition. Each Axis was designed to capture a different facet of diagnostic information, contributing to a more holistic understanding. Let’s delve into the structure of this system before exploring its evolution and the significance of Axis V Diagnosis.
Decoding the DSM-IV Multi-Axial System
The DSM-IV multi-axial system was implemented to ensure a thorough and standardized approach to psychiatric diagnosis. It prompted clinicians to consider various aspects of a patient’s mental health and overall well-being. The five Axes were structured as follows:
- Axis I: Clinical Disorders: This axis encompassed the primary mental health and substance use disorders that are typically considered the main reasons for seeking psychiatric treatment.
- Axis II: Personality Disorders and Mental Retardation: Axis II was dedicated to enduring patterns of maladaptive behavior and intellectual developmental issues that often have a long-term impact on an individual’s functioning.
- Axis III: General Medical Conditions: This axis acknowledged the interplay between physical health and mental health, documenting any medical conditions that could be relevant to understanding or managing a patient’s mental state.
- Axis IV: Psychosocial and Environmental Problems: Axis IV captured contextual factors, such as life events and environmental stressors, that could significantly influence the presentation and course of mental disorders.
- Axis V: Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF): Axis V diagnosis, utilizing the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) scale, provided a numerical rating of an individual’s overall psychological, social, and occupational functioning. This axis aimed to summarize the individual’s overall level of adaptive functioning.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/five-axes-of-the-dsm-iv-multi-axial-system-1067053_final-de64cd6b001f472f86ec6ed5b226ad3f.png)
DSM-IV multi-axial system diagram illustrating the five axes: Axis I for clinical disorders, Axis II for personality disorders and mental retardation, Axis III for general medical conditions, Axis IV for psychosocial and environmental problems, and Axis V for global assessment of functioning.
A Historical Perspective on the Multi-Axial System
The multi-axial system was introduced in the DSM-III, the third edition of the manual, by the APA. Its inception was driven by the desire to create a more comprehensive diagnostic process. The Axes were conceived as a structured method for clinicians to record supplementary diagnostic information beyond the primary clinical diagnosis.
For instance, consider an individual diagnosed with major depressive disorder (classified under Axis I). The multi-axial system allowed clinicians to enrich this diagnosis by noting factors such as a lack of social support (Axis IV) or assessing their current level of overall functioning and risk (Axis V). This additional information aimed to provide a more nuanced and individualized patient profile.
However, after years of use, the APA re-evaluated the scientific underpinnings of separating disorders in this manner. Ultimately, it was concluded that the empirical evidence did not support the categorical divisions imposed by the multi-axial system. Consequently, the APA discontinued the multi-axial system with the release of the DSM-5 in 2013.
The Intended Utility of the Multi-Axial System
The primary goal behind implementing the multi-axial system was to enhance diagnostic efficiency and facilitate the collection of comprehensive patient data. By organizing diagnostic information into separate Axes, it was intended to streamline the diagnostic process for clinicians.
The system was designed to offer a standardized and organized framework for healthcare professionals to systematically evaluate diagnostic information, Axis by Axis. This structured approach was meant to ensure that clinicians considered various relevant dimensions of a patient’s presentation, promoting a more thorough and holistic assessment.
Despite its intended benefits, the multi-axial system was not without its critics. Controversies arose, particularly concerning the somewhat artificial separation between mental health and medical disorders, leading to debates about diagnostic boundaries and categorization.
In contrast, the non-axial system adopted in the DSM-5 merges the information previously categorized in Axes I, II, and III. Crucially, it retains the capacity to incorporate relevant information that would have been included in Axes IV and V through separate supplementary notations. This non-axial approach has generally been favored by healthcare professionals utilizing the DSM, perceived as a more streamlined and less compartmentalized diagnostic framework.
Axis I: Delving into Clinical Disorders
Axis I of the DSM-IV was dedicated to clinical disorders, encompassing a broad spectrum of mental health conditions, excluding personality disorders and intellectual developmental disorders (which were classified under Axis II). Conditions categorized under Axis I included:
- Disorders Typically Diagnosed in Infancy, Childhood, or Adolescence
- Delirium, Dementia, and Amnestic and Other Cognitive Disorders
- Mental Disorders Attributable 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
DSM-5 Revisions to Axis I Categories
The transition to the DSM-5 brought about several changes to the categories previously listed under Axis I. Notably, the classification of “Mental Disorders Due to a General Medical Condition,” “Factitious Disorders,” and “Adjustment Disorders” were removed as distinct categories. Conditions formerly within these categories were reclassified and integrated within other relevant diagnostic sections of the DSM-5.
Furthermore, “Eating Disorders” was broadened and renamed “Feeding and Eating Disorders” to reflect a more comprehensive understanding of these conditions. “Mood Disorders” underwent a significant restructuring, being divided into two separate and distinct categories: “Bipolar and Related Disorders” and “Depressive Disorders.” “Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders” was also revised, evolving into “Sexual Dysfunctions,” “Gender Dysphoria,” and “Paraphilic Disorders,” reflecting updated terminology and diagnostic criteria. New categories were also introduced in the DSM-5, further refining the classification of mental disorders.
Axis II: Personality Disorders and Intellectual Disability
Axis II of the DSM-IV focused on personality disorders and mental retardation (now termed intellectual developmental disorder). These conditions were grouped together due to their enduring nature and pervasive impact on functioning. Disorders classified under Axis II included:
- 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
DSM-5 and DSM-5-TR Updates to Axis II Terminology
While the categories of personality disorders remained largely consistent in the DSM-5, the terminology for “Mental Retardation” was updated to “Intellectual Disability” to align with evolving language and reduce stigma.
Subsequently, the DSM-5-TR (text revision), the most recent update to the DSM-5, further refined the terminology, replacing “Intellectual Disability” with “Intellectual Development Disorder.” However, “Intellectual disability” is still included in parentheses to maintain continuity and facilitate understanding across different contexts.
Axis III: General Medical Conditions and Mental Health
Axis III served to document any general medical conditions that could potentially influence or interact with a patient’s mental health. This axis recognized the bidirectional relationship between physical and mental well-being.
For instance, a patient diagnosed with cancer undergoing chemotherapy might experience mental health challenges such as anxiety and depression. In such cases, cancer would be documented as an Axis III condition, highlighting its relevance to the patient’s mental health presentation.
DSM-5 Approach to Axis III Information
In the DSM-5, the information previously captured in Axis III is still considered crucial for a comprehensive assessment. However, instead of a separate axis, clinicians are now instructed to simply document any relevant medical conditions alongside the mental health diagnosis, prioritizing them based on clinical significance. This integration streamlines the diagnostic process while maintaining the importance of considering medical factors.
Axis IV: Psychosocial and Environmental Context
Axis IV was dedicated to recording psychosocial and environmental problems that could impact an individual’s mental health. This axis acknowledged that external stressors and life circumstances can significantly contribute to the development, exacerbation, or maintenance of mental disorders. Factors considered under Axis IV encompassed:
- Problems with primary support group
- Problems related to the 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
Integration of Axis IV Information in DSM-5
In the DSM-5, the distinct Axis IV was eliminated. However, the importance of considering psychosocial and environmental factors was retained. Information that would have previously been included in Axis IV is now incorporated into the DSM-5 as supplementary notations. Clinicians can add these notations to diagnoses as needed, ensuring that contextual factors are still documented and considered in the overall assessment and treatment planning.
Axis V: Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) – Assessing Overall Function
Axis V diagnosis was characterized by the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) scale. This scale provided a numerical rating, ranging from 0 to 100, to represent a clinician’s judgment of an individual’s overall level of functioning. The GAF aimed to summarize, in a single number, how adaptively an individual was functioning psychologically, socially, and occupationally. The GAF scale was broadly defined as follows:
- 100-91: Superior functioning in a wide range of activities, no symptoms.
- 90-81: Absent or minimal symptoms, good functioning in all areas.
- 80-71: Transient and expectable reactions to psychosocial stressors; only slight impairment in social, occupational, or school functioning.
- 70-61: Some mild symptoms OR some difficulty in social, occupational, or school functioning, but generally functioning pretty well.
- 60-51: Moderate symptoms OR moderate difficulty in social, occupational, or school functioning.
- 50-41: Serious symptoms OR any serious impairment in social, occupational, or school functioning.
- 40-31: Some impairment in reality testing or communication OR major impairment in several areas such as work or school, family relations, judgment, thinking, or mood.
- 30-21: Behavior is considerably influenced by delusions or hallucinations OR serious impairment in communication or judgment OR inability to function in almost all areas.
- 20-11: Some danger of hurting self or others OR occasionally fails to maintain minimal personal hygiene OR gross impairment in communication.
- 10-1: Persistent danger of severely hurting self or others OR persistent inability to maintain minimal personal hygiene OR serious suicidal act with clear expectation of death.
DSM-5 and the Discontinuation of Axis V (GAF)
Similar to Axis IV, the DSM-5 eliminated Axis V as a distinct axis. The GAF scale was also removed from the DSM-5. However, the DSM-5 continues to emphasize the importance of assessing and documenting psychosocial and contextual factors that impact functioning. This information is now captured through separate notations, allowing for a more flexible and clinically relevant approach to describing functional impairments without relying on a single global score.
Reasons for Moving Away from the Multi-Axial System
Several factors contributed to the healthcare professionals’ perception that the multi-axial system had become unnecessary and, in some aspects, detrimental.
One major concern was the perceived arbitrary distinction between diagnoses categorized under Axis I and Axis II. Clinicians found that certain diagnoses did not fit neatly into either category, leading to diagnostic ambiguity and confusion. Furthermore, the GAF scale (Axis V) was criticized for not adequately capturing crucial aspects such as suicide risk and the impact of disabilities on an individual’s functioning. Its single-number summary was seen as overly simplistic and potentially masking important clinical nuances.
Ultimately, the consensus among many healthcare professionals was that accurate and comprehensive patient diagnosis, along with an appreciation for individual complexities, could be effectively achieved without the constraints of the multi-axial system.
DSM-5-TR: Further Refinements
The most recent update, the DSM-5-TR, further refined the diagnostic landscape. It updated the diagnostic criteria for over 70 disorders and introduced new codes for documenting suicidal behavior and non-suicidal self-injury, addressing some of the previous limitations identified in the DSM-5. The DSM-5-TR also focused on refining language to enhance clarity and mitigate potential racial and cultural biases within the diagnostic framework.
Key Takeaways
The DSM-IV multi-axial system served as a framework for recording supplementary diagnostic information for individuals with mental health conditions. However, due to a lack of robust scientific support and practical limitations, it was discontinued in the DSM-5. While no longer in use, understanding the multi-axial system provides valuable historical context for appreciating the evolution of diagnostic practices and the rationale behind the changes implemented in the DSM-5 and subsequent revisions. The shift to a non-axial system reflects an ongoing effort to refine diagnostic approaches and ensure they are both clinically useful and grounded in scientific evidence.
