User:Maryambzzz/sandbox

Welcome to your sandbox!
This is place to practice clicking the "edit" button and practice adding references (via the citation button). Please see Help:My_sandbox or contact User_talk:JenOttawa with any questions.

Link: Project Homepage and Resources


 * Note: Please use your sandbox to submit assignment # 3 by pasting it below. When uploading your improvements to the article talk page please share your exact proposed edit (not the full assignment 3).


 * Talk Page Template: CARL Medical Editing Initiative/Fall 2019/Talk Page Template

Caffeine

Assignment #2
1) How you searched for a source (search strategy – where you went to find it).

- I resorted to the Queen’s Library database and PubMed. I searched for the most reliable source where I could find information on other caffeine-induced disorders.

2) What potential sources were identified and considered (give examples of 1 or 2).

- As caffeine is a substance and is considered as a drug, I resorted to resources such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) and the International Classification of Diseases 11th Revision (ICD11).

3) Why the source was chosen (what made it better than other choices).

- The DSM-5 was chosen because it was developed by the American Psychiatric association, as oppose to the ICD11 which was created by the World Health Organization. Accordingly, this resource has a narrow focus on the North American scope of diagnosing mental health disorders. As such, this source is more relevant to our purposes of this project as we are adding resources to the Wikipedia article from a Canadian University (ie. North America).

4)List at least three reasons why the source that was selected meets Wikipedia’s reliable medical sources (MEDRS) criteria.

- DSM-5 is a secondary source summarizing other studies and peer-reviewed journal articles. DSM-5 is a clinical practice guideline, which is at the top of the pyramid of the level of evidence in medicine, superseding even meta-analysis and systematic review. DSM-5 is extremely reliable. This practicing guideline uses up-to-date evidence and it is unbiased, as it is not an opinion piece but gathering of various information from different resources.

5) How do you plan to use the source for improving the article?

- The Wikipedia article has very little information on other caffeine-induced disorders. It only briefly mentions caffeine-induced anxiety disorder without elaborating on it. There is no mention of caffeine-induced sleep disorder etc. (included in the DSM-5) As such, I will use this resource to build up on and add more up-to-date and reliable information on other disorders that may be brought upon by caffeine use.

Assignment 3
Proposed Changes

I will not be making any changes to the existing sentences on the “caffeine” article on Wikipedia. However, I will be adding the following two sentences to the article:

“Other caffeine-induced disorders classified under the DSM-5 include caffeine-induced anxiety disorder and caffeine-induced sleep disorder. These disorders present with significant distress and the impairment of daily functioning that warrant clinical attention, but do not meet the criteria to be diagnosed under any specific caffeine-related disorders.”

“Rationale for proposed change.”

My rationale for adding the above sentences to the Wikipedia page is that the existing article on caffeine does not include any information on clinically recognized caffeine-induced disorders that are not categorized under “common” disorders caused by caffeine intake. Through searching the DSM-5 handbook, I identified two disorders, caffeine-induced anxiety disorder and caffeine-induced sleep disorder, that are currently not included in the Wikipedia article. My goal is to add these two disorders and their characteristics under the “other disorders” chapter on Wikipedia, using DSM-5 as a reference.

Some controversies that may arise from adding the above disorders to the caffeine article is the disapproval of theirvalidity as real, clinical disorders. This could be due to the fact that caffeine-induced anxiety disorder and caffeine-induced sleep disorder are currently not categorized under any classes of “common” disorders caused by caffeine. Furthermore, criticism may be faced with the use of DSM-5 as a source of reference, as some may not agree with its validity and reliability as a guideline for diagnosis of disease, as well as its association with pharmaceutical industry. However, currently, DSM-5 is our best source of information for recognizing and diagnosing mental health disorders. In North America, it is commonly used as an unbiased and reliable source for diagnosing various mental health disorders. Due to the above reasons, I will use it as a source of reference for my two sentences.

“Critique of Source”

As explained in the previous section, some criticism of the DSM-5 include its reliability and validity as a source of information for mental health diagnosis, mainly due to its continual association with pharmaceutical industries. Due to this, some criticize DSM-5’s role as an impartial and unbiased guideline for diagnosing mental health disorders. Additionally, there is a concept called “medicalization of normality”, which refers to the process of understanding internal psychological experiences that may in fact be normal through a medical framework. Such approach may have a negative impact on society by labeling possible normal attributes, behaviors and experiences as a disease and something that is abnormal. This may lead to thinning the line between normal and abnormal and medicalizing society. As such, some may argue that adding the above caffeine-induced disorders to the Wikipedia page may contribute to the medicalization of normality.

While I do somewhat agree with the above criticisms, DSM-5 is one of the most widely and reliably used guidelines for diagnosing mental health disorders. As Wikipedia is a resource that includes information from various sources and offers a variety of different views on a certain topic, I believe that it is important to include this section on the Wikipedia page. Caffeine-induced anxiety disorder and caffeine-induced sleep disorder are topics that have been discussed in DSM-5 and thus should be mentioned on the article in order to increase awareness and provide the readers with a complete view of all disorders induced by caffeine intake.

“References”

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Other caffeine-induced disorders. In Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Pickersgill, M. D. (2014). Debating DSM-5: diagnosis and the sociology of critique. Journal of Medical Ethics, 40(8), 521-525.

COMMENTS:

1.

This is a very important aspect of caffeine and definitely needs to be added to the Wikipedia article. This chapter is a bit confusing for everyone that hasn't really worked with the DSM-5 and therefore it is important to give a simplified overview for Wikipedia: The DSM-5 chapter is called "Caffeine-Related Disorders" with the sub-chapter "Other Caffeine-Induced Disorders". This sub-chapter, that you chose, has two different parts: (1) Caffeine-induced disorders (other than intoxication and withdrawal) that are described in other chapters of the DSM-5 because the main symptom is anxiety (--> you can find "Caffeine-Induced Anxiety Disorder" in the chapter "Anxiety Disorders") or sleep disturbance ( --> you can find "Caffeine-Induced Sleep Disorder" in the chapter “Sleep-Wake Disorders”); (2) "Unspecified Caffeine-Related Disorder". It would be of benefit for your addition to clearly outline the different sections. Overall, I think you picked a great part to add and the language/grammar you use, is very clear and understandable even for laypersons.

2.

I completely agree with your rational: You identified important missing parts that need to be added. If you add this chapter to the Wikipedia article, you might want to add the entire chapter (see comment above).

3.

You mention some very good points of controversy such as that DSM-5 itself is controversial. You might consider making a clear distinction between your own opinion    and facts: e.g. "DSM-5 is our best source of information" seems to be an opinion rather   than fact. Criticizing in a scientific way means that you use facts to discuss strength and weaknesses and how those might affect the validity or generalizability of something - a personal opinion can be added at the end but needs to be clearly visible as your own opinion. Your text already shows that you have a very good understanding of the controversies and with using facts instead of opinions, you will be able to increase the strength of your arguments.