Several benefits can be obtained through formal diagnostic protocols. First, when a client is formally diagnosed, they receive an answer to issues that have been occurring for a period of time. When they receive the diagnosis, some of the confusion, anxiety, or depression they are feeling may be alleviated. Next, when diagnostic protocols are followed, the client can make an informed decision regarding treatment (McCabe et al., 2010). For example, a client diagnosed with general anxiety disorder can choose between taking prescription medications or taking an alternative approach such as psychotherapy. A diagnosis is also important because the client may be a part of a multi-disciplinary team. This group of mental health and/or medical professionals can provide holistic care for the client and collaborate on the frequency, intensity, and duration of treatment (Jones-Smith, 2019).

The cross-cutting symptom measures in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual are utilized to target specific symptoms that may prompt the clinician or client to further explore what could be causing issues and how to go about presenting and providing treatment. Level one measures capture answers related to 13 areas in adult clients and 12 areas for clients that are adolescents or children. Cross-cutting measures may either be completed by a diagnosed client or a client who has a disorder that is impairing them significantly but fails to meet the full DSM-V criteria (American Psychiatric Association, 2023). What are some other pros and cons in relation to mental health diagnosis. Supporting an argument for or against formal diagnostic protocols.

American Psychiatric Association. (2023). DSM-5-TR Online Assessment Measures. https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/dsm/educational-resources/assessment-measures

Jones-Smith, E. (2019). Culturally diverse counseling: Theory and Practice. Sage Publications Inc.

McCabe, M., Wood, W., & Goldberg, R. (2010). When the family requests withholding the diagnosis: who owns the truth? Journal of Oncology Practice, 6(2), 94-96. https://www.doi.org/10.1200/JOP.091086