THE FIFTH EDITION OF DIAGNOSTIC AND STATISTICAL Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) is scheduled for publication in 2013. Although psychiatrists and other mental health care professionals have a high level of interest in this forthcoming edition, other health care professionals should also be interested in the development of DSM-5. For instance, in primary care settings, approximately 30% to 50% of patients have prominent mental health symptoms or identifiable mental disorders, which have significant adverse consequences if left untreated. Even in surgical specialties, many presurgical and postsurgical developments are associated with significant mental health issues. This Commentary is intended to discuss several major goals of the DSM-5 process, which include facilitating further integration of psychiatry into the mainstream of medical practice, facilitating the clinical feasibility of addressing the diagnostic challenges posed by mental disorders in general medical settings, and emphasizing the importance of attending to patients with mental disorders regardless of the clinician’s medical specialty. Given the public health importance of mental disorders and their significant contribution to the global burden of disease, the DSM-5 revision process will continue to receive a great deal of attention. In 1999, when the development of DSM-5 began, an overriding concern was how best to address a range of issues that had emerged over the previous 20 to 25 years. Such concerns included the potential for adding dimensional assessments to disorders, exploring the option of separating diagnoses from their associated disabilities, examining the expressions of all disorders across the entire life span, and the need to address differences in mental disorder expression as conditioned by gender and cultural characteristics. Advances in neuroscience presented further opportunities to evaluate the readiness of findings in pathophysiology, genetics, pharmacogenomics, structural and functional imaging, cross-cultural psychiatry, and neuropsychology to influence the development of DSM-5. These areas of concern were summarized in a group of white papers published as A Research Agenda for the DSM-V. A second volume of white papers, Age and Gender Considerations in Psychiatric Diagnosis: A Research Agenda for DSM-V, was subsequently commissioned by the American Psychiatric Association to address developmental psychopathology issues in greater detail across the life span (including very young children and geriatric age groups), as well as gender-related differences in the occurrence and expression of mental disorders. From these volumes emerged a clear set of priorities for DSM-5, including addressing the consequences of continuing to use (1) the hierarchical “pure” diagnostic categories reified through the Feighner criteria, research diagnostic criteria, and the DSM-III; (2) the high rates of co-occurring diagnoses identified by these criteria in individuals with at least 1 mental disorder; (3) the frequent use of the not otherwise specified designations for patients who did not fit any of the criteria; and (4) the heterogeneous mix of conditions within current diagnostic boundaries. Subsequently, some important questions that should be emphasized during the forthcoming stages of revision include the following. How can the clinical assessments of mental disorders be improved? In many ways, the categorical system of DSM-IV does not reflect the clinical realities of the patients seen by clinicians on a daily basis. Patients often present with symptoms not included in the diagnostic criteria of their primary diagnosis. For example, patients with schizophrenia often have problems with sleep, and patients with major depression often have significant symptoms of anxiety. Further, methods to assess symptom and disorder severity are poorly specified in DSM-IV, a particular problem for quantifying response to treatment and a hindrance to the application of evidence-based medicine. The developers of DSM-5 are examining potential opportunities to incorporate new assessments into routine clinical practice through the use of simple measures of common cross-cutting symptoms, as well as disorder-specific severity ratings that are responsive to change in clinical status over time.