Search

Aim: This study aimed to identify whether clinicians’ gender, clinical experience, and personal attitudes influenced their perception of criminality of specific sexual behaviours, their judgments about criminal liability if mentally disordered, and the need for treatment as part of criminal settings for those having ICD-11 paraphilic disorders. Method: In a secondary analysis of data only vignettes with the least (do not meet paraphilic disorder diagnostic requirements) and most extreme (met paraphilic disorder diagnostic requirements) descriptions of ICD-11 frotteuristic, coercive sexual sadism, and exhibitionistic arousal patterns and related behavior were randomly presented to participants. A total of 1,101 clinicians rated one to three vignettes (a total of 1,884) answering questions regarding diagnosis, criminal features, and their own attitudes. Results: The ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines were adequately used to distinguish paraphilic disorders from non-pathological arousal patterns.Vignette severity was the most important predictor for clinicians’ determination that a crime was committed. Results showed an interaction of the classification of paraphilic disorders, clinicians’ gender, and personal attitudes with judgments about concepts associated with criminality, criminal liability if a diagnosis was indicated, and the need for treatment in forensic settings. Conclusions: Increased formal education, clinical training about these disorders, and evidence-based treatment guidelines are required to avoid biases that may come from preconceived ideas and personal attitudes. Laws and policies that unnecessarily restrict the treatment of these patients in non-forensic settings—for example, when the individual is distress about the arousal pattern but no crime has been committed—should be examined.

Abstract Background Conceptualizations of personality disorders (PD) are increasingly moving towards dimensional approaches. The definition and assessment of borderline personality disorder (BPD) in regard to changes in nosology are of great importance to theory and practice as well as consumers. We studied empirical connections between the traditional DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for BPD and Criteria A and B of the Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD). Method Raters of varied professional backgrounds possessing substantial knowledge of PDs (N = 20) characterized BPD criteria with the four domains of the Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS) and 25 pathological personality trait facets. Mean AMPD values of each BPD criterion were used to support a nosological cross-walk of the individual BPD criteria and study various combinations of BPD criteria in their AMPD translation. The grand mean AMPD profile generated from the experts was compared to published BPD prototypes that used AMPD trait ratings and the DSM-5-III hybrid categorical-dimensional algorithm for BPD. Divergent comparisons with DSM-5-III algorithms for other PDs and other published PD prototypes were also examined. Results Inter-rater reliability analyses showed generally robust agreement. The AMPD profile for BPD criteria rated by individual BPD criteria was not isomorphic with whole-person ratings of BPD, although they were highly correlated. Various AMPD profiles for BPD were generated from theoretically relevant but differing configurations of BPD criteria. These AMPD profiles were highly correlated and showed meaningful divergence from non-BPD DSM-5-III algorithms and other PD prototypes. Conclusions Results show that traditional DSM BPD diagnosis reflects a common core of PD severity, largely composed of LPFS and the pathological traits of anxiousness, depressively, emotional lability, and impulsivity. Results confirm the traditional DSM criterion-based BPD diagnosis can be reliably cross-walked with the full AMPD scheme, and both approaches share substantial construct overlap. This relative equivalence suggests the vast clinical and research literatures associated with BPD may be brought forward with DSM-5-III diagnosis of BPD.

Abstract Background The World Health Organization (WHO) International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD) is used globally by 194 WHO member nations. It is used for assigning clinical diagnoses, providing the framework for reporting public health data, and to inform the organization and reimbursement of health services. Guided by overarching principles of increasing clinical utility and global applicability, the 11th revision of the ICD proposes major changes that incorporate empirical advances since the previous revision in 1992. To test recommended changes in the Mental, Behavioral, and Neurodevelopmental Disorders chapter, multiple vignette-based case-controlled field studies have been conducted which examine clinicians’ ability to accurately and consistently use the new guidelines and assess their overall clinical utility. This manuscript reports on the results from the study of the proposed ICD-11 guidelines for feeding and eating disorders (FEDs). Method Participants were 2288 mental health professionals registered with WHO’s Global Clinical Practice Network. The study was conducted in Chinese, English, French, Japanese, and Spanish. Clinicians were randomly assigned to apply either the ICD-11 or ICD-10 diagnostic guidelines for FEDs to a pair of case vignettes designed to test specific clinical questions. Clinicians selected the diagnosis they thought was correct for each vignette, evaluated the presence of each essential feature of the selected diagnosis, and the clinical utility of the diagnostic guidelines. Results The proposed ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines significantly improved accuracy for all FEDs tested relative to ICD-10 and attained higher clinical utility ratings; similar results were obtained across all five languages. The inclusion of binge eating disorder and avoidant-restrictive food intake disorder reduced the use of residual diagnoses. Areas needing further refinement were identified. Conclusions The proposed ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines consistently outperformed ICD-10 in distinguishing cases of eating disorders and showed global applicability and appropriate clinical utility. These results suggest that the proposed ICD-11 guidelines for FEDs will help increase accuracy of public health data, improve clinical diagnosis, and enhance health service organization and provision. This is the first time in the revision of the ICD that data from large-scale, empirical research examining proposed guidelines is completed in time to inform the final diagnostic guidelines.

Como parte del desarrollo de la onceava versión de la Clasificación Internacional de Enfermedades y Problemas de Salud Relacionados (CIE-11), la Organización Mundial de la Salud está conduciendo una serie de estudios de campo de casos controlados utilizando un novedoso y potente método para evaluar la aplicación por parte de clínicos de las guías diagnósticas para los trastornos mentales y del comportamiento. Este artículo describe el estudio de campo de casos controlados para los Trastornos específicamente relacionados con el estrés. Con base en una metodología experimental de vinetas, ˜ 1.738 profesionales de la salud mental diagnosticaron casos estandarizados específicamente disenados ˜ para evaluar diferencias clave entre las guías propuestas para la CIE-11 y las que les corresponden en la CIE-10. Diversos cambios propuestos para la CIE-11, incluyendo la adición del TEPT complejo y del Trastorno por duelo prolongado, produjeron mejores decisiones diagnósticas en comparación con la versión previa del manual. Sin embargo, se identificaron también áreas en las que las guías no se aplicaron de manera consistente, como el requisito diagnóstico de re-experimentación para el TEPT, lo que informó revisiones específicas para mejorar las guías diagnósticas, que serán evaluadas en futuros estudios basados en la clínica con pacientes reales en escenarios relevantes.

Las metodologías basadas en viñetas se utilizan frecuentemente para examinar los procesos de toma de decisiones, incluyendo los de profesionales sanitarios. No obstante, existen dudas respecto a si las viñetas reflejan adecuadamente los fenómenos del “mundo real” permitiendo así resultados y conclusiones válidas. Ofrecemos una visión de las características, variaciones de diseño, fortalezas y debilidades de estos estudios para examinar cómo los profesionales forman juicios clínicos (como el diagnóstico y tratamiento). Siendo “híbridos” de las encuestas tradicionales y los métodos experimentales, estos estudios pueden ofrecer tanto la alta validez interna de los experimentos como la alta validez externa de las encuestas, al aislar múltiples factores predictivos del comportamiento de los clínicos. Un diseño adecuado para poner a prueba preguntas específicas acerca de los juicios y la toma de decisiones permite resultados altamente generalizables a la “vida real”, sin las limitaciones éticas, prácticas y científicas de los métodos alternativos (como la observación, el auto-informe, la evaluación de pacientes estandarizados, o el análisis de archivos clínicos). Concluimos con recomendaciones metodológicas que se ilustran tras una descripción del uso de las metodologías de viñetas para investigar las decisiones diagnósticas de los clínicos en los estudios de campo controlados de la clasificación de los trastornos mentales y del comportamiento en la CIE-11.

OBJECTIVE:The aim of this paper is to investigate how doctors working in primary health care in Latin American address patients with common mental disorders and to investigate how stigma can affect their clinical decisions. METHODS:Using a cross-sectional design, we applied an online self-administered questionnaire to a sample of 550 Primary Care Physicians (PCPs) from Bolivia, Brazil, Cuba and Chile. The questionnaire collected information about sociodemographic variables, training and experience with mental health care. Clinicians' stigmatizing attitudes towards mental health were measured using the Mental Illness Clinicians' Attitudes Scale (MICA v4). The clinical decisions of PCPs were assessed through three clinical vignettes representing typical cases of depression, anxiety and somatization. RESULTS:A total of 387 professionals completed the questionnaires (70.3% response rate). The 63.7% of the PCPs felt qualified to diagnose and treat people with common mental disorders. More than 90% of the PCPs from Bolivia, Cuba and Chile agreed to treat the patients presented in the three vignettes. We did not find significant differences between the four countries in the scores of the MICA v4 stigma levels, with a mean = 36.3 and SD = 8.3 for all four countries. Gender (p = .672), age (p = .171), training (p = .673) and years of experience (p = .28) were unrelated to stigma. In the two multivariate regression models, PCPs with high levels of stigma were more likely to refer them to a psychiatrist the patients with depression (OR = 1.03, 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.07 p