Search

The Personality Inventory for the DSM-5 (PID-5) assesses the five pathological personality trait domains that comprise the descriptive core of the DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorders (AMPD). The PID-5 five-domain factor structure is aligned with the AMPD and is reported as replicable across samples in the U.S., in other countries, and in different languages. In this study, the PID-5 factor structure is examined in two distinct racial groups within the U.S.-White Americans (WA) and Black Americans (BA). Student participants from four universities in the U.S. (N = 1,834)-composed of groups of WA (n = 1,274) and BA (n = 560)-were proportionally parsed into derivation and replication subsamples. The "traditional" PID-5 five-factor structure emerged for the WA group in the derivation subsample and was subsequently confirmed in the WA replication subsample. In the BA group derivation subsample, a single-factor solution emerged, which was also confirmed in the BA replication sample. This single-factor solution in the BA group reflects large shared covariation across all pathological personality domains, suggesting an undifferentiated, broadly based level of demoralization represented by the item pool of the PID-5. We argue that this structure can be construed as mirroring a racialized and prejudice-based living experience for many BAs in a predominantly non-Black society. Based on the results with the samples employed in the present study, we conclude that the PID-5 is not an equivalent measure of pathological personality traits across Black Americans and White Americans. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Objective One strategy for improving the clinical utility of mental health diagnostic systems is to better align them with how clinicians conceptualize psychopathology in practice. This approach was used in International Classification of Diseases 11th Revision (ICD-11) development, but its underlying assumption-a link between taxonomic "fit" and clinical utility-remains untested. Methods Using data from global mental health clinician samples (combined N = 5404), we investigated the association between taxonomic fit and clinical utility in mental disorder categories. Results The overall association between fit and utility was positive (r = 0.19) but statistically not different from zero (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.06, 0.43) in this small sample (N = 39 ICD/DSM categories). However, a positive association became clear after correcting for outliers (r = 0.34 [0.05, 0.58] or higher). Further insights were apparent for specific diagnoses given their locations in the scatterplot. Conclusions Results suggest a positive link between taxonomic fit and clinical utility in mental disorder diagnoses, highlighting future research directions.

BACKGROUND: We report results of an internet-based field study evaluating the diagnostic guidelines for the newly introduced ICD-11 grouping of obsessive-compulsive and related disorders (OCRD). We examined accuracy of clinicians' diagnostic judgments applying draft ICD-11 as compared to the ICD-10 diagnostic guidelines to standardized case vignettes.METHODS: 1,717 mental health professionals who are members of the World Health Organization's Global Clinical Practice Network completed the study in Chinese, English, French, Japanese, Russian or Spanish. Participants were randomly assigned to apply ICD-11 or ICD-10 guidelines to one of nine pairs of case vignettes.RESULTS: Participants using ICD-11 outperformed those using ICD-10 in correctly identifying newly introduced OCRD, although results were mixed for differentiating OCRD from disorders in other groupings largely due to clinicians having difficulty differentiating challenging presentations of OCD. Clinicians had difficulty applying a three-level insight qualifier, although the 'poor to absent' level assisted with differentiating OCRD from psychotic disorders. Brief training on the rationale for an OCRD grouping did not improve diagnostic accuracy suggesting sufficient detail of the proposed guidelines.LIMITATIONS: Standardized case vignettes were manipulated to include specific characteristics; the degree of accuracy of clinicians' diagnostic judgments about these vignettes may not generalize to application in routine clinical practice.CONCLUSIONS: Overall, use of the ICD-11 guidelines resulted in more accurate diagnosis of case vignettes compared to the ICD-10 guidelines, particularly in differentiating OCRD presentations from one another. Specific areas in which the ICD-11 guidelines did not perform as intended provided the basis for further revisions to the guidelines.

Background This article reports the results of one of a series of global field studies implemented by the World Health Organization (WHO) to evaluate the accuracy, clinical utility, and global applicability of the new diagnostic guidelines for Mental, Behavioural and Neurological Disorders included in the next version of WHO's International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). Aims of the study The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility ratings of global clinicians implementing the ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines for Anxiety and Fear-Related Disorders, relative to those applying ICD-10 guidelines. The study also aimed to identify elements of the guidelines that required further refinement or clarification. Methods 1840 global mental health professionals registered with WHO's Global Clinical Practice Network completed the study in one of six study languages. Participants were randomly assigned to apply either the ICD-11 or ICD-10 guidelines to diagnose standardized case vignettes, and to rate the clinical utility of their assigned guidelines. Results ICD-11's diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility were equivalent or superior to that of ICD-10. Global clinicians were significantly more accurate in diagnosing Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Specific Phobia and adult cases of Separation Anxiety Disorder when using ICD-11 and provided high clinical utility ratings for these disorders. Clinicians also found the ICD-11 guidelines easy to use, clear, and a good fit to patients they see in their clinical practice. However, clinicians had difficulty with distinguishing the boundary between disorder and normality for subthreshold cases of anxiety, and also with applying the new ICD-11 guidelines on panic attacks. Conclusions The new diagnostic guidelines for Anxiety Disorders in ICD-11 can be applied in an acceptably consistent manner by global clinicians and perform as well or better than the previous guidelines for ICD-10. Study findings also helped identify aspects of the ICD-11 guidelines that required refinement prior to their publication and areas that should be emphasized in training programs.

Given recent changes in the legal status of cannabis, the risks and benefits associated with its use have become an important public health topic. A growing body of research has demonstrated that posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and recreational cannabis use (RCU) frequently co-occur, yet findings are inconsistent (e.g., direction of effect) and methodological variability makes comparison across studies difficult.We conducted a comprehensive systematic review of all studies (N = 45) published before May 2020 regarding etiologic models of co-occurring RCU and PTSD, as well as provided a methodological critique to inform suggestions for future research initiatives.Findings indicate that a majority of studies (n = 37) demonstrated a significant association between RCU and PTSD. Findings provide evidence for the self-medication and high-risk models posited to explain co-occurring RCU and PTSD despite variability in assessment of RCU, which includes commonly used non-standardized self-report questions.The association between RCU and PTSD is likely bidirectional. Results inform clinicians and researchers working in the mental health and cannabis use fields how the variability in findings on the association between RCU and PTSD may be attributable, in part, to methodological issues that permeate the extant literature pertaining to RCU and PTSD.

Background We report results of an internet-based field study evaluating the diagnostic guidelines for ICD-11 mood disorders. Accuracy of clinicians' diagnostic judgments applying draft ICD-11 as compared to the ICD-10 guidelines to standardized case vignettes was assessed as well as perceived clinical utility. Methods 1357 clinician members of the World Health Organization's Global Clinical Practice Network completed the study in English, Spanish, Japanese or Russian. Participants were randomly assigned to apply ICD-11 or ICD-10 guidelines to one of eleven pairs of case vignettes. Results Clinicians using the ICD-11 and ICD-10 guidelines achieved similar levels of accuracy in diagnosing mood disorders depicted in vignettes. Those using the ICD-11 were more accurate in identifying depressive episode in recurrent depressive disorder. There were no statistically significant differences detected across classifications in the accuracy of identifying dysthymic or cyclothymic disorder. Circumscribed problems with the proposed ICD-11 guidelines were identified including difficulties differentiating bipolar type I from bipolar type II disorder and applying revised severity ratings to depressive episodes. Clinical utility of ICD-11 bipolar disorders was found to be significantly lower than for ICD-10 equivalent categories. Limitations Standardized case vignettes were manipulated to evaluate specific changes. The degree of accuracy of clinicians' diagnostic judgments may not reflect clinical decision-making with patients. Conclusions Alignment of the ICD-11 with current research appears to have been achieved without sacrificing diagnostic accuracy or clinical utility though specific training may be necessary as ICD-11 is implemented worldwide. Areas in which the ICD-11 guidelines did not perform as intended resulted in further revisions.

In this web-based field study, we compared the diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility of 10 selected mental disorders between the ICD-11 Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Guidelines (CDDG) and the ICD-10 CDDG using vignettes in a sample of 928 health professionals from all WHO regions. On average, the ICD-11 CDDG displayed significantly higher diagnostic accuracy (71.9% for ICD-11, 53.2% for ICD-10), higher ease of use, better goodness of fit, higher clarity, and lower time required for diagnosis compared to the ICD-10 CDDG. The advantages of the ICD-11 CDDG were largely limited to new diagnoses in ICD-11. After limiting analyses to diagnoses existing in ICD-11 and ICD-10, the ICD-11 CDDG were only superior in ease of use. The ICD-11 CDDG were not inferior in diagnostic accuracy or clinical utility compared to the ICD-10 CDDG for any of the vignettes. Diagnostic accuracy was consistent across WHO regions and independent of participants' clinical experience. There were no differences between medical doctors and psychologists in diagnostic accuracy, but members of other health professions had greater difficulties in determining correct diagnoses based on the ICD-11 CDDG. In sum, there were no differences in diagnostic accuracy for diagnoses existing in ICD-10 and ICD-11, but the introduction of new diagnoses in ICD-11 has improved the diagnostic classification of some clinical presentations. The favourable clinical utility ratings of the ICD-11 CDDG give reason to expect a positive evaluation by health professionals in the implementation phase of ICD-11. Yet, training in ICD-11 is needed to further enhance the diagnostic accuracy.

Background The diagnosis of paraphilic disorder is a complicated clinical judgment based on the integration of information from multiple dimensions to arrive at a categorical (present/absent) conclusion. The recent update of the guidelines for paraphilic disorders in ICD-11 presents an opportunity to investigate how mental health professionals use the diagnostic guidelines to arrive at a diagnosis which thereby can optimize the guidelines for clinical use. Aim This study examined clinicians’ ability to use the ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines for paraphilic disorders which contain multiple dimensions that must be simultaneously assessed to arrive at a diagnosis. Methods The study investigated the ability of 1,263 international clinicians to identify the dimensions of paraphilic disorder in the context of written case vignettes that varied on a single dimension only. Outcomes Participants provided diagnoses for the case vignettes along with dimensional ratings of the degree of presence of five dimensions of paraphilic disorder (arousal, consent, action, distress, and risk). RESULTS Across a series of analyses, clinicians demonstrated a clear ability to recognize and appropriately integrate the dimensions of paraphilic disorders; however, there was some evidence that clinicians may over-diagnose non-pathological cases. Clinical Translation Clinicians would likely benefit from targeted training on the ICD-11 definition of paraphilic disorder and should be cautious of over-diagnosing. Strengths and Limitations This study represents a large international sample of health professionals and is the first to examine clinicians’ ability to apply the ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines for paraphilic disorders. Important limitations include not generalizing to all clinicians and acknowledging that results may be different in direct clinical interactions vs written case vignettes. CONCLUSION These results indicate that clinicians appear capable of interpreting and implementing the diagnostic guidelines for paraphilic disorders in ICD-11.

Introduction: The DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorders (AMPD) and the ICD-11 classification of personality disorders (PD) are largely commensurate and, when combined, they delineate 6 trait domains: negative affectivity, detachment, antagonism/dissociality, disinhibition, anankastia, and psychoticism. Objective: The present study evaluated the international validity of a brief 36-item patient-report measure that portrays all 6 domains simultaneously including 18 primary subfacets. Methods: We developed and employed a modified version of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 – Brief Form Plus (PID5BF+). A total of 16,327 individuals were included, 2,347 of whom were patients. The expected 6-factor structure of facets was initially investigated in samples from Denmark (n = 584), Germany (n = 1,271), and the USA (n = 605) and subsequently replicated in both patient- and community samples from Italy, France, Switzerland, Belgium, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Poland, Czech Republic, the USA, and Brazil. Associations with interview-rated DSM-5 PD categories were also investigated. Results: Findings generally supported the empirical soundness and international robustness of the 6 domains including meaningful associations with familiar interview-rated PD types. Conclusions: The modified PID5BF+ may be employed internationally by clinicians and researchers for brief and reliable assessment of the 6 combined DSM-5 and ICD-11 domains, including 18 primary subfacets. This 6-domain framework may inform a future nosology for DSM-5.1 that is more reasonably aligned with the authoritative ICD-11 codes than the current DSM-5 AMPD model. The 36-item modified PID5BF+ scoring key is provided in online supplementary Appendix A see www.karger.com/doi/10.1159/000507589 (for all online suppl. material).

Aims.The study aimed to examine variations in the use of International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Edition (ICD-10) diagnostic categories for mental and behavioural disorders across countries, regions and income levels using data from the online World Psychiatric Association (WPA)-World Health Organization (WHO) Global Survey that examined the attitudes of psychiatrists towards the classification of mental disorders.Methods.A survey was sent to 46 psychiatric societies which are members of WPA. A total of 4887 psychiatrists participated in the survey, which asked about their use of classification, their preferred system and the categories that were used most frequently.Results.The majority (70.1%) of participating psychiatrists (out of 4887 psychiatrists) reported using the ICD-10 the most and using at least one diagnostic category once a week. Nine out of 44 diagnostic categories were considerably variable in terms of frequency of use across countries. These were: emotionally unstable personality disorder, borderline type; dissociative (conversion) disorder; somatoform disorders; obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD); mental and behavioural disorders due to the use of alcohol; adjustment disorder; mental and behavioural disorders due to the use of cannabinoids; dementia in Alzheimer's disease; and acute and transient psychotic disorder. The frequency of use for these nine categories was examined across WHO regions and income levels. The most striking differences across WHO regions were found for five out of these nine categories. For dissociative (conversion) disorder, use was highest for the WHO Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMRO) and non-existent for the WHO African Region. For mental and behavioural disorders due to the use of alcohol, use was lowest for EMRO. For mental and behavioural disorders due to the use of cannabinoids, use was lowest for the WHO European Region and the WHO Western Pacific Region. For OCD and somatoform disorders, use was lowest for EMRO and the WHO Southeast Asian Region. Differences in the frequency of use across income levels were statistically significant for all categories except for mental and behavioural disorders due to the use of alcohol. The most striking variations were found for acute and transient psychotic disorder, which was reported to be more commonly used among psychiatrists from countries with lower income levels.Conclusions.The differences in frequency of use reported in the current study show that cross-cultural variations in psychiatric practice exist. However, whether these differences are due to the variations in prevalence, treatment-seeking behaviour and other factors, such as psychiatrist and patient characteristics as a result of culture, cannot be determined based on the findings of the study. Further research is needed to examine whether these variations are culturally determined and how that would affect the cross-cultural applicability of ICD-10 diagnostic categories.

The subtype system for categorising presentations of schizophrenia will be removed from International Classification of Diseases 11th Revision. In its place will be a system for rating six domains of psychotic disorder pathology: positive symptoms, negative symptoms, depressive symptoms, manic symptoms, psychomotor symptoms and cognitive symptoms. This paper outlines the rationale and description of the proposed symptom rating scale, including current controversies. In particular, the scale could adopt either a 4-point severity rating or a 2-point presence/absence rating. The 4-point scale has the advantage of gathering more information, but potentially at the cost of reliability. The paper concludes by describing the field testing process for evaluating the proposed scale.

OBJECTIVE This study examined the impact of clinicians' demographics and response time on diagnostic accuracy. METHOD We conducted mediation analyses on data from a WHO field study of the ICD-11 that required clinicians (N = 1,822, 44.3% female, 44.92 years old) to diagnose two case vignettes. RESULTS Contradictory to decision-making theories, clinicians with more years of experience and slower response times had higher rates of diagnostic accuracy. In comparison to North American clinicians, clinicians in Asia who responded faster had lower accuracy rates, and clinicians in South America who responded slower had higher accuracy rates. Medical professionals with quicker response times had lower accuracy rates compared with psychologists and other clinical professionals. CONCLUSION Findings indicate that clinicians should consider how their clinical setting, level of experience, and response time influence the diagnostic process. Future research on diagnostic accuracy should consider additional mediating factors, such as cultural differences in response time.

A major goal for the revision of the International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Edition (ICD-10) is to increase the clinical utility of the diagnostic system. Schizoaffective disorder has a history of poor diagnostic reliability due to the similarities and overlap in symptoms that it shares with other disorders, especially primary psychotic and mood disorders. The present study was part of the case-controlled field trials for ICD-11 and examines how the proposed changes for schizoaffective disorder may improve differential diagnosis and diagnostic accuracy. Clinicians from around the globe (n = 873) were provided with either ICD-10 or ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines and asked to apply them to case vignettes comparing schizoaffective disorder to schizophrenia and mood disorders with psychotic symptoms. Participants were asked to respond to follow-up diagnostic questions to determine which components of the diagnostic guidelines affected diagnostic accuracy. Overall, clinicians showed small improvements in accurately diagnosing vignettes using ICD-11 over ICD-10. Results suggest the discrepancy in diagnosing schizoaffective disorder is related primarily to the presence of mood symptoms and discrepancies about whether those symptoms are more consistent with schizoaffective disorder or a mood disorder diagnosis. Continuing to identify ways to more accurately capture this symptom picture will be important in the future as well as systematic efforts to educate clinicians about differential diagnosis.

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.

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

The advent of a dimensional model of personality disorder included in DSM-5 has necessitated the development of a new measurement scheme, specifically a self-report questionnaire termed the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5; Krueger, Derringer, Markon, Watson, & Skodol, 2012 ). However, there are many threats to the validity of a self-report measure, including response inconsistency. This study outlines the development of an inconsistency scale for the PID-5. Across both college student and clinical samples, the inconsistency scale was able to reliably differentiate real from random responding. Random responses led to increased scores on the PID-5 facets, indicating the importance of detecting inconsistent responding prior to test interpretation. Thus, this inconsistency scale could be of use to researchers and clinicians in detecting inconsistent responses to this new personality disorder measure.

The German Society for Psychiatry, Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy (DGPPN,) conducted a comprehensive field study (principal investigator WG) funded by the German Federal Ministry of Health in cooperation with 4 other German medical societies in the field of mental health (DGPM, DGPPR, DeGFS, DGfS) * to support WHO's development of the ICD-11 (Chapters 6 and 17). The objective of the web-based field study was to compare ICD-10 and ICD-11 (beta draft) for selected mental disorders, regarding consistency, accuracy and assessment of utility. The first study (TP1) focused on the diagnostic classification and the second (TP2) on assignment of diagnostic codes.In TP1, clinicians used either the ICD-10 Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Guidelines (CDDG) version or a draft version of the ICD-11 CDDG to evaluate 10 case vignettes in a randomized study implemented through the WHO GCPN **. As hypothesized, consistency was in favor of the ICD-11 (p = .02; n = 319 expert participants) though there was some variability across the different diagnostic categories. In addition, time for diagnosis was shorter (p = .01) and clinicians' judgment of utility (ease of use; goodness of fit) was better for ICD-11 (p = .047 and p.001 respectively).TP2 focused on consistency of diagnostic code assignment for 25 short case descriptions (including explicit diagnosis and additional clinical information) using both ICD-10 and ICD-11 in a randomized web-based field study which was run on the WHO ICD-FiT *** platform. Based on 531 code assignments by120 expert clinicians, consistency for ICD-11 was significantly lower compared to ICD-10 (71 % vs. 82 %, p.001) contrary to study hypothesis, and time required was significantly higher for ICD-11 (p.001). Nevertheless, utility assessments were in favor of ICD-11 (p.005).In summary, in TP1, given vignettes with more complex clinical descriptions more similar to clinical cases, ICD-11 showed advantages in the consistency of correct diagnoses among clinicians, time required to reach a diagnosis, and clinicians' ratings of clinical utility. These results provide evidence for quality improvement of the diagnostic process due to the revision of the more complete diagnostic guidelines for ICD-11. In the coding task of TP2, coding by clinicians using the ICD-10 was more consistent and faster than coding using the ICD-11. This may be a result of the greater complexity for coding use of the ICD-11 (e. g., due to 'post-coordination'), as well as greater familiarity with the ICD-10 system (which German clinicians currently use) and lack of practice with the new ICD-11 codes and tools. In spite of this, users assessed the ICD-11 system as more useful than the ICD-10, in part also because of ICD-11's more systematic and comprehensive coding tools. In addition, time needed for coding improved with practice, indicating need for intense education and training initiatives when ICD-11 is adopted and implemented into clinical practice.Die Deutsche Gesellschaft für Psychiatrie, Psychotherapie, Psychosomatik und Nervenheilkunde (DGPPN) hat federführend (Projektleitung WG) in Kooperation mit vier weiteren medizinischen Fachgesellschaften (DGPM, DGPPR, DeGPT, DGfS) * eine von elf der vom Bundesministerium für Gesundheit geförderten Validierungsstudien zur Unterstützung der WHO-Revision der ICD-10 zur ICD-11 durchgeführt. Die internetbasierte Feldstudie hatte zum Ziel, für ausgewählte Kategorien aus dem Bereich psychischer Erkrankungen (Betadraft, Kapitel 6 und 17) die Konsistenz (Reliabilität) der Diagnosestellung (Teilprojekt TP 1) sowie der Zuweisung diagnostischer Codes (TP 2) nach ICD-11 im Vergleich zur ICD-10 zu überprüfen sowie Anwendereinschätzungen zur Praktikabilität und Nutzerfreundlichkeit zu erheben.TP 1 untersuchte in randomisiertem Design die Konsistenz der Diagnosestellung anhand von zehn Fallvignetten mittels klinischer Diagnoseleitlinien über die WHO GCPN-Plattform ** mit Hilfe von 319 rekrutierten Mitgliedern der beteiligten Fachgesellschaften. Hypothesenkonform war die Konsistenz für ICD-11 signifikant höher als für ICD-10 (p = 0,02). Zusätzlich waren Zeitdauer der Diagnosestellung kürzer (p = 0,01) und Anwenderbeurteilungen positiver für ICD-11 hinsichtlich Nutzerfreundlichkeit (p = 0,047) und Passgenauigkeit (p0,001).Ebenfalls randomisiert wurde in TP 2 die Konsistenz der Kodierung für 25 explizite Diagnosen mit kurzen epikritischen Fallbeschreibungen für ICD-11 und ICD-10 mittels WHO FiT-Tool *** erfasst (n = 531 Kodierungen von 120 Teilnehmenden). Entgegen der Hypothese fand sich eine unterlegene Konsistenz korrekter Kodierung für ICD-11 vs. ICD-10 (71 % vs. 82 %; p0,001) sowie ein höherer Zeitbedarf für ICD-11 (p0,001). Hingegen war die Nutzerbewertung für ICD-11 erneut überlegen (p0,005).Zusammenfassend weist die ICD-11 in der diagnostischen Güte bessere, in der Kodierleistung schlechtere Konsistenzergebnisse auf als ICD-10. Die Ergebnisse belegen, dass die revidierten diagnostischen Leitlinien die Qualität des diagnostischen Prozesses günstig beeinflussen, was durch die zeitlichen Leistungsmaße und Nutzerbeurteilungen gestützt wird. Demgegenüber fallen die Kodierleistungen für die ICD-11 noch zurück, was sowohl auf die mögliche höhere Kodierkomplexität (z. B. Komplex-Codes mit sog. „post-coordination“) als auch auf den ungeübten Umgang mit dem neuen Kodiertool für ICD-11 zurückzuführen sein dürfte. Dennoch wird der neue Kodierprozess aufgrund erweiterter und systematischerer Kodieroptionen günstiger beurteilt als für ICD-10. In den Verläufen der zeitlichen Leistungsmaße zeichnen sich überdies Lernerfolge für ICD-11 ab, die darauf hinweisen, dass eingehende Schulungs- und Trainingsmaßnahmen im Rahmen der künftigen Praxisimplementierung von ICD-11 nicht nur erforderlich, sondern auch erfolgreich sein dürften. Die über Diagnosekategorien hinweg variablen Konsistenzergebnisse weisen allerdings auch darauf hin, dass es in der gegenwärtigen Entwurfsfassung der ICD-11 noch Verbesserungspotenziale für Diagnostik und Kodierung gibt, die in abschließenden und kontinuierlichen Revisionsmaßnahmen i. S. eines „living document“ zu berücksichtigen sind.

The DSM-5 has included for further research a new dimensional measure of personality disorder, operationalized in the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID5). It is important to investigate if extreme variants of these traits are associated with functional impairment, because functional impairment is a key aspect of the definition of personality disorder. The current study investigated this relationship in 989 college students and 91 clinical patients. The PID5 facets were meaningfully associated with measures of functional impairment in both samples, although the clinical sample evidenced more pathological levels of most traits, as might be expected. Overall, the PID5 appears to be a useful measure for the new DSM-5 system of personality disorder diagnosis.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) was created in 1952 by the American Psychiatric Association so that mental health professionals in the United States would have a common language to use when diagnosing individuals with mental disorders. Since the initial publication of the DSM, there have been five subsequent editions of this manual published (including the DSM-III-R). This review discusses the structural changes in the six editions and the research that influenced those changes. Research is classified into three domains: (a) issues related to the DSMs as measurement systems, (b) studies of clinicians and how clinicians form diagnoses, and (c) taxonomic issues involving the philosophy of science and metatheoretical ideas about how classification systems function. The review ends with recommendations about future efforts to revise the DSMs.

Background Schizoaffective disorder (SAD) has routinely exhibited poor diagnostic accuracy and reliability. In addition to phenomenological problems with the definition of SAD, the way in which clinicians represent the symptoms of the disorder could contribute to its poor diagnostic outcomes. Purpose The present study sought to examine clinicians' representations of SAD compared to schizophrenia (SCZ), bipolar disorder with psychotic features (BiPD-PSY), and major depressive disorder with psychotic features (MDD-PSY). Method Participants ( N =113) were clinicians recruited via email as part of a larger study. They were randomly assigned to either select symptoms from a predetermined criteria list or freely list features of the disorders based on their own mental representations. Results Participants' conceptualizations of SAD were not entirely congruent with DSM-5 criteria; they conceptualized it as less psychotic than SCZ and less affective than the two mood disorder tasks. SAD was conceptualized as significantly more depressive than manic. Conclusions This study's findings support the notion that clinicians' conceptualizations of SAD are not entirely congruent with its DSM-5 criteria, which could contribute to diagnostic difficulties.

The World Health Organization (WHO) Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse has developed a systematic program of field studies to evaluate and improve the clinical utility of the proposed diagnostic guidelines for mental and behavioral disorders in the Eleventh Revision of the International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-11). The clinical utility of a diagnostic classification is critical to its function as the interface between health encounters and health information, and to making the ICD-11 be a more effective tool for helping the WHO's 194 member countries, including the United States, reduce the global disease burden of mental disorders. This article describes the WHO's efforts to develop a science of clinical utility in regard to one of the two major classification systems for mental disorders. We present the rationale and methodologies for an integrated and complementary set of field study strategies, including large international surveys, formative field studies of the structure of clinicians' conceptualization of mental disorders, case-controlled field studies using experimental methodologies to evaluate the impact of proposed changes to the diagnostic guidelines on clinicians' diagnostic decision making, and ecological implementation field studies of clinical utility in the global settings in which the guidelines will ultimately be implemented. The results of these studies have already been used in making decisions about the structure and content of ICD-11. If clinical utility is indeed among the highest aims of diagnostic systems for mental disorders, as their developers routinely claim, future revision efforts should continue to build on these efforts. (PsycINFO Database Record

Comorbidity in psychopathology is a common phenomenon. However, little is known about the way in which clinicians think about comorbid cases. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR; American Psychiatric Association, 2000) implies an additive model of concept combination, but studies of human cognition find that individuals often combine concepts in nonadditive ways. In this study, 70 clinicians listed symptoms for three disorders and their combinations. Participants produced nonadditive descriptions, termed overextensions, at significant rates. These results challenge the utility of the implicit additive model of the current DSM.

Purpose Comorbidity in psychopathology is the norm. Despite some initial evidence, few studies have examined if the presence of comorbid conditions changes the expression of the pathology, either through increased severity of the syndrome(s) or by expanding to symptoms beyond the syndrome(s) (i.e., symptom overextension). The following report provides an illustration of interactive effects and overextension in comorbid pathology. Method A large pool of patients from a university hospital were assessed using SCID-I/P interviews. Of these, 230 patients diagnosed with major depressive disorder, social phobia, or both were included in the study. Results Symptoms not belonging to either index condition (major depressive disorder or social phobia) reliably overextended in comorbid cases (odds ratios between 2.82 and 15.75). Conclusions Current research methodologies (e.g., structured interviews) do not allow for the examination of overextended symptoms. The authors make a call for future psychopathological research to search systematically for interactive effects by adopting more inclusive or flexible assessments.

Objective: Canceled or unattended psychotherapy sessions are a source of concern for patients, providers, and health-care systems. Veterans are particularly likely to experience mental health problems, and yet they are also especially susceptible to variables leading to premature termination of services. Method: This study examined a large (n = 2285) sample of veterans receiving psychotherapy services to determine if mental health diagnosis had an impact upon missed psychotherapy opportunities. Results: There were differential cancelation rates for individuals with different classes of disorder, and the total number of appointments a person scheduled changed the nature of the effect. Conclusions: Health-care administrators and treatment providers should consider the specific effects of individuals with differing diagnoses when planning courses of treatment and coordinating care.

Enhancing clinical utility is an emphasis of the World Health Organization ’ s development of the mental and behavioural disorders chapter of the next International Classifi cation of Diseases (ICD-11). Understanding how clinicians conceptualize the structure of mental disorders can enable a more clinically intuitive classifi cation architecture that will help professionals fi nd the categories they need more effi ciently. This study examined clinicians ’ conceptualizations of the relationships among mental disorders and the dimensions they use in making these judgements. Psychiatrists and psychologists from 64 countries (n 1,371), participating in English or Spanish, rated the similarity of mental and behavioural disorders presented as paired comparisons. Data were analysed by multidimensional scaling procedures (INDSCAL) and by analyses of consistency. Participants used three distinctive dimensions to evaluate the similarity among disorders: internalizing versus externalizing, developmental versus adult onset, and functional versus organic. Clinicians ’ conceptual map of mental disorders was rational and highly stable across profession, language, and country income level. The proposed ICD-11 structure is a moderately better fi t with clinicians ’ conceptual model than either ICD-10 or DSM-IV. Clinician judgements can be used to improve clinical utility of the ICD-11 without sacrifi cing validity based on a scientifi c approach to enhancing a logically organized classifi cation meta-structure.

With the approaching publication of the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), alternative organizations of the DSM (4th ed.; DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association, 1994) categories have been proposed. This article compares several published alternative organizations to clinicians' organization of the DSM-IV categories. As demonstrations of their organization of DSM-IV categories, psychologists and psychiatrists sorted 66 DSM-IV diagnostic categories into groups of similar diagnoses and then made progressively larger and smaller groups of diagnoses or placed similar groups next to each other on a table. Hierarchical agglomerative data analysis of clinicians' individual sortings showed that clinicians retained many lower level DSM-IV categories (e.g., anxiety disorders, mood disorders), but not the higher level DSM-IV categories (e.g., Axis I vs. Axis II). Instead, at the highest hierarchical level, clinicians' categories resembled the structure of the first edition of the DSM (American Psychiatric Association, 1952), which followed clinicians' diagnostic decision-making scheme, dividing mental disorders into organic versus nonorganic and then psychotic versus neurotic disorders. At minimum, these data suggest a DSM organization that makes sense to clinicians.