TY - JOUR
T1 - Clinical utility of ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines for high-burden mental disorders
T2 - results from mental health settings in 13 countries
AU - Reed, Geoffrey M.
AU - Keeley, Jared W.
AU - Rebello, Tahilia J.
AU - First, Michael B.
AU - Gureje, Oye
AU - Ayuso-Mateos, José Luis
AU - Kanba, Shigenobu
AU - Khoury, Brigitte
AU - Kogan, Cary S.
AU - Krasnov, Valery N.
AU - Maj, Mario
AU - de Jesus Mari, Jair
AU - Sharan, Pratap
AU - Stein, Dan J.
AU - Zhao, Min
AU - Akiyama, Tsuyoshi
AU - Andrews, Howard F.
AU - Asevedo, Elson
AU - Cheour, Majda
AU - Domínguez-Martínez, Tecelli
AU - El-Khoury, Joseph
AU - Fiorillo, Andrea
AU - Grenier, Jean
AU - Gupta, Nitin
AU - Kola, Lola
AU - Kulygina, Maya
AU - Leal-Leturia, Itziar
AU - Luciano, Mario
AU - Lusu, Bulumko
AU - Martínez-López, J. Nicolás I.
AU - Matsumoto, Chihiro
AU - Odunleye, Mayokun
AU - Onofa, Lucky Umukoro
AU - Paterniti, Sabrina
AU - Purnima, Shivani
AU - Robles, Rebeca
AU - Sahu, Manoj K.
AU - Sibeko, Goodman
AU - Zhong, Na
AU - Gaebel, Wolfgang
AU - Lovell, Anne M.
AU - Maruta, Toshimasa
AU - Pike, Kathleen M.
AU - Roberts, Michael C.
AU - Medina-Mora, María Elena
N1 - Funding Information:
The opinions contained in the paper are those of its authors and, except as specifically stated, are not intended to represent the official policies or positions of the WHO. Funding was received for national activities related to this project in the following countries: Brazil – Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico; Canada – University Medical Research Fund, Royal's University of Ottawa Institute of Mental Health Research; Japan – Japanese Society of Psychiatry and Neurology, and Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development; Mexico – National Council of Science and Technology (project no. 234473). Additional support for data collection in Brazil, Lebanon, Nigeria, South Africa and Tunisia was provided by the Columbia University Global Mental Health Program. Otherwise, this project was funded by in-kind contributions of the participating institutions. The authors express their gratitude to the following individuals who contributed substantially to the conduct of this research: Gustavo M. Barros, Ary Gadelha, Michel Haddad, Nuno H.P. Santos (Brazil); Huajian Ma, Zhen Wang, Jingjing Huang (China); Huma Kamal, Nidhi Malhotra (India); Gaia Sampogna, Lucia Del Gaudio, Giuseppe Piegari, Francesco Perris, Luca Steardo (Italy); Tomofumi Miura, Itta Namamura, Kiyokazu Atake, Ayako Endo, Yuki Kako, Shinichi Kishi, Michihiko Koeda, Shinsuke Kondo, Akeo Kurumaji, Shusuke Numata, Naoya Oribe, Futoshi Suzuki, Masashi Yagi (Japan); Sariah Daouk, Chadia Haddad, François Kazour, Nicole Khauli (Lebanon); Francisco Juárez, Alejandra González, Omar Hernández, Carolina Muñoz (Mexico); Tatiana Kiska, Oleg Limankin, Pavel Ponizovsky (Russian Federation); Roxanne James, Christine Lochner, Adele Pretorius (South Africa); Carolina Ávila, Cora Fernández; Julián Gómez, Ana Izquierdo, Beatriz Vicario, Rubén Vicente (Spain); Rahma Damak (Tunisia).
Funding Information:
The opinions contained in the paper are those of its authors and, except as specifically stated, are not intended to represent the official policies or positions of the WHO. Funding was received for national activities related to this project in the following countries: Brazil – Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cien-tífico e Tecnológico; Canada – University Medical Research Fund, Royal’s University of Ottawa Institute of Mental Health Research; Japan – Japanese Society of Psychiatry and Neurology, and Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development; Mexico – National Council of Science and Technology (project no. 234473). Additional support for data collection in Brazil, Lebanon, Nigeria, South Africa and Tunisia was provided by the Columbia University Global Mental Health Program. Otherwise, this project was funded by in-kind contributions of the participating institutions. The authors express their gratitude to the following individuals who contributed substantially to the conduct of this research: Gustavo M. Barros, Ary Gadelha, Michel Haddad, Nuno H.P. Santos (Brazil); Huajian Ma, Zhen Wang, Jingjing Huang (China); Huma Kamal, Nidhi Malhotra (India); Gaia Sampogna, Lucia Del Gaudio, Giuseppe Piegari, Francesco Perris, Luca Steardo (Italy); Tomofumi Miura, Itta Namamura, Kiyokazu Atake, Ayako Endo, Yuki Kako, Shinichi Kishi, Michihiko Koeda, Shinsuke Kondo, Akeo Kurumaji, Shusuke Numata, Naoya Oribe, Futoshi Suzuki, Masashi Yagi (Japan); Sariah Daouk, Chadia Haddad, François Kazour, Nicole Khauli (Lebanon); Francisco Juárez, Alejandra González, Omar Hernández, Carolina Muñoz (Mexico); Tatiana Kiska, Oleg Limankin, Pavel Ponizovsky (Russian Federation); Roxanne James, Christine Lochner, Adele Pretorius (South Africa); Carolina Ávila, Cora Fernández; Julián Gómez, Ana Izquierdo, Beatriz Vicario, Rubén Vicente (Spain); Rahma Damak (Tunisia).
PY - 2018/10
Y1 - 2018/10
N2 - In this paper we report the clinical utility of the diagnostic guidelines for ICD-11 mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders as assessed by 339 clinicians in 1,806 patients in 28 mental health settings in 13 countries. Clinician raters applied the guidelines for schizophrenia and other primary psychotic disorders, mood disorders (depressive and bipolar disorders), anxiety and fear-related disorders, and disorders specifically associated with stress. Clinician ratings of the clinical utility of the proposed ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines were very positive overall. The guidelines were perceived as easy to use, corresponding accurately to patients’ presentations (i.e., goodness of fit), clear and understandable, providing an appropriate level of detail, taking about the same or less time than clinicians’ usual practice, and providing useful guidance about distinguishing disorder from normality and from other disorders. Clinicians evaluated the guidelines as less useful for treatment selection and assessing prognosis than for communicating with other health professionals, though the former ratings were still positive overall. Field studies that assess perceived clinical utility of the proposed ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines among their intended users have very important implications. Classification is the interface between health encounters and health information; if clinicians do not find that a new diagnostic system provides clinically useful information, they are unlikely to apply it consistently and faithfully. This would have a major impact on the validity of aggregated health encounter data used for health policy and decision making. Overall, the results of this study provide considerable reason to be optimistic about the perceived clinical utility of the ICD-11 among global clinicians.
AB - In this paper we report the clinical utility of the diagnostic guidelines for ICD-11 mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders as assessed by 339 clinicians in 1,806 patients in 28 mental health settings in 13 countries. Clinician raters applied the guidelines for schizophrenia and other primary psychotic disorders, mood disorders (depressive and bipolar disorders), anxiety and fear-related disorders, and disorders specifically associated with stress. Clinician ratings of the clinical utility of the proposed ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines were very positive overall. The guidelines were perceived as easy to use, corresponding accurately to patients’ presentations (i.e., goodness of fit), clear and understandable, providing an appropriate level of detail, taking about the same or less time than clinicians’ usual practice, and providing useful guidance about distinguishing disorder from normality and from other disorders. Clinicians evaluated the guidelines as less useful for treatment selection and assessing prognosis than for communicating with other health professionals, though the former ratings were still positive overall. Field studies that assess perceived clinical utility of the proposed ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines among their intended users have very important implications. Classification is the interface between health encounters and health information; if clinicians do not find that a new diagnostic system provides clinically useful information, they are unlikely to apply it consistently and faithfully. This would have a major impact on the validity of aggregated health encounter data used for health policy and decision making. Overall, the results of this study provide considerable reason to be optimistic about the perceived clinical utility of the ICD-11 among global clinicians.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85052952288&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85052952288&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/wps.20581
DO - 10.1002/wps.20581
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85052952288
VL - 17
SP - 306
EP - 315
JO - World Psychiatry
JF - World Psychiatry
SN - 1723-8617
IS - 3
ER -