Reliable, clinically useful, and globally applicable diagnostic classification of mental disorders is an essential foundation for global mental health. The World Health Organization (WHO) is nearing completion of the 11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-11). The present study assessed inter-diagnostician reliability of mental disorders accounting for the greatest proportion of global disease burden and the highest levels of service utilization - schizophrenia and other primary psychotic disorders, mood disorders, anxiety and fear-related disorders, and disorders specifically associated with stress - among adult patients presenting for treatment at 28 participating centers in 13 countries. A concurrent joint-rater design was used, focusing specifically on whether two clinicians, relying on the same clinical information, agreed on the diagnosis when separately applying the ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines. A total of 1,806 patients were assessed by 339 clinicians in the local language. Intraclass kappa coefficients for diagnoses weighted by site and study prevalence ranged from 0.45 (dysthymic disorder) to 0.88 (social anxiety disorder) and would be considered moderate to almost perfect for all diagnoses. Overall, the reliability of the ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines was superior to that previously reported for equivalent ICD-10 guidelines. These data provide support for the suitability of the ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines for implementation at a global level. The findings will inform further revision of the ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines prior to their publication and the development of programs to support professional training and implementation of the ICD-11 by WHO member states.

No abstract

Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre-including this research content-immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

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.

Introduction. The management of neuropathic pain remains complex, generally because of the psychiatric comorbidity that is often underdiagnosed. The objectives of our work were to determine the link between depression and the characteristics of NP on the one hand and quality of life on the other hand, in a sample of subjects consulting for neuropathic pain (NP) regardless of etiology. Methods. We conducted a cross-sectional study involving 61 neuropathic pain consulting patients in whom we assessed five parameters, namely, neuropathic pain based on DN4, pain intensity using EVA, anxiety, and depression according to the HADS and quality of life. Results. The study population mean age was 52.71 ± 14.29 years while the sex ratio (m/f) was 0.52. The neuropathic pain’s most common etiologies were postherpetic pain, carpal tunnel syndrome, and diabetic neuropathy. Depression and anxiety prevailed by 65.6% and 73.7%, respectively. The quality of life was impaired with average SF-12 physical and mental scores of 33.76 ± 8.03 and 37.78 ± 11.52, respectively. The overall mean BPI score was 5.53 ± 1.76. Patients with high DN4 scores were significantly more depressed (p=0.025). A significantly positive association was found between the depression score and the pain intensity (p=0.001, r = 0.41). Depressed subjects had a poor quality of life according to SF-12 and BPI. Conclusion. Given the depressive comorbidity impact on the neuropathic pain components as well as the quality of life, screening for this comorbidity should be part of the baseline ND assessment.

No abstract

No abstract

Background Little consideration has been given to the impact of COVID-19 on people at risk of psychosis despite their particular preexisting vulnerability. We aimed to examine the role of coping strategies in determining the levels of fear in nonclinical students with high levels of self-reported schizotypal personality traits as compared to low-schizotypy controls. Method This was a cross-sectional survey. The Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire, the Fear of COVID-19 Scale and The Brief-Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced were used. Results High-schizotypy students had significantly higher maladaptive strategies scores and higher levels of fear of COVID-19 as compared to low-schizotypy students. Multivariate analyses have shown that high-schizotypy individuals were likely to rely on coping responses that are maladaptive (venting) and have potential exacerbating effects on fear of COVID-19, whereas low-schizotypy individuals were likely to use adaptive responses (acceptance) that seemed to be effective in reducing fear of COVID-19. Conclusion This study provided preliminary cross-sectional evidence for a differential impact of COVID-19 on individuals according to their schizotypy features. However, larger longitudinal population-based studies are necessary to confirm our findings.