The WPA‐WHO Global Survey of Psychiatrists’ Attitudes Towards Mental Disorders Classification

Reed, Geoffrey M.; Correia, João; Esparza, Patricia; Saxena, Shekhar; Maj, Mario

doi:10.1002/j.2051-5545.2011.tb00034.x

Cited by 321 publications

(282 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

250

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Professional surveys that examine clinicians’ opinions and perspectives on mental disorder classification were conducted alongside field studies to explore clinicians’ use of the disorder criteria and discover areas for improvement. Large surveys of almost 5000 psychiatrists and 2155 psychologists worldwide (Evans et al, 2013; Reed, Mendonça Correia, Esparza, Saxena, & Maj, 2011) explored clinicians’ perspectives on the current and future diagnostic classification systems for all mental and behavioural disorders. The results showed that when considering mental disorders, clinicians have a strong preference for flexible working diagnostic guidelines to allow space for more clinical judgement, more consideration for cultural factors, and a classification system with fewer categories and no subtypes.…”

Section: Evidence For the Clinically Useful Symptom Structure Of Icd-mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are still significant questions concerning the application of this definition to different cultural groups and across the lifespan (Keeley et al, 2016; Reed et al, 2011; Robles et al, 2014; Schaal, Jacob, Dusingizemungu, & Elbert, 2010). To date, the WHO framework of clinical utility and international applicability has contributed to the development of applicable and culturally informed diagnostic criteria for PGD that, it is hoped, will improve clinical practice.…”

Section: Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Prolonged grief disorder for ICD-11: the primacy of clinical utility and international applicability

Killikelly

Maercker

2017

European Journal of Psychotraumatology

143

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A new mental health disorder, prolonged grief disorder (PGD), will be included in the 11th edition of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). We provide a brief overview of the historical conceptualizations of disordered grief and the previous research efforts to assess and define this condition. We describe the new ICD-11 PGD symptom criteria and how they are conceptualized in terms of the World Health Organization’s call for improved clinical utility. Finally, we review the research evidence for the clinical utility of the new ICD-11 PGD symptom structure and usability in the international arena.

show abstract

Section: Evidence For the Clinically Useful Symptom Structure Of Icd-mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prolonged grief disorder for ICD-11: the primacy of clinical utility and international applicability

Killikelly

Maercker

2017

European Journal of Psychotraumatology

143

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Adjustment disorder (AjD) is one of the most used mental disorder diagnoses among psychologists and psychiatrists according to worldwide surveys of mental health professionals (Evans et al, 2013; Reed, Mendonça Correia, Esparza, Saxena, & Maj, 2011). AjD is a mental disorder with serious implications; in particular, it is highly associated with suicidality (Casey, Jabbar, O’Leary, & Doherty, 2015).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A scoping review of ICD-11 adjustment disorder research

Kazlauskas

Želvienė

Lorenz

et al. 2017

European Journal of Psychotraumatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Adjustment disorder (AjD) is one of the most used mental disorder diagnoses among mental health professionals. Important revisions of the AjD definition in the 11th edition of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) are proposed. AjD is included in a chapter of disorders specifically associated with stress in ICD-11. Objective: This paper aims to review recent developments in ICD-11 AjD research, and to discuss the available ICD-11 AjD diagnosis validation studies, AjD measures, treatment studies, and outline the future perspectives for AjD research and clinical practice. Methods: In total, 10 empirical studies of AjD ICD-11 were identified and included in this review. We searched for studies in Embase, PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, PILOTS, SocINDEX, and via additional search by contacting authors of published empirical studies and reference screening. Results: Review of the studies revealed a lack of validation studies of the ICD-11 AjD symptom structure. AjD validation study findings are ambiguous, and there is still little support for the proposed two symptom structure of AjD for the ICD-11. A self-report AjD measure ‘Adjustment Disorder New Module’ (ADNM) based on the ICD-11 definition has been developed and used in all 10 reviewed studies. Two self-help interventions have been developed for the ICD-11 AjD, and findings from these studies indicate that self-help low-intensity cognitive-behavioural interventions, delivered via bibliography or internet-based, might be effective treatment of AjD. Conclusions: The AjD definition in ICD-11 with a description of a new symptom profile facilitates AjD measurement and AjD-focused treatment developments. More studies and insights from clinical practice are needed to move the field of AjD research and practice forward.

show abstract

“…In this way, the diagnoses are considered as a yes/no distinction, with no room in the rubric for gradations of a disorder (Silverman & Krueger, 2014), yet a real possibility exists that a patient would not receive needed services. Moreover, diagnostic thresholds utilized in the categorical approach often are arbitrary, while the variability both above and below diagnostic thresholds can be clinically meaningful (Kessler et al, 2003) and does not mirror the way practicing clinicians use the categories in everyday practice (Kim & Ahn, 2002;Mussigbrodt et al, 2000;Reed, Mendonca Correia, Esparza, Saxena, & Maj, 2011).…”

Section: The Need For Rdocmentioning

confidence: 99%

Operationalizing NIMH Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) in naturalistic clinical settings

Sharp¹,

Fowler²,

Salas³

et al. 2016

Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) introduced the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) initiative to address two major challenges facing the field of psychiatry: (1) the lack of new effective personalized treatments for psychiatric disorders, and (2) The need for RDoCEffective treatments and policies are lacking for adolescents and adults with serious mental illness (SMI; i.e., treatment refractory neuropsychiatric disorders). Because tightly controlled efficacy studies restrict the capacity to provide personalized care, they may also restrict treatment response. Moreover, health insurance and public sector mental healthcare systems rarely allow for more than very brief psychiatric hospitalizations to focus primarily on stabilization. Thus, the majority of people with SMI are not afforded the time in treatment necessary to understand and treat their complex clinical symptoms and functional impairments.Offering personalized care means recognizing that for reasons of genetic makeup and personal history, people respond differentially to specific treatments and that poor response to one treatment does not necessarily imply poor response to another, or deny the possibility of potentiation through combinations of multimodal treatments over time.In addition to the challenges facing personalized clinical care for SMI, the publication of the 5 th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders in 2013 by the American Psychiatric Association was preceded by controversy and contentious debate (Regier, 2007a(Regier, , 2007bSaunders, 2006;Widiger & Simonsen, 2005). Despite the hopes that the practice of psychiatric diagnosis would be revolutionized, the knowledge base in the field was not judged sufficient to justify moving beyond the established tradition of diagnosing mental disorders based on clinical observation and patients' phenomenological symptom reports. In addition, the polythetic and dichotomous (categorical) diagnostic system was, for the most part, retained. In psychiatry (unlike other disciplines in medicine) we rely solely on the patient's subjective report, and on clinical observation, for diagnosis and treatment planning. In other words one could say that in psychiatry the disease is diagnosed as the symptom. Thus anxiety, for instance, is both the 4 4 diagnosis and its symptom. In general medicine, by contrast, when a patient presents with excessive thirst and frequent restroom breaks, the physician might order a blood glucose level test to confirm or dispute a diagnosis of diabetes, acknowledging that the behavioral phenotype (excessive thirst and frequent restroom breaks) may be associated with a variety of underlying conditions and that a direct mapping of subjective patient report to pathophysiology may clarify the disorder. In psychiatry, when a patient presents with anger outbursts, affective instability, a history of suicide attempts, alcohol abuse and relationship problems, he/she meets five out of nine DSM-5 criteria for borderline personality disorde...

show abstract

The WPA‐WHO Global Survey of Psychiatrists’ Attitudes Towards Mental Disorders Classification

Cited by 321 publications

References 16 publications

Prolonged grief disorder for ICD-11: the primacy of clinical utility and international applicability

Prolonged grief disorder for ICD-11: the primacy of clinical utility and international applicability

A scoping review of ICD-11 adjustment disorder research

Operationalizing NIMH Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) in naturalistic clinical settings

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About