Validity of Categories Related to Gender Identity in ICD-11 and DSM-5 Among Transgender Individuals who Seek Gender-Affirming Medical Procedures.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: The most recent versions of the two main mental disorders classifications-the World Health Organization's ICD-11 and the American Psychiatric Association's DSM-5-differ substantially in their diagnostic categories related to transgender identity. ICD-11 gender incongruence (GI), in contrast to DSM-5 gender dysphoria (GD), is explicitly not a mental disorder; neither distress nor dysfunction is a required feature. The objective was compared ICD-11 and DSM-5 diagnostic requirements in terms of their sensitivity, specificity, discriminability and ability to predict the use of gender-affirming medical procedures. METHOD: A total of 649 of transgender adults in six countries completed a retrospective structured interview. RESULTS: Using ROC analysis, sensitivity of the diagnostic requirements was equivalent for both systems, but ICD-11 showed greater specificity than DSM-5. Regression analyses indicated that history of hormones and/or surgery was predicted by variables that are an intrinsic aspect of GI/GD more than by distress and dysfunction. IRT analyses showed that the ICD-11 diagnostic formulation was more parsimonious and contained more information about caseness than the DSM-5 model. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the ICD-11 position that GI/GD is not a mental disorder; additional diagnostic requirements of distress and/or dysfunction in DSM-5 reduce the predictive power of the diagnostic model.

ANTECEDENTES/OBJETIVO: Las versiones más recientes de las clasificaciones de trastornos mentales ­CIE-11 de la Organización Mundial de la Salud y DSM­5 de la Asociación Psiquiátrica Americana­ difieren en sus categorías diagnósticas relacionadas con la identidad transgénero. La discordancia de género (DiscG) de la CIE-11, en contraste con la disforia de género (DisfG) del DSM-5, no es considerada un trastorno mental; el distrés y la disfunción no son características requeridas para el diagnóstico. El objetivo fue comparar los requisitos diagnósticos de la CIE-11 y el DSM-5 en términos de sensibilidad, especificidad y capacidad para discriminar casos y predecir el uso de procedimientos médicos de afirmación de género. MÉTODO: 649 adultos transgénero de seis países completaron una entrevista estructurada retrospectiva. RESULTADOS: De acuerdo con el análisis ROC, la sensibilidad de ambos sistemas fue equivalente, aunque la CIE-11 mostró mayor especificidad que el DSM-5. Los análisis de regresión indicaron que la historia de uso de hormonas o cirugía se predijo por variables intrínsecas a la DiscG/DisfG y no por el distrés o disfunción. Según los análisis de respuesta al ítem (TRi) la formación CIE-11 resulta más parsimoniosa y contiene mayor información sobre los casos. CONCLUSIONES: Se aporta evidencia a favor de que la DiscG/DisfG no es un trastorno mental; los criterios diagnósticos adicionales de distrés y/o disfunción del DSM-5 reducen su poder predictivo.

The classification of feeding and eating disorders in the ICD-11: results of a field study comparing proposed ICD-11 guidelines with existing ICD-10 guidelines.

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.

Clinical decisions and stigmatizing attitudes towards mental health problems in primary care physicians from Latin American countries.

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<0.05) and somatoform symptoms somatoform (OR = 1.03, 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.07, p<0.05) to a psychiatrist. DISCUSSION: The majority of PCPs in the four countries were inclined to treat patients with depression, anxiety and somatoform symptoms. PCPs with more levels of stigma were more likely to refer the patients with depression and somatoform symptoms to a psychiatrist. Stigmatizing attitudes towards mental disorders by PCPs might be important barriers for people with mental health problems to receive the treatment they need in primary care.