ABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Bipolar Disorder , International Classification of Diseases , Bipolar Disorder/diagnosis , Humans , Judgment , Mood Disorders/diagnosis , RussiaABSTRACT
Following approval of the ICD-11 by the World Health Assembly in May 2019, World Health Organization (WHO) member states will transition from the ICD-10 to the ICD-11, with reporting of health statistics based on the new system to begin on January 1, 2022. The WHO Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse will publish Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Guidelines (CDDG) for ICD-11 Mental, Behavioural and Neurodevelopmental Disorders following ICD-11's approval. The development of the ICD-11 CDDG over the past decade, based on the principles of clinical utility and global applicability, has been the most broadly international, multilingual, multidisciplinary and participative revision process ever implemented for a classification of mental disorders. Innovations in the ICD-11 include the provision of consistent and systematically characterized information, the adoption of a lifespan approach, and culture-related guidance for each disorder. Dimensional approaches have been incorporated into the classification, particularly for personality disorders and primary psychotic disorders, in ways that are consistent with current evidence, are more compatible with recovery-based approaches, eliminate artificial comorbidity, and more effectively capture changes over time. Here we describe major changes to the structure of the ICD-11 classification of mental disorders as compared to the ICD-10, and the development of two new ICD-11 chapters relevant to mental health practice. We illustrate a set of new categories that have been added to the ICD-11 and present the rationale for their inclusion. Finally, we provide a description of the important changes that have been made in each ICD-11 disorder grouping. This information is intended to be useful for both clinicians and researchers in orienting themselves to the ICD-11 and in preparing for implementation in their own professional contexts.
ABSTRACT
Background/Objective: Collaborative teamwork in global mental health presents unique challenges, including the formation and management of international teams composed of multicultural and multilingual professionals with different backgrounds in terms of their training, scientific expertise, and life experience. The purpose of the study was to analyze the performance of the World Health Organization (WHO) Field Studies Coordination Group (FSCG) using an input-processes-output (IPO) team science model to better understand the team's challenges, limitations, and successes in developing the eleventh revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Method: We thematically analyzed a collection of written texts, including FSCG documents and open-ended qualitative questionnaires, according to the conceptualization of the input-processes-output model of team performance. Results: The FSCG leadership and its members experienced and overcame numerous barriers to become an effective international team and to successfully achieve the goals set forth by WHO. Conclusions: Research is necessary regarding global mental health collaboration to understand and facilitate international collaborations with the goal of contributing to a deeper understanding of mental health and to reduce the global burden of mental disorders around the world
Antecedentes/Objetivo: El trabajo de equipo colaborativo en salud mental global presenta retos particulares, incluyendo la formación y el control de grupos internacionales integrados por profesionales multilingües y multiculturales con diferentes antecedentes en términos de entrenamiento, competencias científicas y experiencias vitales. El propósito del estudio fue analizar el funcionamiento del Grupo de Coordinación de Estudios de Campo (GCEC) de la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS) utilizando un modelo científico de entrada-proceso-salida (EPS) para mejorar la comprensión de los retos, limitaciones y logros del equipo en el desarrollo de la onceava revisión de la Clasificación Internacional de Enfermedades (CIE). Método: Se llevó a cabo un análisis temático de una colección de textos, incluyendo documentos del GCEC y cuestionarios cualitativos de preguntas abiertas, acordes con la conceptualización del modelo de rendimiento de equipos de entrada-proceso-salida. Resultados: El liderazgo y los miembros del GCEC experimentaron y superaron numerosas barreras para convertirse en un grupo internacional efectivo y lograr exitosamente los objetivos establecidos por la OMS. Conclusiones: Se requiere de investigación sobre la colaboración en salud mental global a fin de entender y facilitar las colaboraciones internacionales dirigidas a comprender a profundidad la salud mental y reducir la carga de los trastornos mentales en el mundo
Subject(s)
Humans , World Health Organization , International Classification of Diseases , Mental Disorders/classification , International Cooperation , 25783 , Global HealthABSTRACT
Background/Objective: Collaborative teamwork in global mental health presents unique challenges, including the formation and management of international teams composed of multicultural and multilingual professionals with different backgrounds in terms of their training, scientific expertise, and life experience. The purpose of the study was to analyze the performance of the World Health Organization (WHO) Field Studies Coordination Group (FSCG) using an input-processes-output (IPO) team science model to better understand the team's challenges, limitations, and successes in developing the eleventh revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Method: We thematically analyzed a collection of written texts, including FSCG documents and open-ended qualitative questionnaires, according to the conceptualization of the input-processes-output model of team performance. Results: The FSCG leadership and its members experienced and overcame numerous barriers to become an effective international team and to successfully achieve the goals set forth by WHO. Conclusions: Research is necessary regarding global mental health collaboration to understand and facilitate international collaborations with the goal of contributing to a deeper understanding of mental health and to reduce the global burden of mental disorders around the world.
Antecedentes/Objetivo: El trabajo de equipo colaborativo en salud mental global presenta retos particulares, incluyendo la formación y el control de grupos internacionales integrados por profesionales multilingües y multiculturales con diferentes antecedentes en términos de entrenamiento, competencias científicas y experiencias vitales. El propósito del estudio fue analizar el funcionamiento del Grupo de Coordinación de Estudios de Campo (GCEC) de la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS) utilizando un modelo científico de entrada-proceso-salida (EPS) para mejorar la comprensión de los retos, limitaciones y logros del equipo en el desarrollo de la onceava revisión de la Clasificación Internacional de Enfermedades (CIE). Método: Se llevó a cabo un análisis temático de una colección de textos, incluyendo documentos del GCEC y cuestionarios cualitativos de preguntas abiertas, acordes con la conceptualización del modelo de rendimiento de equipos de entrada-proceso-salida. Resultados: El liderazgo y los miembros del GCEC experimentaron y superaron numerosas barreras para convertirse en un grupo internacional efectivo y lograr exitosamente los objetivos establecidos por la OMS. Conclusiones: Se requiere de investigación sobre la colaboración en salud mental global a fin de entender y facilitar las colaboraciones internacionales dirigidas a comprender a profundidad la salud mental y reducir la carga de los trastornos mentales en el mundo.
ABSTRACT
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.
ABSTRACT
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.
ABSTRACT
Russian psychiatry has a dramatic history, and until now has been at a transitional stage of development. It is facing problems not only common in world psychiatry, but also specific to eastern Europe, in particular Russia. Starting from the beginning of the 1990s, considerable changes have occurred in psychiatry, especially after 1992 when the law on psychiatric care and guarantees of citizens' rights in its provision was adopted. It became the ideological and legislative basis for reforms. However, there are definite obstacles to structural reforms in psychiatry. They are unfavourable technical conditions in many psychiatric clinics, hypercentralization of psychiatric services, shortage of clinical psychologists and social workers in psychiatry, some difficulties in cooperation between psychiatric and general medical institutions. Economic difficulties in the transition period of Russia's social development prevent the overcoming of these problems. They are being actively discussed and some of them are being gradually solved, e.g. the organization of team work in mental health services, the increasing number of specialists on social work, and the involvement of non-government organizations in psychosocial rehabilitation.
