Premium
Preliminary studies of the ICD‐11 classification of personality disorder in practice
Author(s) -
Tyrer Peter,
Crawford Mike,
Sanatinia Rahil,
Tyrer Helen,
Cooper Sylvia,
MullerPollard Chris,
Christodoulou Polyxeni,
ZauterTutt Maria,
MiloseskaReid Katerina,
Loebenberg Gemma,
Guo Boliang,
Yang Min,
Wang Duolao,
Weich Scott
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
personality and mental health
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.193
H-Index - 22
eISSN - 1932-863X
pISSN - 1932-8621
DOI - 10.1002/pmh.1275
Subject(s) - personality , personality disorders , icd 10 , anxiety , borderline personality disorder , population , psychology , psychiatry , clinical psychology , depression (economics) , medicine , social psychology , environmental health , economics , macroeconomics
Objective This study aims to compare ICD‐10 and putative ICD‐11 classifications of personality disorder in different clinical populations. Design Prospective recording of ICD‐10 and ICD‐11 personality disorder classifications was carried out in (1) an anxious medical population, (2) an acute psychiatric in‐patient population and (3) a retrospective recording of a mixed anxiety depression cohort in which all baseline data were scored from baseline information using the ICD‐11 classification and compared with the original ICD‐10 assessments. Method Comparison of ICD‐10 and ICD‐11 prevalence of personality disorder in each population was carried out. Results Data from 722 patients were recorded. Using the ICD‐10 criteria, the prevalence of generic personality disorder was 33.8% compared with 40.4% using the ICD‐11 ones ( χ 2 = 6.7; P < 0.01), with 103 (14.3%) discordant assessments. Using the severity definitions in ICD‐11, 34.3% of patients had personality difficulty. Severity level varied greatly by population; severe personality disorder was five times more common in the inpatient group. The four domain traits originally denoted as qualifying severity in ICD‐11, negative affective, dissocial, anankastic and detached, were linked to anxious, borderline, dissocial, anankastic and schizoid personality disorders in ICD‐10. Many patients had pathology in two or more domains. Conclusions The ICD‐11 classification of personality disorder yields somewhat higher levels of personality dysfunction than ICD‐10, possibly because the age range for the onset of diagnosis is now flexible. The range of severity levels make the classification more useful than ICD‐10 in clinical practice as it identifies the greater pathology necessary for intervention. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.