Open AccessClinical utility of ICD‐11 diagnostic guidelines for high‐burden mental disorders: results from mental health settings in 13 countries
Author(s) -
Reed Geoffrey M.,
Keeley Jared W.,
Rebello Tahilia J.,
First Michael B.,
Gureje Oye,
AyusoMateos José Luis,
Kanba Shigenobu,
Khoury Brigitte,
Kogan Cary S.,
Krasnov Valery N.,
Maj Mario,
Jesus Mari Jair,
Sharan Pratap,
Stein Dan J.,
Zhao Min,
Akiyama Tsuyoshi,
Andrews Howard F.,
Asevedo Elson,
Cheour Majda,
DomínguezMartínez Tecelli,
ElKhoury Joseph,
Fiorillo Andrea,
Grenier Jean,
Gupta Nitin,
Kola Lola,
Kulygina Maya,
LealLeturia Itziar,
Luciano Mario,
Lusu Bulumko,
MartínezLópez J. Nicolás I.,
Matsumoto Chihiro,
Odunleye Mayokun,
Onofa Lucky Umukoro,
Paterniti Sabrina,
Purnima Shivani,
Robles Rebeca,
Sahu Manoj K.,
Sibeko Goodman,
Zhong Na,
Gaebel Wolfgang,
Lovell Anne M.,
Maruta Toshimasa,
Pike Kathleen M.,
Roberts Michael C.,
MedinaMora María Elena
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
world psychiatry
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 15.51
H-Index - 93
eISSN - 2051-5545
pISSN - 1723-8617
DOI - 10.1002/wps.20581
Subject(s) - medicine , mental health , anxiety , mood disorders , psychiatry , normality , bipolar disorder , medline , clinical psychology , mood , political science , law
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.