OBJECTIVE: This article describes the clinical utility and feasibility of proposed DSM-5 criteria and measures as tested in the DSM-5 Field Trials in Routine Clinical Practice Settings (RCP). METHODS RCP data were collected online for six months (October 2011 to March 2012). Participants included psychiatrists, licensed clinical psychologists, clinical social workers, advanced practice psychiatric-mental health nurses, licensed counselors, and licensed marriage and family therapists. Clinicians received staged, online training and enrolled at least one patient. Patients completed self-assessments of cross-cutting symptom domains, disability measures, and an evaluation of these measures. Clinicians conducted diagnostic interviews and completed DSM-5 and related assessments and a clinical utility questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 621 clinicians provided data for 1,269 patients. Large proportions of clinicians reported that the DSM-5 approach was generally very or extremely easy for assessment of both pediatric (51%) and adult (46%) patients and very or extremely useful in routine clinical practice for pediatric (48%) and adult (46%) patients. Clinicians considered the DSM-5 approach to be better (57%) or much better (18%) than that of DSM-IV. Patients, including children age 11 to 17 (47%), parents of children age six to ten (64%), parents of adolescents age 11 to 17 (72%), and adult patients (52%), reported that the cross-cutting measures would help their clinicians better understand their symptoms. Similar patterns in evaluations of feasibility and clinical utility were observed among clinicians from various disciplines. CONCLUSIONS: The DSM-5 approach was feasible and clinically useful in a wide range of routine practice settings and favorably received by both clinicians and patients.
OBJECTIVE: This article describes the clinical utility and feasibility of proposed DSM-5 criteria and measures as tested in the DSM-5 Field Trials in Routine Clinical Practice Settings (RCP). METHODS RCP data were collected online for six months (October 2011 to March 2012). Participants included psychiatrists, licensed clinical psychologists, clinical social workers, advanced practice psychiatric-mental health nurses, licensed counselors, and licensed marriage and family therapists. Clinicians received staged, online training and enrolled at least one patient. Patients completed self-assessments of cross-cutting symptom domains, disability measures, and an evaluation of these measures. Clinicians conducted diagnostic interviews and completed DSM-5 and related assessments and a clinical utility questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 621 clinicians provided data for 1,269 patients. Large proportions of clinicians reported that the DSM-5 approach was generally very or extremely easy for assessment of both pediatric (51%) and adult (46%) patients and very or extremely useful in routine clinical practice for pediatric (48%) and adult (46%) patients. Clinicians considered the DSM-5 approach to be better (57%) or much better (18%) than that of DSM-IV. Patients, including children age 11 to 17 (47%), parents of children age six to ten (64%), parents of adolescents age 11 to 17 (72%), and adult patients (52%), reported that the cross-cutting measures would help their clinicians better understand their symptoms. Similar patterns in evaluations of feasibility and clinical utility were observed among clinicians from various disciplines. CONCLUSIONS: The DSM-5 approach was feasible and clinically useful in a wide range of routine practice settings and favorably received by both clinicians and patients.
Authors: Marjorie Solomon; Jong H Yoon; J Daniel Ragland; Tara A Niendam; Tyler A Lesh; Wonja Fairbrother; Cameron S Carter Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2013-10-24 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Geoffrey M Reed; Jared W Keeley; Tahilia J Rebello; Michael B First; Oye Gureje; José Luis Ayuso-Mateos; Shigenobu Kanba; Brigitte Khoury; Cary S Kogan; Valery N Krasnov; Mario Maj; Jair de Jesus Mari; Pratap Sharan; Dan J Stein; Min Zhao; Tsuyoshi Akiyama; Howard F Andrews; Elson Asevedo; Majda Cheour; Tecelli Domínguez-Martínez; Joseph El-Khoury; Andrea Fiorillo; Jean Grenier; Nitin Gupta; Lola Kola; Maya Kulygina; Itziar Leal-Leturia; Mario Luciano; Bulumko Lusu; J Nicolás I Martínez-López; Chihiro Matsumoto; Mayokun Odunleye; Lucky Umukoro Onofa; Sabrina Paterniti; Shivani Purnima; Rebeca Robles; Manoj K Sahu; Goodman Sibeko; Na Zhong; Wolfgang Gaebel; Anne M Lovell; Toshimasa Maruta; Kathleen M Pike; Michael C Roberts; María Elena Medina-Mora Journal: World Psychiatry Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 49.548
Authors: Dina R Dajani; Catherine A Burrows; Mary Beth Nebel; Stewart H Mostofsky; Kathleen M Gates; Lucina Q Uddin Journal: Brain Connect Date: 2019-11
Authors: Roman Kotov; Katherine G Jonas; William T Carpenter; Michael N Dretsch; Nicholas R Eaton; Miriam K Forbes; Kelsie T Forbush; Kelsey Hobbs; Ulrich Reininghaus; Tim Slade; Susan C South; Matthew Sunderland; Monika A Waszczuk; Thomas A Widiger; Aidan G C Wright; David H Zald; Robert F Krueger; David Watson Journal: World Psychiatry Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 49.548
Authors: Margaret Rose Mahoney; Cristan Farmer; Stephen Sinclair; Susanna Sung; Kalene Dehaut; Joyce Y Chung Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 2020-01-27 Impact factor: 3.222