| Literature DB >> 30192090 |
Geoffrey M Reed1,2, Jared W Keeley3, Tahilia J Rebello1,4, Michael B First1,4, Oye Gureje5, José Luis Ayuso-Mateos6, Shigenobu Kanba7, Brigitte Khoury8, Cary S Kogan9, Valery N Krasnov10, Mario Maj11, Jair de Jesus Mari12, Pratap Sharan13, Dan J Stein14, Min Zhao15, Tsuyoshi Akiyama16, Howard F Andrews1,4,17, Elson Asevedo12, Majda Cheour18, Tecelli Domínguez-Martínez2,19, Joseph El-Khoury8, Andrea Fiorillo11, Jean Grenier20, Nitin Gupta21, Lola Kola5, Maya Kulygina10, Itziar Leal-Leturia6, Mario Luciano11, Bulumko Lusu13, J Nicolás I Martínez-López2, Chihiro Matsumoto22, Mayokun Odunleye23, Lucky Umukoro Onofa24, Sabrina Paterniti25, Shivani Purnima13, Rebeca Robles2, Manoj K Sahu26, Goodman Sibeko13, Na Zhong15, Wolfgang Gaebel27, Anne M Lovell28, Toshimasa Maruta29, Kathleen M Pike1, Michael C Roberts30, María Elena Medina-Mora2.
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.Entities:
Keywords: ICD-11; International Classification of Diseases; assessing prognosis; clinical utility; diagnosis; ease of use; goodness of fit; mental disorders; treatment selection
Year: 2018 PMID: 30192090 PMCID: PMC6127762 DOI: 10.1002/wps.20581
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World Psychiatry ISSN: 1723-8617 Impact factor: 49.548