Signe Joost Hansen1, Sune Christensen1, Mickey T Kongerslev1,2, Michael B First3, Thomas A Widiger4, Erik Simonsen2,5, Bo Bach2. 1. Department of Psychology, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. 2. Psychiatric Research Unit, Region Zealand, Copenhagen University Hospital, Slagelse, Denmark. 3. Department of Psychiatry, University of Columbia, New York, NY, USA. 4. Department of Psychology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA. 5. Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Abstract
AIM: The ICD-11 classification of personality disorders (PDs) has adopted a dimensional approach which includes three levels of severity (mild, moderate and severe) with the option of specifying five trait qualifiers (negative affectivity, detachment, dissociality, disinhibition and anankastia) and one borderline pattern qualifier. This study examined mental health professionals' perceived clinical utility of the ICD-11 PD framework compared with the ICD-10 categorical PD framework. METHOD: A sample of 163 mental health professionals (primarily psychologists, nurses and medical doctors) completed a survey in which they were asked to apply the ICD-10 and ICD-11 PD classifications on one of their patients followed by judgement of their clinical utility. RESULTS: The ICD-11 PD framework was generally rated as being slightly more useful than the ICD-10 framework even when accounting for educational background and years of experience. This advantage particularly involved the utility for treatment planning, communicating with patients, comprehensiveness and ease of use. The two frameworks showed no significant differences with respect to utility for communicating with other professionals and describing global personality. CONCLUSION: This study provided initial evidence that mental health professionals perceive the ICD-11 PD classification as slightly more useful for clinical practice than the ICD-10 classification.
AIM: The ICD-11 classification of personality disorders (PDs) has adopted a dimensional approach which includes three levels of severity (mild, moderate and severe) with the option of specifying five trait qualifiers (negative affectivity, detachment, dissociality, disinhibition and anankastia) and one borderline pattern qualifier. This study examined mental health professionals' perceived clinical utility of the ICD-11 PD framework compared with the ICD-10 categorical PD framework. METHOD: A sample of 163 mental health professionals (primarily psychologists, nurses and medical doctors) completed a survey in which they were asked to apply the ICD-10 and ICD-11 PD classifications on one of their patients followed by judgement of their clinical utility. RESULTS: The ICD-11 PD framework was generally rated as being slightly more useful than the ICD-10 framework even when accounting for educational background and years of experience. This advantage particularly involved the utility for treatment planning, communicating with patients, comprehensiveness and ease of use. The two frameworks showed no significant differences with respect to utility for communicating with other professionals and describing global personality. CONCLUSION: This study provided initial evidence that mental health professionals perceive the ICD-11 PD classification as slightly more useful for clinical practice than the ICD-10 classification.
Authors: Johannes Zimmermann; André Kerber; Katharina Rek; Christopher J Hopwood; Robert F Krueger Journal: Curr Psychiatry Rep Date: 2019-08-13 Impact factor: 5.285
Authors: Mattia Marchi; Federica Maria Magarini; Giorgio Mattei; Luca Pingani; Maria Moscara; Gian Maria Galeazzi; Silvia Ferrari Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-01-17 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Bo Bach; Ueli Kramer; Stephan Doering; Ester di Giacomo; Joost Hutsebaut; Andres Kaera; Chiara De Panfilis; Christian Schmahl; Michaela Swales; Svenja Taubner; Babette Renneberg Journal: Borderline Personal Disord Emot Dysregul Date: 2022-04-01
Authors: Delfine d'Huart; Martin Steppan; Süheyla Seker; David Bürgin; Cyril Boonmann; Marc Birkhölzer; Nils Jenkel; Jörg M Fegert; Marc Schmid; Klaus Schmeck Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2022-03-24 Impact factor: 4.157