Validity of Categories Related to Gender Identity in ICD-11 and DSM-5 Among Transgender Individuals who Seek Gender-Affirming Medical Procedures / Validez de las categorías relacionadas con la identidad de género en la CIE-11 y el DSM-5 entre personas transgénero que buscan procedimientos médicos que afirmen su género

Background/Objective The most recent versions of the two main mental disorders classifications—the World Health Organization's ICD-11 and the American Psychiatric Association's DSM–5—differ substantially in their diagnostic categories related to transgender identity. ICD-11 gender incongruence (GI), in contrast to DSM-5 gender dysphoria (GD), is explicitly not a mental disorder; neither distress nor dysfunction is a required feature. The objective was compared ICD-11 and DSM-5 diagnostic requirements in terms of their sensitivity, specificity, discriminability and ability to predict the use of gender-affirming medical procedures. Method A total of 649 of transgender adults in six countries completed a retrospective structured interview. Results Using ROC analysis, sensitivity of the diagnostic requirements was equivalent for both systems, but ICD-11 showed greater specificity than DSM-5. Regression analyses indicated that history of hormones and/or surgery was predicted by variables that are an intrinsic aspect of GI/GD more than by distress and dysfunction. IRT analyses showed that the ICD-11 diagnostic formulation was more parsimonious and contained more information about caseness than the DSM-5 model. Conclusions This study supports the ICD-11 position that GI/GD is not a mental disorder; additional diagnostic requirements of distress and/or dysfunction in DSM-5 reduce the predictive power of the diagnostic model

Antecedentes/Objetivo Las versiones más recientes de las clasificaciones de trastornos mentales —CIE-11 de la Organización Mundial de la Salud y DSM–5 de la Asociación Psiquiátrica Americana— difieren en sus categorías diagnósticas relacionadas con la identidad transgénero. La discordancia de género (DiscG) de la CIE-11, en contraste con la disforia de género (DisfG) del DSM-5, no es considerada un trastorno mental; el distrés y la disfunción no son características requeridas para el diagnóstico. El objetivo fue comparar los requisitos diagnósticos de la CIE-11 y el DSM-5 en términos de sensibilidad, especificidad y capacidad para discriminar casos y predecir el uso de procedimientos médicos de afirmación de género. Método 649 adultos transgénero de seis países completaron una entrevista estructurada retrospectiva. Resultados De acuerdo con el análisis ROC, la sensibilidad de ambos sistemas fue equivalente, aunque la CIE-11 mostró mayor especificidad que el DSM-5. Los análisis de regresión indicaron que la historia de uso de hormonas o cirugía se predijo por variables intrínsecas a la DiscG/DisfG y no por el distrés o disfunción. Según los análisis de respuesta al ítem (TRi) la formación CIE-11 resulta más parsimoniosa y contiene mayor información sobre los casos. Conclusiones Se aporta evidencia a favor de que la DiscG/DisfG no es un trastorno mental; los criterios diagnósticos adicionales de distrés y/o disfunción del DSM-5 reducen su poder predictivo.

Validity of Categories Related to Gender Identity in ICD-11 and DSM-5 Among Transgender Individuals who Seek Gender-Affirming Medical Procedures.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: The most recent versions of the two main mental disorders classifications-the World Health Organization's ICD-11 and the American Psychiatric Association's DSM-5-differ substantially in their diagnostic categories related to transgender identity. ICD-11 gender incongruence (GI), in contrast to DSM-5 gender dysphoria (GD), is explicitly not a mental disorder; neither distress nor dysfunction is a required feature. The objective was compared ICD-11 and DSM-5 diagnostic requirements in terms of their sensitivity, specificity, discriminability and ability to predict the use of gender-affirming medical procedures. METHOD: A total of 649 of transgender adults in six countries completed a retrospective structured interview. RESULTS: Using ROC analysis, sensitivity of the diagnostic requirements was equivalent for both systems, but ICD-11 showed greater specificity than DSM-5. Regression analyses indicated that history of hormones and/or surgery was predicted by variables that are an intrinsic aspect of GI/GD more than by distress and dysfunction. IRT analyses showed that the ICD-11 diagnostic formulation was more parsimonious and contained more information about caseness than the DSM-5 model. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the ICD-11 position that GI/GD is not a mental disorder; additional diagnostic requirements of distress and/or dysfunction in DSM-5 reduce the predictive power of the diagnostic model.

ANTECEDENTES/OBJETIVO: Las versiones más recientes de las clasificaciones de trastornos mentales ­CIE-11 de la Organización Mundial de la Salud y DSM­5 de la Asociación Psiquiátrica Americana­ difieren en sus categorías diagnósticas relacionadas con la identidad transgénero. La discordancia de género (DiscG) de la CIE-11, en contraste con la disforia de género (DisfG) del DSM-5, no es considerada un trastorno mental; el distrés y la disfunción no son características requeridas para el diagnóstico. El objetivo fue comparar los requisitos diagnósticos de la CIE-11 y el DSM-5 en términos de sensibilidad, especificidad y capacidad para discriminar casos y predecir el uso de procedimientos médicos de afirmación de género. MÉTODO: 649 adultos transgénero de seis países completaron una entrevista estructurada retrospectiva. RESULTADOS: De acuerdo con el análisis ROC, la sensibilidad de ambos sistemas fue equivalente, aunque la CIE-11 mostró mayor especificidad que el DSM-5. Los análisis de regresión indicaron que la historia de uso de hormonas o cirugía se predijo por variables intrínsecas a la DiscG/DisfG y no por el distrés o disfunción. Según los análisis de respuesta al ítem (TRi) la formación CIE-11 resulta más parsimoniosa y contiene mayor información sobre los casos. CONCLUSIONES: Se aporta evidencia a favor de que la DiscG/DisfG no es un trastorno mental; los criterios diagnósticos adicionales de distrés y/o disfunción del DSM-5 reducen su poder predictivo.

Field Testing of ICD-11 Proposals for Female Sexual Dysfunctions in India: Cognitive Interviews with Patients.

BACKGROUND: Women's experiences of female sexual difficulties are shaped by cultural expectations. AIM OF THE STUDY: To investigate the cultural validity and clinical utility of the classification of female sexual dysfunctions (FSD) in the International Classification of Diseases - 11th Revision (ICD-11) among Indian Women. METHODS: A purposive sample of 22 married women with probable sexual problems underwent cognitive interviews that were conducted using a semi-structured guide. The interviews were transcribed and analyzed qualitatively to help establish the content and cultural validity of the ICD-11 classification of FSD. RESULTS: Most participants had limited knowledge of the sexual act, felt unskilled in sex, and were led by their husbands in sexual matters. Many participants reported problems related to sexual dysfunction and sexual pain-penetration. Many participants with sexual pain-penetration issues and some with low sexual desire considered these symptoms to be problematic; however, this was rarely the case with the absence or lack of sexual arousal and orgasm. The application of the 'independent focus of clinical attention' requirement for diagnosis reduced cases by half for Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder (HSDD) and almost eliminated all cases of Female Sexual Arousal Dysfunction (FSAD) and Anorgasmia. Hence, this requirement was moved from essential (required) features to 'additional features' of the final ICD-11 sexual dysfunction guidelines. CONCLUSION: Advancement toward a more precise nomenclature and classification system of FSD will facilitate better diagnosis which will ultimately lead to improved care for women with sexual dysfunction.

Clinical utility of ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines for high-burden mental disorders: results from mental health settings in 13 countries.

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.

The ICD-11 developmental field study of reliability of diagnoses of high-burden mental disorders: results among adult patients in mental health settings of 13 countries.

Reliable, clinically useful, and globally applicable diagnostic classification of mental disorders is an essential foundation for global mental health. The World Health Organization (WHO) is nearing completion of the 11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-11). The present study assessed inter-diagnostician reliability of mental disorders accounting for the greatest proportion of global disease burden and the highest levels of service utilization - schizophrenia and other primary psychotic disorders, mood disorders, anxiety and fear-related disorders, and disorders specifically associated with stress - among adult patients presenting for treatment at 28 participating centers in 13 countries. A concurrent joint-rater design was used, focusing specifically on whether two clinicians, relying on the same clinical information, agreed on the diagnosis when separately applying the ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines. A total of 1,806 patients were assessed by 339 clinicians in the local language. Intraclass kappa coefficients for diagnoses weighted by site and study prevalence ranged from 0.45 (dysthymic disorder) to 0.88 (social anxiety disorder) and would be considered moderate to almost perfect for all diagnoses. Overall, the reliability of the ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines was superior to that previously reported for equivalent ICD-10 guidelines. These data provide support for the suitability of the ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines for implementation at a global level. The findings will inform further revision of the ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines prior to their publication and the development of programs to support professional training and implementation of the ICD-11 by WHO member states.