Mental health professionals' use of the ICD-11 classification of impulse control disorders and behavioral addictions: An international field study.

Background and aims: The ICD-11 chapter on mental, behavioral and neurodevelopmental disorders contains new controversial diagnoses including compulsive sexual behavior disorder (CSBD), intermittent explosive disorder (IED) and gaming disorder. Using a vignette-based methodology, this field study examined the ability of mental health professionals (MHPs) to apply the new ICD-11 diagnostic requirements for impulse control disorders, which include CSBD and IED, and disorders due to addictive behaviors, which include gaming disorder, compared to the previous ICD-10 guidelines. Methods: Across eleven comparisons, members of the WHO's Global Clinical Practice Network (N = 1,090) evaluated standardized case descriptions that were designed to test key differences between the diagnostic guidelines of ICD-11 and ICD-10. Results: The ICD-11 outperformed the ICD-10 in the accuracy of diagnosing impulse control disorders and behavioral addictions in most comparisons, while the ICD-10 was not superior in any. The superiority of the ICD-11 was particularly clear where new diagnoses had been added to the classification system or major revisions had been made. However, the ICD-11 outperformed the ICD-10 only in a minority of comparisons in which mental health professionals were asked to evaluate cases with non-pathological high involvement in rewarding behaviors. Discussion and Conclusions: Overall, the present study indicates that the ICD-11 diagnostic requirements represent an improvement over the ICD-10 guidelines. However, additional efforts, such as training programs for MHPs and possible refinements of diagnostic guidance, are needed to avoid over-diagnosis of people who are highly engaged in a repetitive and rewarding behavior but below the threshold for a disorder.

Longitudinal Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Stress and Occupational Well-Being of Mental Health Professionals: An International Study.

BACKGROUND: Increased levels of occupational stress among health professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic have been documented. Few studies have examined the effects of the pandemic on mental health professionals despite the heightened demand for their services. METHOD: A multilingual, longitudinal, global survey was conducted at 3 time points during the pandemic among members of the World Health Organization's Global Clinical Practice Network. A total of 786 Global Clinical Practice Network members from 86 countries responded to surveys assessing occupational distress, well-being, and posttraumatic stress symptoms. RESULTS: On average, respondents' well-being deteriorated across time while their posttraumatic stress symptoms showed a modest improvement. Linear growth models indicated that being female, being younger, providing face-to-face health services to patients with COVID-19, having been a target of COVID-related violence, and living in a low- or middle-income country or a country with a higher COVID-19 death rate conveyed greater risk for poor well-being and higher level of stress symptoms over time. Growth mixed modeling identified trajectories of occupational well-being and stress symptoms. Most mental health professions demonstrated no impact to well-being; maintained moderate, nonclinical levels of stress symptoms; or showed improvements after an initial period of difficulty. However, some participant groups exhibited deteriorating well-being approaching the clinical threshold (25.8%) and persistently high and clinically significant levels of posttraumatic stress symptoms (19.6%) over time. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that although most mental health professionals exhibited stable, positive well-being and low stress symptoms during the pandemic, a substantial minority of an already burdened global mental health workforce experienced persistently poor or deteriorating psychological status over the course of the pandemic.

An international survey examining the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on telehealth use among mental health professionals.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has profoundly affected the work of mental health professionals with many transitioning to telehealth to comply with public health measures. This large international study examined the impact of the pandemic on mental health clinicians' telehealth use. METHODS: This survey study was conducted with mental health professionals, primarily psychiatrists and psychologists, registered with WHO's Global Clinical Practice Network (GCPN). 1206 clinicians from 100 countries completed the telehealth section of the online survey in one of six languages between June 4 and July 7, 2020. Participants were asked about their use, training (i.e., aspects of telehealth addressed), perceptions, and concerns. OUTCOMES: Since the pandemic onset, 1092 (90.5%) clinicians reported to have started or increased their telehealth services. Telephone and videoconferencing were the most common modalities. 592 (49.1%) participants indicated that they had not received any training. Clinicians with no training or training that only addressed a single aspect of telehealth practice were more likely to perceive their services as somewhat ineffective than those with training that addressed two or more aspects. Most clinicians indicated positive perceptions of effectiveness and patient satisfaction. Quality of care compared to in-person services and technical issues were the most common concerns. Findings varied by WHO region, country income level, and profession. INTERPRETATION: Findings suggest a global practice change with providers perceiving telehealth as a viable option for mental health care. Increasing local training opportunities and efforts to address clinical and technological concerns is important for meeting ongoing demands.

The Tohoku Theater Project in Postdisaster Japan: An Exemplar for Addressing Community Mental Health in the Context of Disaster.

The Tohoku Theater Project was completed 2 years after the natural and nuclear disasters in Tohoku, Japan, on March 11, 2011. It employed the dramatic arts to support the healing process, promote resilience, and increase dialogue and understanding about mental health among individuals who were directly affected by the disasters. The four performances fostered important discussions regarding the psychological impact of the Tohoku disasters. Participants (N=143) found the theater performance effective at facilitating discussion, increasing empathy, and enhancing mental health knowledge, coping, and resilience. The performances provided critical information about access to services; many participants reported that they had not known where to seek help for mental health prior to their involvement with the Tohoku Theater Project. Lessons learned may inform community-based strategies that promote mental health and healing in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and other public health disasters.

A global field study of the international classification of diseases (ICD-11) mood disorders clinical descriptions and diagnostic guidelines.

BACKGROUND: We report results of an internet-based field study evaluating the diagnostic guidelines for ICD-11 mood disorders. Accuracy of clinicians' diagnostic judgments applying draft ICD-11 as compared to the ICD-10 guidelines to standardized case vignettes was assessed as well as perceived clinical utility. METHODS: 1357 clinician members of the World Health Organization's Global Clinical Practice Network completed the study in English, Spanish, Japanese or Russian. Participants were randomly assigned to apply ICD-11 or ICD-10 guidelines to one of eleven pairs of case vignettes. RESULTS: Clinicians using the ICD-11 and ICD-10 guidelines achieved similar levels of accuracy in diagnosing mood disorders depicted in vignettes. Those using the ICD-11 were more accurate in identifying depressive episode in recurrent depressive disorder. There were no statistically significant differences detected across classifications in the accuracy of identifying dysthymic or cyclothymic disorder. Circumscribed problems with the proposed ICD-11 guidelines were identified including difficulties differentiating bipolar type I from bipolar type II disorder and applying revised severity ratings to depressive episodes. Clinical utility of ICD-11 bipolar disorders was found to be significantly lower than for ICD-10 equivalent categories. LIMITATIONS: Standardized case vignettes were manipulated to evaluate specific changes. The degree of accuracy of clinicians' diagnostic judgments may not reflect clinical decision-making with patients. CONCLUSIONS: Alignment of the ICD-11 with current research appears to have been achieved without sacrificing diagnostic accuracy or clinical utility though specific training may be necessary as ICD-11 is implemented worldwide. Areas in which the ICD-11 guidelines did not perform as intended resulted in further revisions.

Can Clinicians Use Dimensional Information to Make a Categorical Diagnosis of Paraphilic Disorders? An ICD-11 Field Study.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of paraphilic disorder is a complicated clinical judgment based on the integration of information from multiple dimensions to arrive at a categorical (present/absent) conclusion. The recent update of the guidelines for paraphilic disorders in ICD-11 presents an opportunity to investigate how mental health professionals use the diagnostic guidelines to arrive at a diagnosis which thereby can optimize the guidelines for clinical use. AIM: This study examined clinicians' ability to use the ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines for paraphilic disorders which contain multiple dimensions that must be simultaneously assessed to arrive at a diagnosis. METHODS: The study investigated the ability of 1,263 international clinicians to identify the dimensions of paraphilic disorder in the context of written case vignettes that varied on a single dimension only. OUTCOMES: Participants provided diagnoses for the case vignettes along with dimensional ratings of the degree of presence of five dimensions of paraphilic disorder (arousal, consent, action, distress, and risk). RESULTS: Across a series of analyses, clinicians demonstrated a clear ability to recognize and appropriately integrate the dimensions of paraphilic disorders; however, there was some evidence that clinicians may over-diagnose non-pathological cases. CLINICAL TRANSLATION: Clinicians would likely benefit from targeted training on the ICD-11 definition of paraphilic disorder and should be cautious of over-diagnosing. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: This study represents a large international sample of health professionals and is the first to examine clinicians' ability to apply the ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines for paraphilic disorders. Important limitations include not generalizing to all clinicians and acknowledging that results may be different in direct clinical interactions vs written case vignettes. CONCLUSION: These results indicate that clinicians appear capable of interpreting and implementing the diagnostic guidelines for paraphilic disorders in ICD-11. Keeley JW, Briken P, Evans SC, et al. Can Clinicians Use Dimensional Information to Make a Categorical Diagnosis of Paraphilic Disorders? An ICD-11 Field Study. J Sex Med 2021;18:1592-1606.

Diagnostic classification of irritability and oppositionality in youth: a global field study comparing ICD-11 with ICD-10 and DSM-5.

BACKGROUND: Severe irritability has become an important topic in child and adolescent mental health. Based on the available evidence and on public health considerations, WHO classified chronic irritability within oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) in ICD-11, a solution markedly different from DSM-5's (i.e. the new childhood mood diagnosis, disruptive mood dysregulation disorder [DMDD]) and from ICD-10's (i.e. ODD as one of several conduct disorders without attention to irritability). In this study, we tested the accuracy with which a global, multilingual, multidisciplinary sample of clinicians were able to use the ICD-11 classification of chronic irritability and oppositionality as compared to the ICD-10 and DSM-5 approaches. METHODS: Clinicians (N = 196) from 48 countries participated in an Internet-based field study in English, Spanish, or Japanese and were randomized to review and use one of the three diagnostic systems. Through experimental manipulation of validated clinical vignettes, we evaluated how well clinicians in each condition could identify chronic irritability versus nonirritable oppositionality, episodic bipolar disorder, dysthymic depression, and normative irritability. RESULTS: Compared to ICD-10 and DSM-5, ICD-11 led to more accurate identification of severe irritability and better differentiation from boundary presentations. Participants using DSM-5 largely failed to apply the DMDD diagnosis when it was appropriate, and they more often applied psychopathological diagnoses to developmentally normative irritability. CONCLUSIONS: The formulation of irritability and oppositionality put forth in ICD-11 shows evidence of clinical utility, supporting accurate diagnosis. Global mental health clinicians can readily identify ODD both with and without chronic irritability.

Toward Community Coverage on Self-Screening, Diagnosis, and Help-Seeking Behavior for Both Gender Victims of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) in a Kenyan Setting: The Development of IPV-Brief Self-Screener (IPV-BSS) Version of the WHO-IPV Instrument.

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a major public health concern. The prevalence of IPV in women in Kenya is in the range of 41% to 45% but has also been reported in 20% of men. The most widely used instrument for the screening and diagnosis of IPV is the World Health Organization-Intimate Partner Violence (WHO-IPV). However, it is lengthy for routine large-scale screening and is administered by a trained person, thus limiting the number it can reach for screening. There is therefore a need for a shorter screening version that can be self-administered to reach critical masses. Those who screen positive can then be subjected to the longer version. In addition, the short version should be culturally sensitive, can be used by either gender, can be used in busy clinical settings as the patients wait to be attended to, and can be used for large-scale community populations to raise awareness and promote help-seeking behavior. It should be applicable in similar cultural settings and is aligned to the longer version of the WHO-IPV instrument. This study aimed to develop such a tool. We administered the WHO-IPV to two groups: firstly, postnatal mothers attending postnatal clinics and secondly, men and women attending general clinics to which they had been referred. These referrals were by traditional healers (TH), faith healers (FH), and community health workers (CHW) who had been trained to screen for mental disorders using the Mental Health Gap Action Programme-Intervention Guide (mhGAP-IG) master checklist. Using factor analysis of the scores, we came up with questions that had the highest predictive value for different types of IPV diagnosis and which could therefore be used for self-screening purposes. We call the tool the Intimate Partner Violence-Brief Self-Screener (IPV-BSS; Adapted by the Africa Mental Health Research and Training Foundation from the WHO-IPV).

Patient descriptions of loss of control and eating episode size interact to influence expert diagnosis of ICD-11 binge-eating disorder.

BACKGROUND: Although data suggest that the sense of "loss of control" (LOC) is the most salient aspect of binge eating, the definition of LOC varies widely across eating disorder assessments. The WHO ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines for binge eating do not require an objectively large amount of food, which makes accurate LOC diagnosis even more critical. However, it can be especially challenging to assess LOC in the context of elevated weight status and in the absence of compensatory behaviors. This ICD-11 field sub-study examined how descriptions of subjective experience during distressing eating episodes, in combination with different eating episode sizes, influence diagnoses of binge-eating disorder (BED). METHOD: Mental health professionals with eating disorder expertise from WHO's Global Clinical Practice Network (N = 192) participated in English, Japanese, and Spanish. Participants were asked to select the correct diagnosis for two randomly assigned case vignettes and to rate the clinical importance and ease of use of each BED diagnostic guideline. RESULTS: The presence of LOC interacted with episode size to predict whether a correct diagnostic conclusion was reached. If the amount consumed during a typical distressing eating episode was only subjectively large compared to objectively large, clinicians were 23.1 times more likely to miss BED than to correctly diagnose it, and they were 9.7 times more likely to incorrectly diagnose something else than to correctly diagnose BED. In addition, clinicians were 10.8 times more likely to make a false positive diagnosis of BED when no LOC was described if the episode was objectively large. Descriptions of LOC that were reliably associated with correct diagnoses across episodes sizes included two that are similar to those already included in proposed ICD-11 guidelines and a third that is not. This third description of LOC focuses on giving up attempts to control eating because perceived overeating feels inevitable. CONCLUSIONS: Results highlight the importance of detailed clarification of the LOC construct in future guidelines. Explicitly distinguishing LOC from distressing and mindless overeating could help promote consistent and accurate diagnosis of BED versus another or no eating disorder.

Accuracy of diagnostic judgments using ICD-11 vs. ICD-10 diagnostic guidelines for obsessive-compulsive and related disorders.

BACKGROUND: We report results of an internet-based field study evaluating the diagnostic guidelines for the newly introduced ICD-11 grouping of obsessive-compulsive and related disorders (OCRD). We examined accuracy of clinicians' diagnostic judgments applying draft ICD-11 as compared to the ICD-10 diagnostic guidelines to standardized case vignettes. METHODS: 1,717 mental health professionals who are members of the World Health Organization's Global Clinical Practice Network completed the study in Chinese, English, French, Japanese, Russian or Spanish. Participants were randomly assigned to apply ICD-11 or ICD-10 guidelines to one of nine pairs of case vignettes. RESULTS: Participants using ICD-11 outperformed those using ICD-10 in correctly identifying newly introduced OCRD, although results were mixed for differentiating OCRD from disorders in other groupings largely due to clinicians having difficulty differentiating challenging presentations of OCD. Clinicians had difficulty applying a three-level insight qualifier, although the 'poor to absent' level assisted with differentiating OCRD from psychotic disorders. Brief training on the rationale for an OCRD grouping did not improve diagnostic accuracy suggesting sufficient detail of the proposed guidelines. LIMITATIONS: Standardized case vignettes were manipulated to include specific characteristics; the degree of accuracy of clinicians' diagnostic judgments about these vignettes may not generalize to application in routine clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, use of the ICD-11 guidelines resulted in more accurate diagnosis of case vignettes compared to the ICD-10 guidelines, particularly in differentiating OCRD presentations from one another. Specific areas in which the ICD-11 guidelines did not perform as intended provided the basis for further revisions to the guidelines.

Using the WHO-AIMS to inform development of mental health systems: the case study of Makueni County, Kenya.

BACKGROUND: In order to develop a context appropriate in mental health system, there is a need to document relevant existing resources and practices with a view of identifying existing gaps, challenges and opportunities at baseline for purposes of future monitoring and evaluation of emerging systems. The World Health Organization Assessments Instrument for Mental Health Systems (WHO-AIMS) was developed as a suitable tool for this purpose. Our overall objective of this study, around which research questions and specific aims were formulated, was to establish a baseline on mental health system as at the time of the study, at Makueni County in Kenya, using the WHO-AIMS. METHODS: To achieve our overall objective, answer our research questions and achieve specific aims, we conducted a mixed methods approach in which we did an audit of DHIS records and county official records, and conducted qualitative interviews with the various officers to establish the fidelity of the data according to their views. The records data was processed via the prescribed WHO-Aims 2.2 excel spreadsheet while the qualitative data was analyzed thematically. This was guided by the six domains stipulated in the WHO AIMS. RESULTS: We found that at the time point of the study, there were no operational governance, policy or administrative structures specific to mental health, despite recognition by the County Government of the importance of mental health. The identified interviewees and policy makers were cooperative and participatory in identifying the gaps, barriers and potential solutions to those barriers. The main barriers and gaps were human and financial resources and low prioritization of mental health in comparison to physical conditions. The solutions lay in bridging of the gaps and addressing the barriers. CONCLUSION: There is a need to address the identified gaps and barriers and follow up on solutions suggested at the time of the study, if a functional mental health system is to be achieved at Makueni County.

Accuracy of diagnostic classification and clinical utility assessment of ICD-11 compared to ICD-10 in 10 mental disorders: findings from a web-based field study.

In this web-based field study, we compared the diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility of 10 selected mental disorders between the ICD-11 Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Guidelines (CDDG) and the ICD-10 CDDG using vignettes in a sample of 928 health professionals from all WHO regions. On average, the ICD-11 CDDG displayed significantly higher diagnostic accuracy (71.9% for ICD-11, 53.2% for ICD-10), higher ease of use, better goodness of fit, higher clarity, and lower time required for diagnosis compared to the ICD-10 CDDG. The advantages of the ICD-11 CDDG were largely limited to new diagnoses in ICD-11. After limiting analyses to diagnoses existing in ICD-11 and ICD-10, the ICD-11 CDDG were only superior in ease of use. The ICD-11 CDDG were not inferior in diagnostic accuracy or clinical utility compared to the ICD-10 CDDG for any of the vignettes. Diagnostic accuracy was consistent across WHO regions and independent of participants' clinical experience. There were no differences between medical doctors and psychologists in diagnostic accuracy, but members of other health professions had greater difficulties in determining correct diagnoses based on the ICD-11 CDDG. In sum, there were no differences in diagnostic accuracy for diagnoses existing in ICD-10 and ICD-11, but the introduction of new diagnoses in ICD-11 has improved the diagnostic classification of some clinical presentations. The favourable clinical utility ratings of the ICD-11 CDDG give reason to expect a positive evaluation by health professionals in the implementation phase of ICD-11. Yet, training in ICD-11 is needed to further enhance the diagnostic accuracy.

Perceived impacts as narrated by service users and providers on practice, policy and mental health system following the implementation of the mhGAP-IG using the TEAM model in a rural setting in Makueni County, Kenya: a qualitative approach.

BACKGROUND: A team approach is key to reduction of the mental health treatment gap. It requires collaborative effort of all formal and informal community based service providers and the consumers of the services. Qualitative evaluations of such an approach add value to the quantitative evaluations. METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted among 205 participants. These were grouped into a total of 19 focus group discussions for community health workers (CHW), traditional healers (TH), faith healers (FH) and patients. For nurses and clinical officers we held 10 key informant interviews and three key informant discussions. We aimed to document personal perceptions as expressed in narratives on mental health following a community based application of the WHO mental health treatment Gap-intervention guideline (mhGAP-IG) using the TEAM model. We also aimed to document how the narratives corroborated key findings on the quantitative wing of the TEAM model. RESULTS: There were three categories of perceptions: (i) patient-related, (ii) health provider-related and, (iii) health system related. The patient related narratives were linked to improvement in their mental and physical health, increased mental health awareness, change in lifestyle and behavior, enhanced social functioning and an increase in family productivity. Health provider perceptions were related to job satisfaction, capacity building and increased interest in mental health training. Mental health system related narratives included effectiveness and efficiency in service delivery and increase in number of referrals at the primary health care facilities. CONCLUSION: The TEAM is a feasible model for the implementation of the mhGAP-IG. It led to positive perceptions and narratives by service provides and service consumers. The qualitative findings corroborated the quantitative findings of TEAM.

[The Italian ICD-11 field trial: inter-rater reliability in the use of diagnostic guidelines for schizophrenia and related disorders]. / Il field trial italiano dell'ICD-11: riproducibilità tra valutatori nell'uso delle direttive diagnostiche per la schizofrenia e disturbi collegati.

The World Health Organization (WHO) is about to publish the 11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases and Related Disorders (ICD-11). A pre-final version has been disseminated in 2018, in order to allow the 194 member States to provide suggestions for amendments and to prepare shared strategies for the implementation of the diagnostic system. Furthermore, the Ecological Implementation Field Studies (EIFS) have been conducted in various countries, with the aim to assess the reliability and clinical utility of the ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines. In this paper we present the overall methodology of the EIFS and discuss the results of the Italian field trials concerning the reliability in the use of ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines concerning schizophrenia and related disorders. In Italy the field trials have been carried out at the Department of Psychiatry of the University of Campania "L. Vanvitelli", WHO Collaborating Centre. The inter-rater reliability of the diagnostic guidelines for schizophrenia and related disorders has been assessed on the basis of clinical interviews with 100 patients conducted by 14 psychiatrists. The results show an almost perfect reliability for the diagnosis of schizophrenia (kappa=0.85) and a good reliability for the diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder (kappa=0.79). These Italian data are in line with those of the international sample, and the kappa values are higher than those previously reported in the ICD-10 field trials. They suggest the feasibility of the implementation of ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines in ordinary clinical practice in our country.

The classification of feeding and eating disorders in the ICD-11: results of a field study comparing proposed ICD-11 guidelines with existing ICD-10 guidelines.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD) is used globally by 194 WHO member nations. It is used for assigning clinical diagnoses, providing the framework for reporting public health data, and to inform the organization and reimbursement of health services. Guided by overarching principles of increasing clinical utility and global applicability, the 11th revision of the ICD proposes major changes that incorporate empirical advances since the previous revision in 1992. To test recommended changes in the Mental, Behavioral, and Neurodevelopmental Disorders chapter, multiple vignette-based case-controlled field studies have been conducted which examine clinicians' ability to accurately and consistently use the new guidelines and assess their overall clinical utility. This manuscript reports on the results from the study of the proposed ICD-11 guidelines for feeding and eating disorders (FEDs). METHOD: Participants were 2288 mental health professionals registered with WHO's Global Clinical Practice Network. The study was conducted in Chinese, English, French, Japanese, and Spanish. Clinicians were randomly assigned to apply either the ICD-11 or ICD-10 diagnostic guidelines for FEDs to a pair of case vignettes designed to test specific clinical questions. Clinicians selected the diagnosis they thought was correct for each vignette, evaluated the presence of each essential feature of the selected diagnosis, and the clinical utility of the diagnostic guidelines. RESULTS: The proposed ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines significantly improved accuracy for all FEDs tested relative to ICD-10 and attained higher clinical utility ratings; similar results were obtained across all five languages. The inclusion of binge eating disorder and avoidant-restrictive food intake disorder reduced the use of residual diagnoses. Areas needing further refinement were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines consistently outperformed ICD-10 in distinguishing cases of eating disorders and showed global applicability and appropriate clinical utility. These results suggest that the proposed ICD-11 guidelines for FEDs will help increase accuracy of public health data, improve clinical diagnosis, and enhance health service organization and provision. This is the first time in the revision of the ICD that data from large-scale, empirical research examining proposed guidelines is completed in time to inform the final diagnostic guidelines.

The reliability and clinical utility of ICD-11 schizoaffective disorder: A field trial.

A major goal for the revision of the International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Edition (ICD-10) is to increase the clinical utility of the diagnostic system. Schizoaffective disorder has a history of poor diagnostic reliability due to the similarities and overlap in symptoms that it shares with other disorders, especially primary psychotic and mood disorders. The present study was part of the case-controlled field trials for ICD-11 and examines how the proposed changes for schizoaffective disorder may improve differential diagnosis and diagnostic accuracy. Clinicians from around the globe (n = 873) were provided with either ICD-10 or ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines and asked to apply them to case vignettes comparing schizoaffective disorder to schizophrenia and mood disorders with psychotic symptoms. Participants were asked to respond to follow-up diagnostic questions to determine which components of the diagnostic guidelines affected diagnostic accuracy. Overall, clinicians showed small improvements in accurately diagnosing vignettes using ICD-11 over ICD-10. Results suggest the discrepancy in diagnosing schizoaffective disorder is related primarily to the presence of mood symptoms and discrepancies about whether those symptoms are more consistent with schizoaffective disorder or a mood disorder diagnosis. Continuing to identify ways to more accurately capture this symptom picture will be important in the future as well as systematic efforts to educate clinicians about differential diagnosis.

ICD-11 guidelines for psychotic, mood, anxiety and stress-related disorders in Mexico: Clinical utility and reliability.

Background/Objective: The World Health Organization's diagnostic guidelines for ICD-11 mental and behavioural disorders must be tested in clinical settings around the world to ensure that they are clinically useful and genuinely global. The objective is evaluate the inter-rater reliability and clinical utility of ICD-11 guidelines for psychotic, mood, anxiety- and stress-related disorders in Mexican patients. Method: Adult volunteers exhibiting the selected symptoms were referred from the pre-consultation unit of a public psychiatric hospital to an interview by a pair of clinicians, who subsequently assigned independent diagnoses and evaluated the clinical utility of the diagnostic guidelines as applied to each particular case, on the basis of a scale developed for this purpose. Results: 23 clinicians evaluated 153 patients. Kappa scores were strong for psychotic disorders (.83), moderate for stress-related (.77) and mood disorders (.60) and week for anxiety and fear-related disorders (.43). A high proportion of clinicians considered all diagnostic guidelines to be quite to extremely useful as applied to their patients. Conclusions: ICD-11 guidelines for psychotic, stress-related and mood disorders allow adequate inter-rater consistency among Mexican clinicians, who also considered them as clinical useful tools.

Antecedentes/Objetivo: Las guías diagnósticas CIE-11 para trastornos mentales y del comportamiento de la Organización Mundial de la Salud deben ser evaluadas en pacientes reales alrededor del mundo a fin de asegurar que son clínicamente útiles y genuinamente globales. Se evalúa la consistencia inter-evaluadores y la utilidad clínica de las guías para los trastornos psicóticos, afectivos, de ansiedad y relacionados con el estrés en pacientes mexicanos. Método: Voluntarios con síntomas psicóticos, afectivos, de ansiedad o relacionados con el estrés derivados de una unidad de pre-consulta de un hospital psiquiátrico, para una entrevista con una pareja de clínicos, quienes posteriormente asignaron diagnósticos de manera independiente y evaluaron la utilidad clínica de las guías aplicadas a cada caso en particular, con base en una escala desarrollada para este propósito. Resultados: 23 clínicos evaluaron 153 pacientes. Los coeficientes Kappa fueron fuertes para trastornos psicóticos (0,83), moderados para los relacionados con el estrés (0,77) y afectivos (0,60), y débiles para los de ansiedad y relacionados con el miedo (0,43). Una alta proporción de clínicos consideró que las guías eran bastante o extremadamente útiles. Conclusiones: Las guías CIE-11 para dichos trastornos permiten una adecuada consistencia inter-evaluadores en clínicos mexicanos, quienes les consideran herramientas clínicamente útiles.

Innovations and changes in the ICD-11 classification of mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders.

Following approval of the ICD-11 by the World Health Assembly in May 2019, World Health Organization (WHO) member states will transition from the ICD-10 to the ICD-11, with reporting of health statistics based on the new system to begin on January 1, 2022. The WHO Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse will publish Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Guidelines (CDDG) for ICD-11 Mental, Behavioural and Neurodevelopmental Disorders following ICD-11's approval. The development of the ICD-11 CDDG over the past decade, based on the principles of clinical utility and global applicability, has been the most broadly international, multilingual, multidisciplinary and participative revision process ever implemented for a classification of mental disorders. Innovations in the ICD-11 include the provision of consistent and systematically characterized information, the adoption of a lifespan approach, and culture-related guidance for each disorder. Dimensional approaches have been incorporated into the classification, particularly for personality disorders and primary psychotic disorders, in ways that are consistent with current evidence, are more compatible with recovery-based approaches, eliminate artificial comorbidity, and more effectively capture changes over time. Here we describe major changes to the structure of the ICD-11 classification of mental disorders as compared to the ICD-10, and the development of two new ICD-11 chapters relevant to mental health practice. We illustrate a set of new categories that have been added to the ICD-11 and present the rationale for their inclusion. Finally, we provide a description of the important changes that have been made in each ICD-11 disorder grouping. This information is intended to be useful for both clinicians and researchers in orienting themselves to the ICD-11 and in preparing for implementation in their own professional contexts.

ICD-11 guidelines for psychotic, mood, anxiety and stress-related disorders in Mexico: Clinical utility and reliability / Guías CIE-11 para trastornos psicóticos, afectivos, de ansiedad y estrés en México: utilidad clínica y fiabilidad

Background/Objective: The World Health Organization's diagnostic guidelines for ICD-11 mental and behavioural disorders must be tested in clinical settings around the world to ensure that they are clinically useful and genuinely global. The objective is evaluate the inter-rater reliability and clinical utility of ICD-11 guidelines for psychotic, mood, anxiety- and stress-related disorders in Mexican patients. Method: Adult volunteers exhibiting the selected symptoms were referred from the pre-consultation unit of a public psychiatric hospital to an interview by a pair of clinicians, who subsequently assigned independent diagnoses and evaluated the clinical utility of the diagnostic guidelines as applied to each particular case, on the basis of a scale developed for this purpose. Results: 23 clinicians evaluated 153 patients. Kappa scores were strong for psychotic disorders (.83), moderate for stress-related (.77) and mood disorders (.60) and week for anxiety and fear-related disorders (.43). A high proportion of clinicians considered all diagnostic guidelines to be quite to extremely useful as applied to their patients. Conclusions: ICD-11 guidelines for psychotic, stress-related and mood disorders allow adequate inter-rater consistency among Mexican clinicians, who also considered them as clinical useful tolos

Antecedentes/Objetivo: Las guías diagnósticas CIE-11 para trastornos mentales y del comportamiento de la Organización Mundial de la Salud deben ser evaluadas en pacientes reales alrededor del mundo a fin de asegurar que son clínicamente útiles y genuinamente globales. Se evalúa la consistencia inter-evaluadores y la utilidad clínica de las guías para los trastornos psicóticos, afectivos, de ansiedad y relacionados con el estrés en pacientes mexicanos. Método: Voluntarios con síntomas psicóticos, afectivos, de ansiedad o relacionados con el estrés derivados de una unidad de pre-consulta de un hospital psiquiátrico, para una entrevista con una pareja de clínicos, quienes posteriormente asignaron diagnósticos de manera independiente y evaluaron la utilidad clínica de las guías aplicadas a cada caso en particular, con base en una escala desarrollada para este propósito. Resultados: 23 clínicos evaluaron 153 pacientes. Los coeficientes Kappa fueron fuertes para trastornos psicóticos (0,83), moderados para los relacionados con el estrés (0,77) y afectivos (0,60), y débiles para los de ansiedad y relacionados con el miedo (0,43). Una alta proporción de clínicos consideró que las guías eran bastante o extremadamente útiles. Conclusiones: Las guías CIE-11 para dichos trastornos permiten una adecuada consistencia inter-evaluadores en clínicos mexicanos, quienes les consideran herramientas clínicamente útiles

Anxiety and Fear-Related Disorders in the ICD-11: Results from a Global Case-controlled Field Study.

BACKGROUND: This article reports the results of one of a series of global field studies implemented by the World Health Organization (WHO) to evaluate the accuracy, clinical utility, and global applicability of the new diagnostic guidelines for Mental, Behavioural and Neurological Disorders included in the next version of WHO's International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). AIMS OF THE STUDY: The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility ratings of global clinicians implementing the ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines for Anxiety and Fear-Related Disorders, relative to those applying ICD-10 guidelines. The study also aimed to identify elements of the guidelines that required further refinement or clarification. METHODS: 1840 global mental health professionals registered with WHO's Global Clinical Practice Network completed the study in one of six study languages. Participants were randomly assigned to apply either the ICD-11 or ICD-10 guidelines to diagnose standardized case vignettes, and to rate the clinical utility of their assigned guidelines. RESULTS: ICD-11's diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility were equivalent or superior to that of ICD-10. Global clinicians were significantly more accurate in diagnosing Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Specific Phobia and adult cases of Separation Anxiety Disorder when using ICD-11 and provided high clinical utility ratings for these disorders. Clinicians also found the ICD-11 guidelines easy to use, clear, and a good fit to patients they see in their clinical practice. However, clinicians had difficulty with distinguishing the boundary between disorder and normality for subthreshold cases of anxiety, and also with applying the new ICD-11 guidelines on panic attacks. CONCLUSIONS: The new diagnostic guidelines for Anxiety Disorders in ICD-11 can be applied in an acceptably consistent manner by global clinicians and perform as well or better than the previous guidelines for ICD-10. Study findings also helped identify aspects of the ICD-11 guidelines that required refinement prior to their publication and areas that should be emphasized in training programs.