Per Hove Thomsen

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

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift/Konferencebidrag i tidsskrift /Bidrag til avisTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

DOI

  • Cary S. Kogan, School of Psychology, University of Ottawa
  • ,
  • Dan J. Stein, University of Cape Town, Groote Schuur Hospital
  • ,
  • Tahilia J. Rebello, Columbia University
  • ,
  • Jared W. Keeley, Virginia Commonwealth University
  • ,
  • K. Jacky Chan, School of Psychology, University of Ottawa
  • ,
  • Naomi A. Fineberg, University of Hertfordshire
  • ,
  • Leonardo F. Fontenelle, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, D’Or Institute for Research and Education, Monash University
  • ,
  • Jon E. Grant, University of Chicago
  • ,
  • Hisato Matsunaga, Hyogo College of Medicine
  • ,
  • H. Blair Simpson, Columbia University
  • ,
  • Per Hove Thomsen
  • Odile A. van den Heuvel, Vrije Universiteit
  • ,
  • David Veale, King's College London, South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust
  • ,
  • Jean Grenier, University of Ottawa
  • ,
  • Mayya Kulygina, Alekseev Mental Health Clinic
  • ,
  • Chihiro Matsumoto, Japanese Society of Psychiatry and Neurology
  • ,
  • Tecelli Domínguez-Martínez, Instituto Nacional de Psiquiatria Ramon de la Fuente
  • ,
  • Anne Claire Stona, Nanyang Technological University
  • ,
  • Zhen Wang, Shanghai Jiao Tong University
  • ,
  • Geoffrey M. Reed, Columbia University, World Health Organization

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.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftJournal of Affective Disorders
Vol/bind273
Sider (fra-til)328-340
Antal sider13
ISSN0165-0327
DOI
StatusUdgivet - aug. 2020

Se relationer på Aarhus Universitet Citationsformater

ID: 188714287