TY - JOUR
T1 - Mental health professionals' perceived clinical utility of the ICD-10 vs. ICD-11 classification of personality disorders
AU - Hansen, Signe Joost
AU - Christensen, Sune
AU - Kongerslev, Mickey T.
AU - First, Michael B.
AU - Widiger, Thomas A.
AU - Simonsen, Erik
AU - Bach, Bo
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
PY - 2019/5
Y1 - 2019/5
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85064928987&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85064928987&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/pmh.1442
DO - 10.1002/pmh.1442
M3 - Article
C2 - 30989832
AN - SCOPUS:85064928987
SN - 1932-8621
VL - 13
SP - 84
EP - 95
JO - Personality and Mental Health
JF - Personality and Mental Health
IS - 2
ER -