Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gvh9x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T16:34:05.398Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

AS13-01 - Towards ICD-11: World Health Organization Field Studies on Clinicians’ Conceptualizations of Mental Disorders

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 April 2020

G. Reed*
Affiliation:
World Health Organization (WHO) Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse, Geneva, Switzerland

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Introduction

The World Health Organization Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse has been conducting an active program of field studies and international surveys as a part of developing the ICD-11 classification of mental and behavioural disorders.

Objectives

A key priority for WHO is that the ICD-11 serve as a more effective tool for reducing the global disease burden of mental and behavioural disorders.

Aims

In support of this objective, a major goal of the revision is to improve the classification's clinical utility. To provide relevant information on clinical utility, WHO has worked to assess the perspectives of practicing clinicians throughout the world.

Methods

Two global field studies have been conducted regarding how clinicians conceptualize the relationships among mental disorders based on their clinical experience. The first study included 1371 psychiatrists and psychologists from 64 countries, and used a paired comparisons methodology. The second study used a ‘folk taxonomy’ method, and was administered with 480 psychiatrists and psychologists in Brazil, China, India, Japan, Mexico, Nigeria, Spain, and the USA.

Results

Highly similar results were obtained across two large international studies using different methodologies. Clinicians’ conceptualizations are rational and highly stable, regardless of country, language, profession, and country income level. Differences between clinicians’ judgments and classification system are not due to idiosyncratic clinician error, but rather to systematic differences.

Conclusions

The presentation will discuss how empirical data on clinician judgments are contributing to the development of a new and more clinically useful classification of mental disorders, without sacrificing validity.

Type
Abstract
Copyright
Copyright © European Psychiatric Association 2012
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.