4.5 Article

The development of the ICD-11 Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Guidelines for Mental and Behavioural Disorders

Journal

WORLD PSYCHIATRY
Volume 14, Issue 1, Pages 82-90

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/wps.20189

Keywords

ICD-11; Clinical and Diagnostic Guidelines; clinical utility; Internet-based field studies

Categories

Funding

  1. International Union of Psychological Science
  2. National Institute of Mental Health (USA)
  3. World Psychiatric Association
  4. Department of Psychiatry at the Universidad Autonoma de Madrid
  5. Department of Psychiatry at the Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico
  6. Department of Psychology at the University of Zurich

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The World Health Organization is in the process of preparing the eleventh revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11), scheduled for presentation to the World Health Assembly for approval in 2017. The International Advisory Group for the Revision of the ICD-10 Mental and Behavioural Disorders made improvement in clinical utility an organizing priority for the revision. The uneven nature of the diagnostic information included in the ICD-10 Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Guidelines (CDDG), especially with respect to differential diagnosis, is a major shortcoming in terms of its usefulness to clinicians. Consequently, ICD-11 Working Groups were asked to collate diagnostic information about the disorders under their purview using a standardized template (referred to as a Content Form). Using the information provided in the Content Forms as source material, the ICD-11 CDDG are being developed with a uniform structure. The effectiveness of this format in producing more consistent clinical judgments in ICD-11 as compared to ICD-10 is currently being tested in a series of Internet-based field studies using standardized case material, and will also be tested in clinical settings.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available