4.3 Article

Testing DSM-5 in Routine Clinical Practice Settings: Feasibility and Clinical Utility

期刊

PSYCHIATRIC SERVICES
卷 64, 期 10, 页码 952-960

出版社

AMER PSYCHIATRIC PUBLISHING, INC
DOI: 10.1176/appi.ps.201300098

关键词

-

资金

  1. American Psychiatric Association

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: This article describes the clinical utility and feasibility of proposed DSM-5 criteria and measures as tested in the DSM-5 Field Trials in Routine Clinical Practice Settings (RCP). Methods: RCP data were collected online for six months (October 2011 to March 2012). Participants included psychiatrists, licensed clinical psychologists, clinical social workers, advanced practice psychiatric-mental health nurses, licensed counselors, and licensed marriage and family therapists. Clinicians received staged, online training and enrolled at least one patient. Patients completed self-assessments of cross-cutting symptom domains, disability measures, and an evaluation of these measures. Clinicians conducted diagnostic interviews and completed DSM-5 and related assessments and a clinical utility questionnaire. Results: A total of 621 clinicians provided data for 1,269 patients. Large proportions of clinicians reported that the DSM-5 approach was generally very or extremely easy for assessment of both pediatric (51%) and adult (46%) patients and very or extremely useful in routine clinical practice for pediatric (48%) and adult (46%) patients. Clinicians considered the DSM-5 approach to be better (57%) or much better (18%) than that of DSM-IV. Patients, including children age 11 to 17 (47%), parents of children age six to ten (64%), parents of adolescents age 11 to 17 (72%), and adult patients (52%), reported that the cross-cutting measures would help their clinicians better understand their symptoms. Similar patterns in evaluations of feasibility and clinical utility were observed among clinicians from various disciplines. Conclusions: The DSM-5 approach was feasible and clinically useful in a wide range of routine practice settings and favorably received by both clinicians and patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据