CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 136Mental Health and PsychiatryMedical Coding and Health InformationMedical Research and Practices

Do mental health professionals use diagnostic classifications the way we think they do? A global survey

Open access
First, Michael B., Rebello, Tahilia J., Keeley, Jared W., Bhargava, Rachna, Dai, Yunfei, Kulygina, Maya, Matsumoto, Chihiro, Robles, Rebeca +2 more·2018·World Psychiatry
DOI 10.1002/wps.20525PMC PMC5980454
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We report on a global survey of diagnosing mental health professionals, primarily psychiatrists, conducted as a part of the development of the ICD‐11 mental and behavioural disorders classification. The survey assessed these professionals' use of various components of the ICD‐10 and the DSM, their attitudes concerning the utility of these systems, and usage of “residual” (i.e., “other” or “unspecified”) categories. In previous surveys, most mental health professionals reported they often use a formal classification system in everyday clinical work, but very little is known about precisely how they are using those systems. For example, it has been suggested that most clinicians employ only the diagnostic labels or codes from the ICD‐10 in order to meet administrative requirements. The present survey was conducted with clinicians who were members of the Global Clinical Practice Network (GCPN), established by the World Health Organization as a tool for global participation in ICD‐11 field studies. A total of 1,764 GCPN members from 92 countries completed the survey, with 1,335 answering the questions with reference to the ICD‐10 and 429 to the DSM (DSM‐IV, DSM‐IV‐TR or DSM‐5). The most frequent reported use of the classification systems was for administrative or billing purposes, with 68.1% reporting often or routinely using them for that purpose. A bit more than half (57.4%) of respondents reported often or routinely going through diagnostic guidelines or criteria systematically to determine whether they apply to individual patients. Although ICD‐10 users were more likely than DSM‐5 users to utilize the classification for administrative purposes, other differences were either slight or not significant. Both classifications were rated to be most useful for assigning a diagnosis, communicating with other health care professionals and teaching, and least useful for treatment selection and determining prognosis. ICD‐10 was rated more useful than DSM‐5 for administrative purposes. A majority of clinicians reported using “residual” categories at least sometimes, with around 12% of ICD‐10 users and 19% of DSM users employing them often or routinely, most commonly for clinical presentations that do not conform to a specific diagnostic category or when there is insufficient information to make a more specific diagnosis. These results provide the most comprehensive available information about the use of diagnostic classifications of mental disorders in ordinary clinical practice.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/wps.20525

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Transdiagnostic approaches have been suggested to complement current psychiatric nosography, which is intrinsically limited, in particular in young people, by integrating clinical staging models and optimizing preventive efforts.

    “Transdiagnostic approaches have been suggested to complement current psychiatric nosography 208 , which is intrinsically limited, in particular in young people 209,210 , by integrating clinical staging models and optimizing preventive efforts.”

    From Preventive psychiatry: a blueprint for improving the mental health of young people (2021) · cites this paper as [210]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
First, M. B., Rebello, T. J., Keeley, J. W., Bhargava, R., Dai, Y., Kulygina, M., Matsumoto, C., Robles, R., Stona, A., & Reed, G. M.
Affiliations
  • New York State Psychiatric Institute (US)
  • Research Foundation For Mental Hygiene (US)
  • Virginia Commonwealth University (US)
  • All India Institute of Medical Sciences (IN)
  • Shanghai Jiao Tong University (CN)
  • Federal Medical Research Centre for Psychiatry and Narcology (RU)
  • The Japanese Society of Psychiatry and Neurology (JP)
  • Instituto Nacional de Psiquiatría Ramón de la Fuente Muñiz (MX)
  • Ministère des Solidarités et de la Santé (FR)
  • World Health Organization (CH)
ORCID
Venue
World Psychiatry
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-05-24
Volume
17
Issue
2
Pages
187-195
ISSN
  • 1723-8617 (ISSN-L)
  • 2051-5545
DOI
10.1002/wps.20525
PMC
PMC5980454
OpenAlex
W2806113737
Cited by
136
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 5
FWCI
90.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • World Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
World Health Organization
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Medical Terminology › Medical Research and Practices
Keywords
diagnostic classification systems, ICD-11, ICD-10, DSM-5, psychiatrists, clinical practice, diagnostic criteria, mental illness

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review