Cited by 34Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchPersonality Disorders and PsychopathologyMental Health and Psychiatry

Clinicians' understanding of International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision diagnostic criteria: F62.0 enduring personality change after catastrophic experience

Beltran, Ruth O., Llewellyn, Gwynnyth M., Silove, Derrick·2008·Comprehensive Psychiatry

Abstract

International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision (ICD-10) has included a diagnostic category of "enduring personality change after catastrophic experience" (EPCACE). Preliminary investigation suggests that there is considerable endorsement in principle for this new category among experts in the field of intentional human trauma, yet many aspects of the diagnosis remain contentious. Criticisms leveled at EPCACE raised issues that question the reliability, validity, and clinical utility of this diagnostic category. In ICD-10, there are 2 sets of documents describing EPCACE criteria. These are Diagnostic Criteria for Research (DCR) and Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Guidelines (CDDG). This study examines how clinicians described the symptoms that conform to or exceed the criteria of EPCACE that they observed in their clients. No other published research examining the descriptive validity of this category has emerged. A qualitative approach from social phenomenology and applied policy research perspectives was used to gather the views and experiences of clinicians. Twenty-four clinicians working in the area of torture and refugee trauma, war trauma, and sexual assault trauma were interviewed in depth. Using the CDDG, clinicians were able to typify the characteristic symptom criteria of EPCACE. Hostile or mistrustful attitude was identified as a prominent symptom. Somatization, self-injurious behaviors, sexual dysfunction, and enduring guilt are suggested additional features that are not encompassed by current EPCACE criteria. This study contributes to the descriptive validity of EPCACE. It demonstrates the utility of a qualitative approach to descriptive validation of diagnostic criteria. Participation of clinicians as members of working parties in the development and review of diagnostic criteria is recommended. The symptom descriptors generated from this study could be used to enhance CDDG.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.comppsych.2008.04.006

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 80 · Cited by 34

Authors
Beltran, R. O., Llewellyn, G. M., & Silove, D.
Affiliations
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • Liverpool Hospital (AU)
Corresponding author
Beltran, Ruth O.
Venue
Comprehensive Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-11
Volume
49
Issue
6
Pages
593-602
ISSN
0010-440X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2041238767
Cited by
34
References
80
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
FWCI
0.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Comprehensive Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
Keywords
ICD-10, diagnostic criteria, descriptive validity, clinicians' perspectives, refugee trauma, war trauma, somatization, self-harm, sexual dysfunction, social phenomenology
MeSH terms
Humans, Models, Psychological, Personality, Rape, Refugees, Torture, Veterans, International Classification of Diseases, Stress Disorders, Traumatic

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