Cited by 30Mental Health and PsychiatryPersonality Disorders and PsychopathologyMental Health Treatment and Access

Problematic, absent and stigmatizing diagnoses in current mental disorders classifications: Results from the WHO-WPA and WHO-IUPsyS Global Surveys

Open access
Robles, Rebeca, Fresán, Ana, Evans, Spencer C., Lovell, Anne M., Medina-Mora, María Elena, Maj, Mario, Reed, Geoffrey M.·2014·International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology

Abstract

This study examined English- and Spanish-speaking psychologists’ and psychiatrists’ opinions regarding problematic, absent and stigmatizing diagnoses in current mental disorders classifications (ICD-10 and DSM-IV), and their perceived need for a national classification of mental disorders. Answers to open-ended questions included in WHO-WPA and WHO-IUPsyS surveys were examined using an inductive content-analysis method. A total of 3,222 participants from 35 countries were included. The most problematic diagnostic group was personality disorders, especially among psychiatrists, because of poor validity and lack of specificity. Complex posttraumatic stress disorder was the most frequent diagnosis suggested for inclusion, mainly by psychologists, to better account for the distinct processes and consequences of complex trauma. Schizophrenia was the diagnosis most frequently identified as stigmatizing, particularly by psychiatrists, due to lack of public understanding or knowledge about the diagnosis. Of the 14.4% of participants who perceived a need for a national classification system, two-thirds were from Africa or Latin America. The rationales provided were that mental disorders classifications should consider cultural and socio-historical diversity in the expression of psychopathology, differences in the perception of what is and is not pathological in different nations, and the existence of culture-bound syndromes. Implications for ICD-11 development and dissemination are discussed. Se examinaron las opiniones de psicólogos y psiquiatras de habla inglesa y española acerca de los diagnósticos problemáticos, ausentes y estigmatizantes en la CIE-10 y DSM-IV, y de la necesidad de una clasificación nacional. Se llevó a cabo un análisis de contenido de las preguntas abiertas de las encuestas de WHO-WPA y WHO-IUPsyS. Se incluyeron a 3.222 participantes de 35 países. El grupo diagnóstico considerado más problemático fue trastornos específicos de la personalidad, especialmente entre psiquiatras, por la falta de validez y de especificidad. El trastorno por estrés postraumático complejo fue el diagnóstico que se sugirió incluir con mayor frecuencia, sobre todo por psicólogos, para dar cuenta de los procesos y consecuencias distintos del trauma complejo. La esquizofrenia fue el diagnóstico que se consideró más frecuentemente como estigmatizante, principalmente por psiquiatras, debido a la falta de conocimiento público. Del 14,4% que percibieron la necesidad de una clasificación nacional, dos tercios fueron de África o Latinoamérica. Las razones fueron que se debe considerar la diversidad socio-histórica en la expresión de psicopatología, las diferencias en la percepción de lo que es o no patológico, y la existencia de síndromes culturales. Se discuten las implicaciones para el desarrollo y difusión de la CIE-11.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijchp.2014.03.003

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Robles, R., Fresán, A., Evans, S. C., Lovell, A. M., Medina-Mora, M. E., Maj, M., & Reed, G. M.
Affiliations
  • Instituto Nacional de Psiquiatría Ramón de la Fuente Muñiz (MX)
  • University of Kansas (US)
  • Inserm (FR)
  • World Health Organization (CH)
Corresponding author
Reed, Geoffrey M.
Venue
International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-09
Volume
14
Issue
3
Pages
165-177
ISSN
1697-2600 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2171132685
Cited by
30
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3
FWCI
20.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Archivio Istituzionale della Ricerca - Università degli Studi della Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli" (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • World Health Organization
  • National Institute of Mental Health
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
Keywords
mental disorders classification, ICD-10, DSM-IV, personality disorders, complex PTSD, schizophrenia, stigma, diagnostic validity, culture-bound syndromes, ICD-11, cross-cultural psychiatry, complex trauma, public understanding of 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