Dataset Information

PTSD or not PTSD? Comparing the proposed ICD-11 and the DSM-5 PTSD criteria among young survivors of the 2011 Norway attacks and their parents.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The conceptualization of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in the upcoming International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-11 differs in many respects from the diagnostic criteria in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders, fifth edition (DSM-5). The consequences of these differences for individuals and for estimation of prevalence rates are largely unknown. This study investigated the concordance of the two diagnostic systems in two separate samples at two separate waves.

Method

Young survivors of the 2011 Norway attacks (n = 325) and their parents (n = 451) were interviewed at 4-6 months (wave 1) and 15-18 months (wave 2) after the shooting. PTSD was assessed with the UCLA PTSD Reaction Index for DSM-IV adapted for DSM-5, and a subset was used as diagnostic criteria for ICD-11.

Results

In survivors, PTSD prevalence did not differ significantly at any time point, but in parents, the DSM-5 algorithm produced significantly higher prevalence rates than the ICD-11 criteria. The overlap was fair for survivors, but amongst parents a large proportion of individuals met the criteria for only one of the diagnostic systems. No systematic differences were found between ICD-11 and DSM-5 in predictive validity.

Conclusions

The proposed ICD-11 criteria and the DSM-5 criteria performed equally well when identifying individuals in distress. Nevertheless, the overlap between those meeting the PTSD diagnosis for both ICD-11 and DSM-5 was disturbingly low, with the ICD-11 criteria identifying fewer people than the DSM-5. This represents a major challenge in identifying individuals suffering from PTSD worldwide, possibly resulting in overtreatment or unmet needs for trauma-specific treatment, depending on the area of the world in which patients are being diagnosed.

SUBMITTER: Hafstad GS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5426334 | biostudies-literature | 2017 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

PTSD or not PTSD? Comparing the proposed ICD-11 and the DSM-5 PTSD criteria among young survivors of the 2011 Norway attacks and their parents.

Hafstad G S GS Thoresen S S Wentzel-Larsen T T Maercker A A Dyb G G

Psychological medicine 20170112 7

<h4>Background</h4>The conceptualization of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in the upcoming International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-11 differs in many respects from the diagnostic criteria in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders, fifth edition (DSM-5). The consequences of these differences for individuals and for estimation of prevalence rates are largely unknown. This study investigated the concordance of the two diagnostic systems in two separate samples at t ...[more]

PMID: 28077178

Similar Datasets

Project description:The World Health Organization (WHO) is revising the tenth version of the International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10). This includes a reconceptualization of the definition and positioning of Gender Incongruence of Childhood (GIC). This study aimed to: 1) collect the views of transgender individuals and professionals regarding the retention of the diagnosis; 2) see if the proposed GIC criteria were acceptable to transgender individuals and health care providers; 3) compare results between two countries with two different healthcare systems to see if these differences influence opinions regarding the GIC diagnosis; and 4) determine whether healthcare providers from high-income countries feel that the proposed criteria are clinically useful and easy to use. A total of 628 participants were included in the study: 284 from the Netherlands (NL; 45.2%), 8 from Flanders (Belgium; 1.3%), and 336 (53.5%) from the United Kingdom (UK). Most participants were transgender people (or their partners/relatives; TG) (n = 522), 89 participants were healthcare providers (HCPs) and 17 were both HCP and TG individuals. Participants completed an online survey developed for this study. Overall, the majority response from transgender participants (42.9%) was that if the diagnosis would be removed from the mental health chapter it should also be removed from the ICD-11 completely, while 33.6% thought it should remain in the ICD-11. Participants were generally satisfied with other aspects of the proposed ICD-11 GIC diagnosis: most TG participants (58.4%) thought the term Gender Identity Disorder should change, and most thought Gender Incongruence was an improvement (63.0%). Furthermore, most participants (76.1%) did not consider GIC to be a psychiatric disorder and placement in a separate chapter dealing with Gender and Sexual Health (the majority response in the NL and selected by 37.5% of the TG participants overall) or as a Z-code (the majority response in the UK and selected by 26.7% of the TG participants overall) would be preferable. In the UK, the majority response (35.8%) was that narrowing the GIC diagnosis was an improvement, while the NL majority response (49.5%) was that this was not an improvement. Although generally the results from HCPs were in line with the results from TG participants some differences were found. This study suggests that, although in an ideal world a diagnosis is not welcomed, several participants felt the diagnosis should not be removed. This is likely due to concerns about restricting access to reimbursed healthcare. The choice for positioning of a diagnosis of GIC within the ICD-11 was as a separate chapter dealing with symptoms and/or disorders regarding sexual and gender health. This was the overall first choice for NL participants and second choice for UK participants, after the use of a Z-code. The difference reflects that in the UK, Z-codes carry no negative implications for reimbursement of treatment costs. These findings highlight the challenges faced by the WHO in their attempt to integrate research findings from different countries, with different cultures and healthcare systems in their quest to create a manual that is globally applicable.

Project description:The World Health Organization (WHO) is currently updating the tenth version of their diagnostic tool, the International Classification of Diseases (ICD, WHO, 1992). Changes have been proposed for the diagnosis of Transsexualism (ICD-10) with regard to terminology, placement and content. The aim of this study was to gather the opinions of transgender individuals (and their relatives/partners) and clinicians in the Netherlands, Flanders (Belgium) and the United Kingdom regarding the proposed changes and the clinical applicability and utility of the ICD-11 criteria of 'Gender Incongruence of Adolescence and Adulthood' (GIAA). A total of 628 participants were included in the study: 284 from the Netherlands (45.2%), 8 from Flanders (Belgium) (1.3%), and 336 (53.5%) from the UK. Most participants were transgender people (or their partners/relatives) (n = 522), 89 participants were healthcare providers (HCPs) and 17 were both healthcare providers and (partners/relatives of) transgender people. Participants completed an online survey developed for this study. Most participants were in favor of the proposed diagnostic term of 'Gender Incongruence' and thought that this was an improvement on the ICD-10 diagnostic term of 'Transsexualism'. Placement in a separate chapter dealing with Sexual- and Gender-related Health or as a Z-code was preferred by many and only a small number of participants stated that this diagnosis should be excluded from the ICD-11. In the UK, most transgender participants thought there should be a diagnosis related to being trans. However, if it were to be removed from the chapter on "psychiatric disorders", many transgender respondents indicated that they would prefer it to be removed from the ICD in its entirety. There were no large differences between the responses of the transgender participants (or their partners and relatives) and HCPs. HCPs were generally positive about the GIAA diagnosis; most thought the diagnosis was clearly defined and easy to use in their practice or work. The duration of gender incongruence (several months) was seen by many as too short and required a clearer definition. If the new diagnostic term of GIAA is retained, it should not be stigmatizing to individuals. Moving this diagnosis away from the mental and behavioral chapter was generally supported. Access to healthcare was one area where retaining a diagnosis seemed to be of benefit.

Project description:BackgroundThe study examined the psychometric properties of the Child and Adolescent Trauma Screen 2 (CATS-2) as a measure of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) according to DSM-5 and (Complex) PTSD following the ICD-11 criteria in children and adolescents (7-17 years).MethodsPsychometric properties were investigated in an international sample of traumatized children and adolescents (N = 283) and their caregivers (N = 255). We examined the internal consistency (α), convergent and discriminant validity, the factor structure of the CATS-2 total scores, latent classes of PTSD/Complex PTSD (CPTSD) discrimination, as well as the diagnostic utility using ROC-curves.ResultsThe DSM-5 total score (self: α = .89; caregiver: α = .91), the ICD-11 PTSD total score (self: α = .67; caregiver: α = .79) and the ICD-11 CPTSD total score (self: α = .83; caregiver: α = .87) have proven acceptable to excellent reliability. The latent structure of the 12-item ICD-11 PTSD/CPTSD construct was consistent with prior findings. Latent profile analyses revealed that ICD-11 CPTSD was empirically distinguishable from ICD-11 PTSD using the CATS-2. ROC-analysis using the CAPS-CA-5 as outcome revealed that CATS-2 DSM-5 PTSD scores of ≥21 (screening) to ≥25 (diagnostic) were optimally efficient for detecting probable DSM-5 PTSD diagnosis. For the ICD-11 PTSD scale scores of ≥7 (screening) to ≥9 (diagnostic) were optimally efficient for detecting probable DSM-5 PTSD diagnosis.ConclusionsThe CATS-2 is a brief, reliable and valid measure of DSM-5 PTSD, ICD-11 PTSD and CPTSD symptomatology in traumatized children and adolescents, allowing crosswalk between diagnostic systems using one measure.HighlightsThe CATS-2 screens for potentially traumatic events (PTEs) and PTSD symptoms.The CATS-2 captures DSM-5 and ICD-11 criteria for PTSD and CPTSD and enables clinicians and researchers to crosswalk between both diagnostic systems.International validation has proven good psychometric properties and presents cut-off scoresThe CATS-2 is a license-free instrument and is freely accessible.

Project description:Background: Children and adolescents in foster care often experience many co-occurring subtypes of maltreatment. However, little is known about different combinations of maltreatment subtypes, referred to as maltreatment classes. Furthermore, the association between those maltreatment classes and ICD-11 posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and complex PTSD (CPTSD) has not been investigated in children and adolescents. In previous studies, classes characterized by cumulative maltreatment were associated with severe psychopathological symptoms. So far, no study investigated ICD-11 PTSD and CPTSD. Objective: The first aim of this study was the detection of distinct maltreatment classes by examining frequently co-occurring maltreatment subtypes. The second aim was the examination of the association between those maltreatment classes and ICD-11 PTSD and CPTSD. Method: Participants were 147 children and adolescents currently living in foster care institutions in Lower Austria. Maltreatment history, ICD-11 PTSD and CPTSD were assessed using standardized self-report questionnaires. Latent class analysis was applied to examine maltreatment subtypes. χ2 difference testing was used to examine class associations with PTSD and CPTSD. Results: Three latent classes that comprised different subtypes of maltreatment were identified (limited maltreatment, n = 49; high neglect, n = 53; cumulative maltreatment, n = 45). Cumulative maltreatment was associated with higher symptom severity of PTSD and CPTSD than the limited maltreatment and the high neglect class, with effect sizes ranging from 0.62 to 0.93. Conclusions: The association of the cumulative maltreatment class with the highest symptom severity of PTSD and CPTSD highlights the detrimental effect of cumulative maltreatment. The detection of a high neglect class identifies children and adolescents, who are at high-risk of experiencing future maltreatment because of their previous experiences of neglect and the associated lack of protection. The examination of the association of distinct maltreatment classes with ICD-11 PTSD and CPTSD might provide implications for targeted prevention, assessment and treatment.

Dataset Information

PTSD or not PTSD? Comparing the proposed ICD-11 and the DSM-5 PTSD criteria among young survivors of the 2011 Norway attacks and their parents.

Background

Method

Results

Conclusions

Publications

PTSD or not PTSD? Comparing the proposed ICD-11 and the DSM-5 PTSD criteria among young survivors of the 2011 Norway attacks and their parents.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets