Dataset Information

A Proposed Classification of ICD-11 Severity Degrees of Personality Pathology Using the Self and Interpersonal Functioning Scale.

ABSTRACT: Background: The 11th version of the World Health Organization's International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) has adopted a dimensional approach to personality disorder (PD) nosology. Notably, it includes an assessment of PD degree of severity, which can be classified according to five categories. To date, there is no gold standard measure for assessing degree of PD severity based on the ICD-11 model, and there are no empirically-based anchor points to delineate the proposed categories. With the operationalization of PD degrees of severity in the ICD-11 PD model now being closely aligned with Criterion A of the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD), sharing a focus on self and interpersonal dysfunction, self-report instruments developed for the latter model might prove useful as screening tools to determine degrees of severity in the former. Methods: The Self and Interpersonal Functioning Scale, a brief validated self-report questionnaire originally designed to assess level of personality pathology according to the AMPD framework, was used to derive anchor points to delineate the five severity degrees from the ICD-11 PD model. Data from five clinical and non-clinical samples (total N = 2,240) allowed identifying anchor points for classification, based on Receiver Operating Characteristic curve analysis, Latent Class Analysis, and data distribution statistics. Categories were validated using multiple indices pertaining to externalizing and internalizing symptoms relevant to PD. Results: Analyses yielded the following anchor points for PD degrees of severity: No PD = 0-1.04; Personality Difficulty = 1.05-1.29; Mild PD = 1.30-1.89; Moderate PD = 1.90-2.49; and Severe PD = 2.50 and above. A clear gradient of severity across the five categories was observed in all samples. A high number of significant contrasts among PD categories were also observed on external variables, consistent with the ICD-11 PD degree of severity operationalization. Conclusions: The present study provides potentially useful guidelines to determine severity of personality pathology based on the ICD-11 model. The use of a brief self-report questionnaire as a screening tool for assessing PD degrees of severity should be seen as a time-efficient support for clinical decision and treatment planning.

SUBMITTER: Gamache D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8012561 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The ICD-11 personality disorder model is the first fully dimensional assessment of personality pathology. It consists of a personality disorder (PD) dysfunction-severity dimension, which encompasses both self- and interpersonal dysfunction, and six optional qualifiers for five prominent personality traits-Negative Affectivity (NA), Detachment (DET), Dissociality (DSL), Disinhibition (DSN), and Anankastia (ANK)-plus a borderline pattern that is defined by the criteria of DSM-IV borderline PD. This article reports on the development of a new self-report measure to assess self- and interpersonal dysfunction and the five trait qualifiers. It is the first comprehensive measure of the ICD-11 PD model in that (a) it is the only one to include both PD dysfunction-severity as well as trait scales and because (b) it is based on the Clinical Description and Diagnostic Guidelines, which are more detailed than the "statistical" model description that is currently on the ICD-11 website. The authors wrote 992 items and then reduced the pool to 300 items by eliminating redundancy and selecting the consensus best few items for each subconstruct. Data were collected using an online sample of 383 Prolific workers. Using exploratory factor analysis, seven domain scales were developed, each of which contained two to four scales assessing components of the domain. These preliminary scales' psychometrics were excellent, as were the domains' and their components' convergent and discriminant validity, with a few generally minor exceptions. Structural analyses at the component level revealed a three-factor structure consisting of two moderately correlated Internalizing factors, one centered on Self Dysfunction with two NA components and a DSN component (Distractibility) and the other on Interpersonal Dysfunction with DET and ANK components; as well as an Externalizing factor with DSL and a DSN component (Reckless Impulsivity) that was uncorrelated with the other two factors. Two aspects of the results in particular are striking: (1) ANK was not the opposite end of a DSN dimension, but rather contributed to an Internalizing Interpersonal Dysfunction dimension and (2) DSN had both an Internalizing and an Externalizing component. Implications of the findings and study limitations are discussed.

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.

Dataset Information

A Proposed Classification of ICD-11 Severity Degrees of Personality Pathology Using the Self and Interpersonal Functioning Scale.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets