ICD-11 Classification of Pediatric Chronic Pain Referrals in Ireland, with Secondary Analysis of Primary vs Secondary Pain Conditions.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
To classify pediatric chronic pain referrals in Ireland according to the classification system of the 11th version of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). In addition, differences between primary and secondary pain groups were assessed.Methods
Retrospective review of complex pain assessment forms completed at the time of initial attendance at pediatric chronic pain clinics in Dublin, Ireland. Patients were classified as having a chronic primary (CPP) or chronic secondary (CSP) pain condition as per ICD-11 classification. Secondary analysis of between-group and within-group differences between primary and secondary pain conditions was undertaken.Results
Of 285 patients coded, 123 patients were designated as having a CPP condition (77% of whom were assigned an adjunct parent code) and 162 patients as having a CSP condition (61% of whom were assigned an adjunct parent code). Between-group comparisons found that the lowest reported pain scores were higher in CPP than in CSP conditions. There were stronger correlations between parental pain catastrophizing and pain intensity, school attendance, and pain interference with social activities in the CSP group than in the CPP group.Conclusions
The majority of children with both CPP and CSP were assigned multiple parent codes. There appears to be a gradient in the differences in biopsychosocial profile between CPP and CSP conditions. Additional field testing of the ICD-11 classification in pediatric chronic pain will be required.
SUBMITTER: Matthews E
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8633725 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:The upcoming 11th revision of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD) of the World Health Organization (WHO) offers a unique opportunity to improve the representation of painful disorders. For this purpose, the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) has convened an interdisciplinary task force of pain specialists. Here, we present the case for a reclassification of nervous system lesions or diseases associated with persistent or recurrent pain for ≥3 months. The new classification lists the most common conditions of peripheral neuropathic pain: trigeminal neuralgia, peripheral nerve injury, painful polyneuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, and painful radiculopathy. Conditions of central neuropathic pain include pain caused by spinal cord or brain injury, poststroke pain, and pain associated with multiple sclerosis. Diseases not explicitly mentioned in the classification are captured in residual categories of ICD-11. Conditions of chronic neuropathic pain are either insufficiently defined or missing in the current version of the ICD, despite their prevalence and clinical importance. We provide the short definitions of diagnostic entities for which we submitted more detailed content models to the WHO. Definitions and content models were established in collaboration with the Classification Committee of the IASP's Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group (NeuPSIG). Up to 10% of the general population experience neuropathic pain. The majority of these patients do not receive satisfactory relief with existing treatments. A precise classification of chronic neuropathic pain in ICD-11 is necessary to document this public health need and the therapeutic challenges related to chronic neuropathic pain.
| S-EPMC6310153 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe ICD-11 classification of Personality Disorders focuses on core personality dysfunction, while allowing the practitioner to classify three levels of severity (Mild Personality Disorder, Moderate Personality Disorder, and Severe Personality Disorder) and the option of specifying one or more prominent trait domain qualifiers (Negative Affectivity, Detachment, Disinhibition, Dissociality, and Anankastia). Additionally, the practitioner is also allowed to specify a Borderline Pattern qualifier. This article presents how the ICD-11 Personality Disorder classification may be applied in clinical practice using five brief cases.Case presentation(1) a 29-year-old woman with Severe Personality Disorder, Borderline Pattern, and prominent traits of Negative Affectivity, Disinhibition, and Dissociality; (2) a 36-year-old man with Mild Personality Disorder, and prominent traits of Negative Affectivity and Detachment; (3) a 26-year-old man with Severe Personality Disorder, and prominent traits of Dissociality, Disinhibition, and Detachment; (4) a 19-year-old woman with Personality Difficulty, and prominent traits of Negative Affectivity and Anankastia; (5) a 53-year-old man with Moderate Personality Disorder, and prominent traits of Anankastia and Dissociality.ConclusionsThe ICD-11 Personality Disorder classification was applicable to five clinical cases, which were classified according to Personaity Disorder severity and trait domain qualifiers. We propose that the classification of severity may help inform clinical prognosis and intensity of treatment, whereas the coding of trait qualifiers may help inform the focus and style of treatment. Empirical investigation of such important aspects of clinical utility are warranted.
| S-EPMC6206910 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe pediatric complex chronic conditions (CCC) classification system, developed in 2000, requires revision to accommodate the International Classification of Disease 10th Revision (ICD-10). To update the CCC classification system, we incorporated ICD-9 diagnostic codes that had been either omitted or incorrectly specified in the original system, and then translated between ICD-9 and ICD-10 using General Equivalence Mappings (GEMs). We further reviewed all codes in the ICD-9 and ICD-10 systems to include both diagnostic and procedural codes indicative of technology dependence or organ transplantation. We applied the provisional CCC version 2 (v2) system to death certificate information and 2 databases of health utilization, reviewed the resulting CCC classifications, and corrected any misclassifications. Finally, we evaluated performance of the CCC v2 system by assessing: 1) the stability of the system between ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes using data which included both ICD-9 codes and ICD-10 codes; 2) the year-to-year stability before and after ICD-10 implementation; and 3) the proportions of patients classified as having a CCC in both the v1 and v2 systems.ResultsThe CCC v2 classification system consists of diagnostic and procedural codes that incorporate a new neonatal CCC category as well as domains of complexity arising from technology dependence or organ transplantation. CCC v2 demonstrated close comparability between ICD-9 and ICD-10 and did not detect significant discontinuity in temporal trends of death in the United States. Compared to the original system, CCC v2 resulted in a 1.0% absolute (10% relative) increase in the number of patients identified as having a CCC in national hospitalization dataset, and a 0.4% absolute (24% relative) increase in a national emergency department dataset.ConclusionsThe updated CCC v2 system is comprehensive and multidimensional, and provides a necessary update to accommodate widespread implementation of ICD-10.
| S-EPMC4134331 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe International Classification of Diseases (ICD) and the International Classification of Diseases for Oncology (ICD-O) are both widely used global classification systems. In 2018, the initial release of the ICD-11 was published by the World Health Organization (WHO), integrating the morphology section of the ICD-O.MethodsThis paper aims to provide potential ICD-11 users with a profound understanding of the neoplasm classifications of the ICD-11 by analysing the differences and relationships between the ICD-11 and ICD-O in terms of the coding framework, compatibility and intelligence level.ResultsThe ICD-11 and ICD-O have remarkable differences in coding structure. Compared to the ICD-O, the ICD-11 has the following advantages: adding histopathology to the stem codes, obtaining a meaningful minimum amount of information through stem codes for statistics, supporting the usage of ICD-O morphology categories and capturing clinical details via extension codes for multiaxial coding. In addition, the rich Foundation Component, linearization derived from the Foundation Component and updating mechanism all support the compatibility of the ICD-11 with other classification systems. Notably, the WHO provides terminology coding with a smart coding tool, and coding in the ICD-11 can draw on statistical codes and uniform resource identifiers (URIs) simultaneously.ConclusionsThe ICD-11 represents a novel classification system with distinguishing features that include facilitating statistics, multiaxial coding, coding granularity, compatibility and intelligence. These features enable the ICD-11 to be more powerful for neoplasm coding than the ICD-O and basically meet the needs of stakeholders.
| S-EPMC9758819 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSevere irritability has become an important topic in child and adolescent mental health. Based on the available evidence and on public health considerations, WHO classified chronic irritability within oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) in ICD-11, a solution markedly different from DSM-5's (i.e. the new childhood mood diagnosis, disruptive mood dysregulation disorder [DMDD]) and from ICD-10's (i.e. ODD as one of several conduct disorders without attention to irritability). In this study, we tested the accuracy with which a global, multilingual, multidisciplinary sample of clinicians were able to use the ICD-11 classification of chronic irritability and oppositionality as compared to the ICD-10 and DSM-5 approaches.MethodsClinicians (N = 196) from 48 countries participated in an Internet-based field study in English, Spanish, or Japanese and were randomized to review and use one of the three diagnostic systems. Through experimental manipulation of validated clinical vignettes, we evaluated how well clinicians in each condition could identify chronic irritability versus nonirritable oppositionality, episodic bipolar disorder, dysthymic depression, and normative irritability.ResultsCompared to ICD-10 and DSM-5, ICD-11 led to more accurate identification of severe irritability and better differentiation from boundary presentations. Participants using DSM-5 largely failed to apply the DMDD diagnosis when it was appropriate, and they more often applied psychopathological diagnoses to developmentally normative irritability.ConclusionsThe formulation of irritability and oppositionality put forth in ICD-11 shows evidence of clinical utility, supporting accurate diagnosis. Global mental health clinicians can readily identify ODD both with and without chronic irritability.
| S-EPMC7657976 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Proposed for the 11th edition of the World Health Organization's International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) is a dimensional trait model for the classification of personality disorder (Tyrer, Reed, & Crawford, 2015). The ICD-11 proposal consists of 5 broad domains: negative affective, detachment, dissocial, disinhibition, and anankastic (Mulder, Horwood, Tyrer, Carter, & Joyce, 2016). Several field trials have examined this proposal, yet none has included a direct measure of the trait model. The purpose of the current study was to develop and provide initial validation for the Personality Inventory for ICD-11 (PiCD), a self-report measure of this proposed 5-domain maladaptive trait model. Item selection and scale construction proceeded through 3 initial data collections assessing potential item performance. Two subsequent studies were conducted for scale validation. In Study 1, the PiCD was evaluated in a sample of 259 MTurk participants (who were or had been receiving mental health treatment) with respect to 2 measures of general personality structure: The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire-Revised and the 5-Dimensional Personality Test. In Study 2, the PiCD was evaluated in an additional sample of 285 participants with respect to 2 measures of maladaptive personality traits: The Personality Inventory for DSM-5 and the Computerized Adaptive Test for Personality Disorders. Study 3 provides an item-level exploratory structural equation model with the combined samples from Studies 1 and 2. The results are discussed with respect to the validity of the measure and the potential benefits for future research in having a direct, self-report measure of the ICD-11 trait proposal. (PsycINFO Database Record
| S-EPMC5930359 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The International Classification of Diseases-11th edition (ICD-11) includes a dimensional model of personality disorder assessing five domains of maladaptive personality. To avoid unnecessary complexity, the ICD-11 model includes assessment of personality traits only at the domain level. A measure exists to assess the domains of the ICD-11 model (the Personality Inventory for ICD-11), yet a more rich and useful assessment of personality is provided at the facet level. We used items from the scales assessing the five-factor model of personality disorder to develop the Five-Factor Personality Inventory for ICD-11 (FFiCD), a new 121-item, 20-facet, self-report measure of the ICD-11 maladaptive personality domains at the facet level. Further, the FFiCD includes 47 short scales organized beneath the facets-at the "nuance" level. Items were selected and evaluated empirically across two independent data collections, and the resulting scales were further validated in a third data collection. Correlational and factor analytic results comparing the scales of the FFiCD to the five-factor model, Personality Inventory for ICD-11, and Personality Inventory for DSM-5 supported the validity of the theoretical structure of the FFiCD and the ICD-11 model. The FFiCD may be a useful instrument for clinicians and researchers interested in a more specific assessment of maladaptive personality according to the dimensional ICD-11 personality disorder model. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
| S-EPMC6928398 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Chronic overlapping pain conditions (COPCs) are a set of painful chronic conditions characterized by high levels of co-occurrence. It has been hypothesized that COPCs co-occur in many cases because of common neurobiological vulnerabilities. In practice, most research on COPCs has focused upon a single index condition with little effort to assess comorbid painful conditions. This likely means that important phenotypic differences within a sample are obscured. The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) coding system contains many diagnostic classifications that may be applied to individual COPCs, but there is currently no agreed upon set of codes for identifying and studying each of the COPCs. Here we seek to address this issue through three related projects 1) we first compile a set of ICD-10 codes from expert panels for ten common COPCs, 2) we then use natural language searches of medical records to validate the presence of COPCs in association with the proposed expert codes, 3) finally, we apply the resulting codes to a large administrative medical database to derive estimates of overlap between the ten conditions as a demonstration project. The codes presented can facilitate administrative database research on COPCs. PERSPECTIVE: This article presents a set of ICD-10 codes that researchers can use to explore the presence and overlap of COPCs in administrative databases. This may serve as a tool for estimating samples for research, exploring comorbidities, and treatments for individual COPCs, and identifying mechanisms associated with their overlap.
| S-EPMC8177096 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: There is evidence to suggest that the experience of complex post-traumatic stress disorder (C-PTSD) may be commonly associated with elevated risk for several mental ill-health comorbidities.Objective: The current study seeks to contribute to the growing literature on C-PTSD comorbidity by examining the relationship between C-PTSD and other mental health disorders in a UK Armed Forces veteran sample.Method: This study used data from the Northern Ireland Veterans' Health and Wellbeing Study (NIVHWS). The effective sample consisted of 638 veterans (90.0% male). Tetrachoric correlations examined the relationship between C-PTSD caseness and other mental health outcomes. Latent class analysis was then conducted, determining the optimal number and nature of classes in the sample in relation to C-PTSD, depression, anxiety, and suicidality.Results: C-PTSD caseness (i.e. probable diagnosis) was found to be significantly associated with positive caseness of depression, anxiety, and suicidality. Overall, four latent classes emerged, with each of these classes characterized by varying degrees of comorbidity: a 'Resilient/Low Comorbidity' class, a 'Lifetime Suicidal' class, a 'PTSD Polymorbid' class, and a 'C-PTSD Polymorbid' class.Conclusions These findings support and extend previous results indicating the highly comorbid nature of C-PTSD. C-PTSD may be considered a highly polymorbid condition, increasing the risk for multiple mental health pathologies concurrently.
| S-EPMC10274527 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC8012561 | biostudies-literature