scholarly journals Externalizing disorders: Cluster 5 of the proposed meta-structure for DSM-V and ICD-11

2009 ◽  
Vol 39 (12) ◽  
pp. 2061-2070 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. F. Krueger ◽  
S. C. South
Keyword(s):  
Mental Disorders ◽  
Substance Dependence ◽  
Task Force ◽  
Externalizing Disorders ◽  
Study Group ◽  
Good Reliability ◽  
Dsm V ◽  
Co Morbidity ◽  
Valid Cluster ◽  
Icd 10

BackgroundThe extant major psychiatric classifications DSM-IV and ICD-10 are purportedly atheoretical and largely descriptive. Although this achieves good reliability, the validity of a medical diagnosis is greatly enhanced by an understanding of the etiology. In an attempt to group mental disorders on the basis of etiology, five clusters have been proposed. We consider the validity of the fifth cluster, externalizing disorders, within this proposal.MethodWe reviewed the literature in relation to 11 validating criteria proposed by the Study Group of the DSM-V Task Force, in terms of the extent to which these criteria support the idea of a coherent externalizing spectrum of disorders.ResultsThis cluster distinguishes itself by the central role of disinhibitory personality in mental disorders spread throughout sections of the current classifications, including substance dependence, antisocial personality disorder and conduct disorder. Shared biomarkers, co-morbidity and course offer additional evidence for a valid cluster of externalizing disorders.ConclusionExternalizing disorders meet many of the salient criteria proposed by the Study Group of the DSM-V Task Force to suggest a classification cluster.

scholarly journals Emotional disorders: Cluster 4 of the proposed meta-structure for DSM-V and ICD-11

2009 ◽  
Vol 39 (12) ◽  
pp. 2043-2059 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. P. Goldberg ◽  
R. F. Krueger ◽  
G. Andrews ◽  
M. J. Hobbs
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Emotional Disorders ◽  
Task Force ◽  
Clinical Manifestations ◽  
Study Group ◽  
Good Reliability ◽  
Symptom Dimensions ◽  
Dsm V ◽  
Co Morbidity ◽  
Icd 10

BackgroundThe extant major psychiatric classifications DSM-IV, and ICD-10, are atheoretical and largely descriptive. Although this achieves good reliability, the validity of a medical diagnosis would be greatly enhanced by an understanding of risk factors and clinical manifestations. In an effort to group mental disorders on the basis of aetiology, five clusters have been proposed. This paper considers the validity of the fourth cluster, emotional disorders, within that proposal.MethodWe reviewed the literature in relation to 11 validating criteria proposed by a Study Group of the DSM-V Task Force, as applied to the cluster of emotional disorders.ResultsAn emotional cluster of disorders identified using the 11 validators is feasible. Negative affectivity is the defining feature of the emotional cluster. Although there are differences between disorders in the remaining validating criteria, there are similarities that support the feasibility of an emotional cluster. Strong intra-cluster co-morbidity may reflect the action of common risk factors and also shared higher-order symptom dimensions in these emotional disorders.ConclusionEmotional disorders meet many of the salient criteria proposed by the Study Group of the DSM-V Task Force to suggest a classification cluster.

Neurocognitive disorders: Cluster 1 of the proposed meta-structure for DSM-V and ICD-11

2009 ◽  
Vol 39 (12) ◽  
pp. 2001-2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Sachdev ◽  
G. Andrews ◽  
M. J. Hobbs ◽  
M. Sunderland ◽  
T. M. Anderson
Keyword(s):  
Mental Disorders ◽  
Task Force ◽  
Cognitive Disorders ◽  
Neurocognitive Disorders ◽  
Study Group ◽  
Normal Brain ◽  
Dsm V ◽  
Co Morbidity ◽  
Icd 10 ◽  
Dsm Iv

BackgroundIn an effort to group mental disorders on the basis of aetiology, five clusters have been proposed. In this paper, we consider the validity of the first cluster, neurocognitive disorders, within this proposal. These disorders are categorized as ‘Dementia, Delirium, and Amnestic and Other Cognitive Disorders’ in DSM-IV and ‘Organic, including Symptomatic Mental Disorders’ in ICD-10.MethodWe reviewed the literature in relation to 11 validating criteria proposed by a Study Group of the DSM-V Task Force as applied to the cluster of neurocognitive disorders.Results‘Neurocognitive’ replaces the previous terms ‘cognitive’ and ‘organic’ used in DSM-IV and ICD-10 respectively as the descriptor for disorders in this cluster. Although cognitive/organic problems are present in other disorders, this cluster distinguishes itself by the demonstrable neural substrate abnormalities and the salience of cognitive symptoms and deficits. Shared biomarkers, co-morbidity and course offer less persuasive evidence for a valid cluster of neurocognitive disorders. The occurrence of these disorders subsequent to normal brain development sets this cluster apart from neurodevelopmental disorders. The aetiology of the disorders is varied, but the neurobiological underpinnings are better understood than for mental disorders in any other cluster.ConclusionsNeurocognitive disorders meet some of the salient criteria proposed by the Study Group of the DSM-V Task Force to suggest a classification cluster. Further developments in the aetiopathogenesis of these disorders will enhance the clinical utility of this cluster.

scholarly journals Zmiany kryteriów w diagnozowaniu zaburzeń związanych z hazardem oraz uzależnień chemicznych i czynnościowych

2017 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 91
Author(s):  
Iwona Niewiadomska ◽  
Agnieszka Palacz-Chrisidis
Keyword(s):  
Mental Disorders ◽  
Health Problems ◽  
Statistical Classification ◽  
Addictive Disorders ◽  
Statistical Manual ◽  
Dsm V ◽  
Classification Of Diseases ◽  
Icd 10 ◽  
International Statistical Classification

Autorki poruszają kwestię zmian w kryteriach diagnostycznych dotyczących zaburzeń związanych z hazardem oraz uzależnień chemicznych i czynnościowych w literaturze przedmiotu. Prezentują też krótki przegląd kolejnych edycji podręczników międzynarodowych klasyfikacji, zarówno Diagnostics and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – DSM, jak i The International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems – ICD. W artykule przedstawiona jest również dyskusja badaczy na temat umiejscowienia zaburzeń związanych z hazardem w klasyfikacjach diagnostycznych. DSM-V umiejscawia zaburzenie hazardowe w kategorii „zaburzenia używania substancji i nałogów” (ang. Substance-Related and Addictive Disorders, DSM-V), w podkategorii „zaburzenia niezwiązane z substancjami” (ang. Non-Substace Related Disorders, DSM-V). Natomiast według nadal obowiązującego ICD-10, zaburzenie hazardowe pozostaje w obszarze zaburzeń kontroli i impulsów, pod nazwą „hazard patologiczny”.

Common Mental Disorders

2019 ◽  
pp. 31-56 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Raguram
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Mental Disorders ◽  
Somatoform Disorders ◽  
Common Mental Disorders ◽  
Adjustment Disorder ◽  
Emotional Symptoms ◽  
Co Morbidity ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Icd 10 ◽  
High Degree

This chapter focuses on common mental disorders (CMDs). These disorders include a wide range of conditions that are frequently noticed in the community. It is essentially a convenient, functional grouping of conditions. The chapter analyses the trends on the basis of researches in this area over the past decade. The classification of CMDs for primary health care, according to ICD-10, includes depression, phobic disorder, panic disorder, generalized anxiety, mixed anxiety and depression, adjustment disorder, dissociative disorder, and somatoform disorders. Irrespective of the nature of the disorder, these patients often present with somatic complaints: some patients may admit to having emotional symptoms. It was observed that there is a high degree of co-morbidity among them, leading to significant levels of disability and increased health-care costs.

scholarly journals Mental disorders as risk factors for later substance dependence: estimates of optimal prevention and treatment benefits

2008 ◽  
Vol 39 (8) ◽  
pp. 1365-1377 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. D. Glantz ◽  
J. C. Anthony ◽  
P. A. Berglund ◽  
L. Degenhardt ◽  
L. Dierker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Disorders ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Substance Dependence ◽  
Age Of Onset ◽  
Single Case ◽  
Household Survey ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Externalizing Disorders ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Substance Disorders

BackgroundAlthough mental disorders have been shown to predict subsequent substance disorders, it is not known whether substance disorders could be cost-effectively prevented by large-scale interventions aimed at prior mental disorders. Although experimental intervention is the only way to resolve this uncertainty, a logically prior question is whether the associations of mental disorders with subsequent substance disorders are strong enough to justify mounting such an intervention. We investigated this question in this study using simulations to estimate the number of substance disorders that might be prevented under several hypothetical intervention scenarios focused on mental disorders.MethodData came from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R), a nationally representative US household survey that retrospectively assessed lifetime history and age of onset of DSM-IV mental and substance disorders. Survival analysis using retrospective age-of-onset reports was used to estimate associations of mental disorders with subsequent substance dependence. Simulations based on the models estimated effect sizes in several hypothetical intervention scenarios.ResultsAlthough successful intervention aimed at mental disorders might prevent some proportion of substance dependence, the number of cases of mental disorder that would have to be treated to prevent a single case of substance dependence is estimated to be so high that this would not be a cost-effective way to prevent substance dependence (in the range 76–177 for anxiety-mood disorders and 40–47 for externalizing disorders).ConclusionsTreatment of prior mental disorders would not be a cost-effective way to prevent substance dependence. However, prevention of substance dependence might be considered an important secondary outcome of interventions for early-onset mental disorders.

Considerations on classification of alcohol induced mental disorders

2011 ◽  
Vol 26 (S2) ◽  
pp. 90-90
Author(s):  
I. Pajević ◽  
M. Hasanović
Keyword(s):  
Mental Disorders ◽  
Delirium Tremens ◽  
Alcohol Withdrawal Syndrome ◽  
Classification Systems ◽  
Dimensional Structure ◽  
Clinical Samples ◽  
Dsm V ◽  
Icd 10 ◽  
Dsm Iv ◽  
Substance Related Disorders

IntroductionCurrent valid classification systems (ICD-10 and DSM-IV) of the alcohol-induced disorders include: acute intoxication, pathological intoxication, alcohol withdrawal syndrome, psychotic disorder with delusions or hallucinations, delirium tremens, amnesic syndrome, mood disorders and anxiety disorders caused by alcohol consumption (only in DSM-IV) and sexual dysfunction.AimTo consider adequacy of existing classifications of alcohol dependency and to offer more adequate suggestion for ICD-11 and DSM-V.MethodologyAuthors compared and analyzed the diagnostic criteria that are offered in the current classifications for these disorders.ResultsThere are many similarities and many differences between existing diagnostic criteria's. The former name of the DSM-IV (Substance related disorders, which include Alcohol related disorders) is inappropriate since it excludes other related disorders. Another important issue that is currently a subject of extensive discussions in the process of finalizing the DSM-V refers to the current distinction terms abuse and alcohol dependence. Scientific documents about the criteria of abuse and dependence in clinical samples and samples from the general population suggest that the DSM-IV criteria for abuse and dependence can be considered as part of a one-dimensional structure, thus for DSM-V it could be combined into a single disorder, with two criteria to make a diagnosis.ConclusionIt is expected that the principles adopted by the WHO during the preparation for ICD-11, which includes bridging the differences between ICD and DSM and the introduction of the person centered integrative diagnosis (PID) will be an important step forward in understanding and distinction among alcohol induced mental disorders.

scholarly journals Functional outcomes of child and adolescent mental disorders. Current disorder most important but psychiatric history matters as well

2017 ◽  
Vol 47 (7) ◽  
pp. 1271-1282 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Ormel ◽  
A. M. Oerlemans ◽  
D. Raven ◽  
O. M. Laceulle ◽  
C. A. Hartman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Disorders ◽  
Health Behavior ◽  
Functional Outcomes ◽  
Externalizing Disorders ◽  
Cannabis Use ◽  
World Health ◽  
Social Benefits ◽  
Psychiatric History ◽  
Co Morbidity ◽  
History Of

BackgroundVarious sources indicate that mental disorders are the leading contributor to the burden of disease among youth. An important determinant of functioning is current mental health status. This study investigated whether psychiatric history has additional predictive power when predicting individual differences in functional outcomes.MethodWe used data from the Dutch TRAILS study in which 1778 youths were followed from pre-adolescence into young adulthood (retention 80%). Of those, 1584 youths were successfully interviewed, at age 19, using the World Health Organization Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI 3.0) to assess current and past CIDI-DSM-IV mental disorders. Four outcome domains were assessed at the same time: economic (e.g. academic achievement, social benefits, financial difficulties), social (early motherhood, interpersonal conflicts, antisocial behavior), psychological (e.g. suicidality, subjective well-being, loneliness), and health behavior (e.g. smoking, problematic alcohol, cannabis use).ResultsOut of the 19 outcomes, 14 were predicted by both current and past disorders, three only by past disorders (receiving social benefits, psychiatric hospitalization, adolescent motherhood), and two only by current disorder (absenteeism, obesity). Which type of disorders was most important depended on the outcome. Adjusted for current disorder, past internalizing disorders predicted in particular psychological outcomes while externalizing disorders predicted in particular health behavior outcomes. Economic and social outcomes were predicted by a history of co-morbidity of internalizing and externalizing disorder. The risk of problematic cannabis use and alcohol consumption dropped with a history of internalizing disorder.ConclusionTo understand current functioning, it is necessary to examine both current and past psychiatric status.

Mental disorders in primary care: prevalence and co-morbidity among disorders. Results from the Functional Illness in Primary care (FIP) study

2005 ◽  
Vol 35 (8) ◽  
pp. 1175-1184 ◽  
Author(s):  
TOMAS TOFT ◽  
PER FINK ◽  
EVA OERNBOEL ◽  
KAJ CHRISTENSEN ◽  
LISBETH FROSTHOLM ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Mental Disorders ◽  
Alcohol Abuse ◽  
Anxiety Disorders ◽  
Somatoform Disorders ◽  
Psychiatric Morbidity ◽  
Somatization Disorder ◽  
Waiting Room ◽  
Co Morbidity ◽  
Icd 10

Background. Prevalence and co-occurrence of mental disorders is high among patients consulting their family general practitioner (GP) for a new health problem, but data on diagnostics and sociodemographics are sketchy.Method. A cross-sectional two-phase epidemiological study. A total of 1785 consecutive patients with new complaints, aged 18–65 years, consulting 28 family practices during March–April 2000 in Aarhus County, Denmark were screened, in the waiting room, for mental and somatic symptoms with SCL-8 and SCL-Somatization questionnaires, for illness worry with Whitely-7 and for alcohol dependency with CAGE. In a stratified random sample of 701 patients, physician interviewers established ICD-10 diagnoses using the SCAN interview. Prevalence was calculated using weighted logistic regression, thus correcting for sample skewness.Results. Half of the patients fulfilled criteria for an ICD-10 mental disorders and a third of these for more than one group of disorders. Women had higher prevalence of somatization disorder and overall mental disorders than men. Men had higher prevalence of alcohol abuse and hypochondriasis than women. Psychiatric morbidity tended to increase with age. Prevalence of somatoform disorders was 35·9% (95% CI 30·4–41·9), anxiety disorders 16·4% (95% CI 12·7–20·9), mood disorders 13·5% (95% CI 11·1–16·3), organic mental disorders 3·1% (95% CI 1·6–5·7) and alcohol abuse 2·2% (95% CI 1·5–3·1). Co-morbidities between these groups were highest for anxiety disorders, where 89% also had another mental diagnosis, and lowest for somatoform disorders with 39%.Conclusions. ICD-10 mental disorders are very prevalent in primary care and there is a high co-occurrence between most disorders. Somatoform disorders, however, more often than not exist without other mental disorders.

Alcohol Use and Alcohol Use Disorders

2010 ◽  
pp. 405-446 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth J. Sher ◽  
Andrew K. Littlefield ◽  
Julia A. Martinez
Keyword(s):  
Alcohol Use ◽  
Mental Disorders ◽  
Substance Dependence ◽  
Alcohol Use Disorders ◽  
Basic Research ◽  
The United States ◽  
Externalizing Disorders ◽  
Normal Personality ◽  
Considerable Controversy ◽  
Adult Roles

Alcohol use disorders (AUDs), alcohol abuse, and alcohol dependence, are among the most prevalent mental disorders in the United States and elsewhere. Considerable controversy exists concerning the optimal way of classifying these disorders and the boundaries between normal and abnormal drinking. Although AUDs can occur over much of the life span, from an epidemiological perspective, it is largely a disorder of adolescence and young adulthood. Many who experience AUDs are “mature out” of them as they age and acquire adult roles and, perhaps, as a function of normal personality. However, a significant minority of individuals fail to mature out, and some individuals develop AUDs later in adulthood. A number of etiological pathways are associated with developing an AUD; foremost among them, a pathway shared with other externalizing disorders such as conduct disorder, adult antisociality, and other substance dependence. However, pathways associated with internalizing disorders and with individual differences in alcohol effects also exist. All of these pathways likely involve major genetic and environmental determinants. Given the etiological pathways that have been documented, it is not surprising that AUDs are often comorbid with other mental disorders. A number of effective approaches to the prevention and treatment of AUDs have been developed. Additionally, basic research is setting the stage for further advances in both behavior and drug treatments of AUDs.

Where should bipolar disorder appear in the meta-structure?

2009 ◽  
Vol 39 (12) ◽  
pp. 2071-2081 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. P. Goldberg ◽  
G. Andrews ◽  
M. J. Hobbs
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Bipolar Disorder ◽  
Emotional Disorders ◽  
Task Force ◽  
Clinical Manifestations ◽  
Unipolar Depression ◽  
Clinical History ◽  
Good Reliability ◽  
Icd 10 ◽  
The One

BackgroundThe extant major psychiatric classifications, DSM-IV and ICD-10, are purportedly atheoretical and largely descriptive. Although this achieves good reliability, the validity of a medical diagnosis is greatly enhanced by an understanding of both risk factors and clinical history. In an effort to group mental disorders on the basis of risk factors and clinical manifestations, five clusters have been proposed. The purpose of this paper is to consider the position of bipolar disorder (BPD), which could be either with the psychoses, or with emotional disorders, or in a separate cluster.MethodWe reviewed the literature on BPD, unipolar depression (UPD) and schizophrenia in relation to 11 validating criteria proposed by the DSM-V Task Force Study Group, and then summarized similarities and differences between BPD and schizophrenia on the one hand, and UPD on the other.ResultsThere are differences, often substantial and never trivial, for 10 of the 11 validators between BPD and UPD. There are also important differences between BPD and schizophrenia.ConclusionBPD has previously been classified together with UPD, but this is the least justifiable place for it. If it is to be recruited to a ‘psychotic cluster’, there are several important respects in which it differs from schizophrenia, so the cluster would have a division within it. The alternative would be to allow it to be in an intermediate position in a cluster of its own.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document