The Death of Histrionic Personality Disorder

Journal Literature ◽

Histrionic Personality Disorder ◽

Text Revision ◽

Icd 10

Histrionic personality disorder (HPD) is a diagnosis in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, text revision (DSM-IV-TR) and the International Classification of Diseases, tenth edition (ICD-10). The first section of this chapter defines HPD and discusses its history, starting with hysteria. The emphasis of this section is the documentation that HPD is a dying disorder that has generated little clinical or research interest as shown by the small empirical journal literature and the minimal textbook coverage. The second section of the chapter discusses the issues associated with the demise of HPD. These issues are (1) the belief that HPD is a sex-biased diagnosis, (2) the apparent failure of HPD to carve out a descriptively unique syndrome, (3) the associated loss of influence of psychoanalytic thinking in psychiatry and psychology, and (4) current efforts to overhaul the personality disorders in the upcoming DSM-5 by introducing a hybrid model and deleting categorical diagnoses with less clinical and/or empirical support.

Comorbidity pattern of personality disorder and reliability of diagnostic and statistical manual-111-R and international classification of diseases-10 in assessing personality disorders

International Journal of Advances in Medicine ◽

10.18203/2349-3933.ijam20205037 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 7 (12) ◽

pp. 1762

Author(s):

Nonyenim Solomon Enyidah ◽

Esther Ijeoma Nonye-Enyidah

Keyword(s):

Personality Disorder ◽

Personality Disorders ◽

Clinical Setting ◽

Prison Inmates ◽

Statistical Manual ◽

Icd 10

Background: Comorbidity of personality disorders (PD) is mostly assessed in relation to axis1 disorders in spite of its high prevalence in clinical practice. It’s assessment in the prison community, a non-clinical setting, using the diagnostic and statistical manual (DSM-111-R) and the international classification of diseases (ICD-10) may reveal the natural pattern of axis-11 comorbidity and test the reliability of both instruments in assessing PD. Objectives of the study were to determine the pattern of comorbidity of PD in a non-clinical setting and to confirm the reliability of DSM-111-R and ICD-10 in assessing PD.Methods: Healthy prison inmates who consented to the study were interviewed using international personality disorder examination (IPDE), a semi structured questionnaire modified to conform to DSM-111-R and ICD-10 classifications and approved by World health organization (WHO). The data obtained was fed into the statistical package for social sciences (SPSS/PC+). Cross tabulation of variables using chi-square and t-tests. Agreement between both instruments was examined with kappa.Results: The study shows that ICD-10 is more likely to diagnose PD than DSM-111-R. Both instruments showed good concordance for schizoid, histrionic, and dependent PD, poor concordance for obsessive and borderline PD and very poor concordance for avoidant PD. The likelihood of having more than one axis-11 disorder is high lightened.Conclusions: Pattern of PD in the prison has been established. DSM-111-R and ICD-10 have been found reliable in assessing PD except for avoidant PD where they disagreed. The high rate of multiple PD diagnoses in prison inmates calls for functional health care programs in the prisons.

Angststörungen – von der ICD-10 zur ICD-11

Zeitschrift für Kinder- und Jugendpsychiatrie und Psychotherapie ◽

10.1024/1422-4917/a000768 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 1-5

Author(s):

Timo D. Vloet ◽

Marcel Romanos

Keyword(s):

Mental Disorders ◽

Statistical Manual ◽

Dsm 5 ◽

Icd 10

Zusammenfassung. Hintergrund: Nach 12 Jahren Entwicklung wird die 11. Version der International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) von der Weltgesundheitsorganisation (WHO) im Januar 2022 in Kraft treten. Methodik: Im Rahmen eines selektiven Übersichtsartikels werden die Veränderungen im Hinblick auf die Klassifikation von Angststörungen von der ICD-10 zur ICD-11 zusammenfassend dargestellt. Ergebnis: Die diagnostischen Kriterien der generalisierten Angststörung, Agoraphobie und spezifischen Phobien werden angepasst. Die ICD-11 wird auf Basis einer Lebenszeitachse neu organisiert, sodass die kindesaltersspezifischen Kategorien der ICD-10 aufgelöst werden. Die Trennungsangststörung und der selektive Mutismus werden damit den „regulären“ Angststörungen zugeordnet und können zukünftig auch im Erwachsenenalter diagnostiziert werden. Neu ist ebenso, dass verschiedene Symptomdimensionen der Angst ohne kategoriale Diagnose verschlüsselt werden können. Diskussion: Die Veränderungen im Bereich der Angsterkrankungen umfassen verschiedene Aspekte und sind in der Gesamtschau nicht unerheblich. Positiv zu bewerten ist die Einführung einer Lebenszeitachse und Parallelisierung mit dem Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). Schlussfolgerungen: Die entwicklungsbezogene Neuorganisation in der ICD-11 wird auch eine verstärkte längsschnittliche Betrachtung von Angststörungen in der Klinik sowie Forschung zur Folge haben. Damit rückt insbesondere die Präventionsforschung weiter in den Fokus.

ICD-11 and DSM-5 personality trait domains capture categorical personality disorders: Finding a common ground

Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry ◽

10.1177/0004867417727867 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 52 (5) ◽

pp. 425-434 ◽

Cited By ~ 18

Author(s):

Bo Bach ◽

Martin Sellbom ◽

Mathias Skjernov ◽

Erik Simonsen

Keyword(s):

Personality Disorder ◽

Mental Disorders ◽

Personality Disorders ◽

Statistical Manual ◽

Domain Models

Objective: The five personality disorder trait domains in the proposed International Classification of Diseases, 11th edition and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition are comparable in terms of Negative Affectivity, Detachment, Antagonism/Dissociality and Disinhibition. However, the International Classification of Diseases, 11th edition model includes a separate domain of Anankastia, whereas the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition model includes an additional domain of Psychoticism. This study examined associations of International Classification of Diseases, 11th edition and Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition trait domains, simultaneously, with categorical personality disorders. Method: Psychiatric outpatients ( N = 226) were administered the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Personality Disorders Interview and the Personality Inventory for DSM-5. International Classification of Diseases, 11th edition and Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition trait domain scores were obtained using pertinent scoring algorithms for the Personality Inventory for DSM-5. Associations between categorical personality disorders and trait domains were examined using correlation and multiple regression analyses. Results: Both the International Classification of Diseases, 11th edition and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition domain models showed relevant continuity with categorical personality disorders and captured a substantial amount of their information. As expected, the International Classification of Diseases, 11th edition model was superior in capturing obsessive–compulsive personality disorder, whereas the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition model was superior in capturing schizotypal personality disorder. Conclusion: These preliminary findings suggest that little information is ‘lost’ in a transition to trait domain models and potentially adds to narrowing the gap between Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition and the proposed International Classification of Diseases, 11th edition model. Accordingly, the International Classification of Diseases, 11th edition and Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition domain models may be used to delineate one another as well as features of familiar categorical personality disorder types. A preliminary category-to-domain ‘cross walk’ is provided in the article.

Classification of psychiatric disorders in childhood and adolescence: building castles in the sand?

Advances in Psychiatric Treatment ◽

10.1192/apt.8.3.205 ◽

2002 ◽

Vol 8 (3) ◽

pp. 205-213 ◽

Cited By ~ 9

Author(s):

Stephen Scott

Keyword(s):

Treatment Plan ◽

Classification Systems ◽

Childhood And Adolescence ◽

Diagnostic Systems ◽

Icd 10 ◽

The Difference

A classification system can benefit disturbed children enormously by bringing to bear a wealth of knowledge and experience. This can make all the difference between an inadequate consultation and a precise formulation of the nature and extent of a child's difficulties, their cause, the likely outcome and a realistic treatment plan. However, inappropriate application of a diagnostic label that has little validity could do more harm than good, and classification systems can be misused. This paper discusses, with examples, issues particular to childhood and adolescence that diagnostic systems need to address if they are to be useful. It considers different solutions applied by the two most widely used schemes, the International Classification of Diseases (ICD–10; World Heath Organization, 1992) and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM–IV; American Psychiatric Association, 1994). Finally, the types of criteria used to validate categories are discussed.

Eating disorders

CNS Spectrums ◽

10.1017/s1092852916000304 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 21 (4) ◽

pp. 304-309 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Stefano Erzegovesi ◽

Laura Bellodi

Keyword(s):

Eating Disorders ◽

Statistical Manual ◽

Dsm 5 ◽

Feeding And Eating Disorders ◽

Not Otherwise Specified ◽

Icd 10

Twenty years have passed from the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) and, in the meanwhile, a lot of research data about eating disorders has been published. This article reviews the main modifications to the classification of eating disorders reported in the “Feeding and Eating Disorders” chapter of the DSM-5, and compares them with the ICD-10 diagnostic guidelines. Particularly, we will show that DSM-5 criteria widened the diagnoses of anorexia and bulimia nervosa to less severe forms (so decreasing the frequency of Eating Disorders, Not Otherwise Specified (EDNOS) diagnoses), introduced the new category of Binge Eating Disorder, and incorporated several feeding disorders that were first diagnosed in infancy, childhood, or adolescence. On the whole, the DSM-5 revision should allow the clinician to make more reliable and timely diagnoses for eating disorders.

Use of the ICD-10 version of the Standardized Assessment of Personality to determine the prevalence of personality disorder in psychiatric in-patients

Psychological Medicine ◽

10.1017/s0033291700036692 ◽

1990 ◽

Vol 20 (4) ◽

pp. 985-992 ◽

Cited By ~ 40

Author(s):

John Pilgrim ◽

Anthony Mann

Keyword(s):

Personality Disorder ◽

Total Sample ◽

Structured Interview ◽

Standardized Assessment ◽

Icd 10 ◽

One Year ◽

First Admission

SynopsisThe Standardized Assessment of Personality (SAP) involves a short semi-structured interview with an informant. It was modified to accord with the 1987 draft of the tenth revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) and used to assess the pre-morbid personality of first-admission patients in one London area over the period of one year. Of the 120 (84% of the total sample of first-admissions) patients included, 43 (36%) were found to satisfy the ICD-10 criteria for personality disorder and a further 17 (14%) to satisfy the criteria for personality trait accentuation.

Behavioral and Psychological Symptoms of Dementia in the International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 and Beyond (ICD-11)

International Psychogeriatrics ◽

10.1017/s1041610200006736 ◽

2000 ◽

Vol 12 (S1) ◽

pp. 29-40 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Michael Zaudig

Keyword(s):

Mental Disorders ◽

Psychological Symptoms ◽

Icd 10 ◽

Related Approach ◽

Dsm Iv

“A classification is the reification of an ideological position, of an accepted stand of theory and knowledge. It means creating, defining or confirming boundaries of concepts. These in turn define ourselves, our future and our past…” (Sartorius, 1991). The 10th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10), Chapter V on Mental and Behavioral Disorders (World Healthorganization [WHO], 1992, 1993), and the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association, 1994) have been adapted to the current clinical and scientific knowledge of mental disorders. Because ICD-10 has adapted the primarily descriptive and criteria-related approach from DSM-111, the general structures of both classifications are quite similar. However, complete congruency between ICD-10 and DSM-IV has not yet been reached.

Focus II: Is there agreement between DSM-IV and ICD-10?

Acta Neuropsychiatrica ◽

10.1017/s0924270800034724 ◽

1994 ◽

Vol 6 (4) ◽

pp. 66-68

Author(s):

M.J.A.J.M. Hoes

Keyword(s):

Mental Disorders ◽

American Psychiatric Association ◽

Statistical Manual ◽

Icd 10 ◽

Dsm Iv

Gedurende de laatste jaren zijn nieuwe edities van twee grote classificatiesystemen uitgebracht. De American Psychiatric Association heeft in 1994 de vierde editie van de Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) gepubliceerd en de Wereldgezondheids-organisatie in 1991 de tiende editie van de International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10). Van de laatste is hier het vijfde hoofdstuk (V of F) over psychische stoornissen van belang.Vergeleken met de DSM-III (-R) uit 1980 (1987) is de DSM-IV qua structuur niet veranderd. Vergeleken met de DSM-III-R zijn er wel quantitatieve verschillen: 105 veranderde categorieën op as-I, 3 veranderde op as-II, 9 nieuwe voorstellen voor klinische aandacht, 13 nieuwe diagnoses, terwijl 8 classificaties verwijderd zijn en as-IV anders is gestructureerd, naar type belasting in plaats van ernst van belastende factoren.

The borderline pattern descriptor in the International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision: A redundant addition to classification

Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry ◽

10.1177/0004867420951608 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 54 (11) ◽

pp. 1095-1100

Author(s):

Roger T Mulder ◽

L John Horwood ◽

Peter Tyrer

Keyword(s):

Personality Disorder ◽

Mental Disorders ◽

Borderline Personality ◽

Clinical Interview ◽

Statistical Manual ◽

Classification Of Diseases

Objective: The International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision classification of personality disorder removes all categories of disorder in favour of a single diagnostic spectrum extending from no personality dysfunction to severe personality disorder. Following concerns from some clinicians and Personality Disorder Societies, it was subsequently agreed to include a borderline pattern descriptor as a qualifier of the main diagnosis. We explore the value of this additional descriptor by examining personality data in patients with major depression. Method: We examined personality data obtained using the Structured Clinical Interview for Personality Disorder-II in 606 patients enrolled in five randomised controlled trials of depression. The Structured Clinical Interview for Personality Disorder-II uses the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders categorical system, which includes borderline personality disorder. The International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision classification has five domain traits. Each of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders personality disorder symptoms or behaviours from Structured Clinical Interview for Personality Disorder-II was reordered into the five domains independently by two assessors. The relationship between the two systems was examined by tabular and correlational analysis. Results: The findings showed that the symptoms of borderline personality disorder were associated with greater severity of personality disturbance in the International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision classification ( p < 0.0001) and were associated primarily with the Negative Affective, Dissocial and Disinhibited domains. There was only a weak association with the other two domains, Anankastia and Detachment. Conclusion: The addition of a borderline pattern descriptor is likely to add little to the International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision classification of personality disorder. Its features are well represented within the severity/domain structure, which allows for more fine-grained description of the personality features that constitute the borderline concept.

Integration of the ICD-11 and DSM-5 Dimensional Systems for Personality Disorders Into a Unified Taxonomy With Non-overlapping Traits

Frontiers in Psychiatry ◽

10.3389/fpsyt.2021.591934 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 12 ◽

Author(s):

Fernando Gutiérrez ◽

Josep M. Peri ◽

Miguel Gárriz ◽

Gemma Vall ◽

Estela Arqué ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Personality Disorder ◽

Discriminant Validity ◽

Correlation Coefficients ◽

Personality Inventory ◽

Diagnostic Categories ◽

Dsm 5 ◽

Classification Of Diseases

The promise of replacing the diagnostic categories of personality disorder with a better-grounded system has been only partially met. We still need to understand whether our main dimensional taxonomies, those of the International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision (ICD-11) and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), are the same or different, and elucidate whether a unified structure is possible. We also need truly independent pathological domains, as they have shown unacceptable overlap so far. To inquire into these points, the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) and the Personality Inventory for ICD-11 (PiCD) were administered to 677 outpatients. Disattenuated correlation coefficients between 0.84 and 0.93 revealed that both systems share four analogous traits: negative affectivity, detachment, dissociality/antagonism, and disinhibition. These traits proved scalar equivalence too, such that scores in the two questionnaires are roughly interchangeable. These four domains plus psychoticism formed a theoretically consistent and well-fitted five-factor structure, but they overlapped considerably, thereby reducing discriminant validity. Only after the extraction of a general personality disorder factor (g-PD) through bifactor analysis, we could attain a comprehensive model bearing mutually independent traits.