Produção Nacional
Revisado por pares
Mental Health Professionals’ Natural Taxonomies of Mental Disorders: Implications for the Clinical Utility of the ICD‐11 and the DSM‐5
2013; Wiley; Volume: 69; Issue: 12 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1002/jclp.22031
ISSN1097-4679
AutoresGeoffrey M. Reed, Michael C. Roberts, Jared W. Keeley, Catherine Hooppell, Chihiro Matsumoto, Pratap Sharan, Rebeca Robles, Hudson W. de Carvalho, Chunyan Wu, Oye Gureje, Itzear Leal‐Leturia, Elizabeth H. Flanagan, João Correia, Toshimasa Maruta, José Luís Ayuso‐Mateos, Jair de Jesus Mari, Zeping Xiao, Spencer C. Evans, Shekhar Saxena, María Elena Medina‐Mora,
Tópico(s)Schizophrenia research and treatment
ResumoObjective To examine the conceptualizations held by psychiatrists and psychologists around the world of the relationships among mental disorders in order to inform decisions about the structure of the classification of mental and behavioral disorders in World Health Organization's International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 11th Revision (ICD‐11). Method 517 mental health professionals in 8 countries sorted 60 cards containing the names of mental disorders into groups of similar disorders, and then formed a hierarchical structure by aggregating and disaggregating these groupings. Distance matrices were created from the sorting data and used in cluster and correlation analyses. Results Clinicians’ taxonomies were rational, interpretable, and extremely stable across countries, diagnostic system used, and profession. Clinicians’ consensus classification structure was different from ICD‐10 and the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 4th Edition (DSM‐IV), but in many respects consistent with ICD‐11 proposals. Conclusions The clinical utility of the ICD‐11 may be improved by making its structure more compatible with the common conceptual organization of mental disorders observed across diverse global clinicians.
Referência(s)