WHO considers further extension to ICD-11 development timeline

Post #275 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-3sc

Information in this report relates to the World Health Organization’s ICD-11, currently under development. It does not apply to the current ICD version (ICD-10) or to the forthcoming US specific “clinical modification” of ICD-10, known as ICD-10-CM.

Timeline slippage

Documents posted recently by the World Health Organization (WHO) indicate that ICD Revision is failing to meet development targets and a further extension to the ICD-11 timeline is under consideration.

ICD serves as the international health information standard for the collection, classification, processing and presentation of disease-related data in national and global health statistics.

The 10th edition (ICD-10) was adopted by the World Health Assembly in 1990.

The development process for the next edition (ICD-11) began in April 2007, with ICD-11 scheduled for dissemination by 2012 and the timelines for the development of ICD-11 and DSM-5 running more or less in parallel [1] [2].

Early on in the revision process, the ICD-11 dissemination date was extended. By 2009, the final draft was scheduled for World Health Assembly (WHA) approval in 2014. In order to be ready for global implementation in 2015, the technical work on ICD-11 would need to be completed by 2012 [3].

The WHA approval date was subsequently shunted from 2014 to 2015 – four years later than originally planned and the current, projected implementation date is 2016+.
+++

“…And just a small detail: who will do all this work?” [4]

ICD-11 is a very ambitious and under-resourced project. Given the scale of the undertaking, the technical complexity, the limited funding and human resources, the feasibility of the project reaching its targets by May 2015 has proved unrealistic.

I have written a number of times on this site that I did not envisage dissemination of ICD-11 by 2016 without some scaling back of the project’s scope – or an announcement, at some point this year, of a further extension to the timeline.

ICD-11 Revision Steering Group considers its options

WHO has recently posted a meeting materials document [5] and a slide presentation [6] which summarize, inter alia, ICD-11’s progress, current development status and timelines for finalization date and approval by WHO Governing Bodies.

ICD Revision is considering extending the timeline by up to a couple of years.

This 14 page document Committee for the Coordination of Statistical Activities, Twenty-second Session 4-6 September 2013, Items for discussion and decision: Item 8 of the provisional agenda can be downloaded here

or opened on Dx Revision WatchPDF: SA-2013-12-Add1-Health-WHO

It summarizes the status of the ICD Revision process under section headings:

1. Background: need and mandate
2. General organization structure of the multiple streams of work
3. Progress and current status
4. The remaining steps
5. Further maintenance of ICD after finalization
6. Timelines for the finalization date and approval by WHO Governing Bodies

Extracts from the document setting out the rationale and options for postponement of WHA Approval:

[…]

3. Progress and Current Status of ICD Revision:

[…]

BETA PHASE:

At this point in time, 1 September 2013, an ICD2013 Beta version has been produced for review purposes and field trials after 6 years of drafting phases.

The current ICD 2013 Beta version has relatively stable classification lists (i.e. linearizations) for Mortality and Morbidity recording. It will be reviewed by the specific Mortality Reference Group and the Morbidity Reference Group to see how well it fits the purpose and proposed transition from ICD‐10.

In addition, the Beta version has planned processes for:

(i) Systematic international scientific peer review
(ii) Submission of additional proposals from public groups and scientists
(iii) Conducting field trials for its applicability and reliability
(iv) Production support in multiple languages (translations) starting with WHO official languages
(v) Preparations for transitions from ICD‐10 to ICD‐11.

[…]

6. Timelines

The current ICD Revision Process timeline foresees that the ICD is submitted to the WHA in 2015 May and could then be implemented. Between now and 2015, there remains 20 months to conduct the remaining tasks summarized above as: 1. Reviews, 2. Additional Proposals, 3. Field Trials, 4. Translations, and 5. Transition Preparations.

Given the technical requirements these steps could be expedited in the next 20 months. The experience obtained thus far, however, suggests that this timeframe will be extremely tight for paying due diligence to the work especially in terms of: appropriate consultations with expert groups; communication and dissemination with stakeholders; and sufficient time for field testing in multiple countries and settings, and carrying out the resulting edits.

WHO Secretariat would like to discuss this with all stakeholders and evaluate the possible options:

a. Keep ICD submission to WHA to 2015 as originally planned and implementation / adoption date may be free by any Member State (current position – no change).

b. Postpone submission to WHA to a later year to allow longer time for field trials and other transition preparations.

[…]

In conclusion:

(a) WHO Secretariat could produce an ICD 2015 ready including Mortality and Morbidity Linearizations, Reference Guide and Index with the appropriate resolution to go to the World Health Assembly. This timeframe, however, is extremely tight for paying due diligence to the work especially in terms of: appropriate consultations with expert groups; and sufficient time for field testing in multiple countries and settings, and carrying out the resulting edits

(b) If the timeline is advanced to 2016, there will be more time to have ICD 2016 version with more translations and incorporations of some field tests results.

(c) If the timeline is advanced to 2017, ICD 2017 will be ready with most Field Test results incorporated and maintenance scheme tested.

[…]

If WHO/ICD-11 Revision Steering Group does elect to postpone submission for WHA approval until May 2017, dissemination of ICD-11 may not be scheduled before 2018.

Once approved and released, adoption of ICD-11 won’t happen overnight. It may take several years before WHO Member States adopt ICD-11. Low resource and developing countries may also take longer to prepare for and transition to the new edition.

Note for US readers: According to Page 3332 of DHSS Office of Secretary Final Rule document (Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations):

“…We [ICD-9-CM Coordination and Maintenance Committee] discussed waiting to adopt the ICD-11 code set in the August 22, 2008 proposed rule (73 FR 49805)…

“…However, work cannot begin on developing the necessary U.S. clinical modification to the ICD-11 diagnosis codes or the ICD-11 companion procedure codes until ICD-11 is officially released. Development and testing of a clinical modification to ICD-11 to make it usable in the United States will take an estimated additional 5 to 6 years. We estimated that the earliest projected date to begin rulemaking for implementation of a U.S. clinical modification of ICD-11 would be the year 2020.” [7]

This projection, in early 2009, would have been based on the assumption that ICD-11 was anticipated to be finalized and submitted for WHA Approval by 2014 (now potentially shifting to 2017).

An additional two year delay in the finalization of the ICD-11 code sets would likely impact on the development process for a clinical modification of ICD-11 for US specific use, kicking adaptation and implementation of an ICD-11-CM even further down the road.

+++
This slide presentation, below, was uploaded to Slideshare on September 9 by Dr Bedirhan Üstün, Coordinator, Classification, Terminology and Standards, World Health Organization, and also sets out the postponement options now under consideration:

Slide presentation: World Health Organization Classifications, Terminologies, Standards

ICD Revision: Quality Safety Meeting 2013 September 9-10

Where are we? What remains to be done? Shall we have ICD WHA submission in 2015 or later?

http://www.slideshare.net/ustunb/icd-2013-qs-tag-26027668

Slide 29:

Ustun 29rule

Slide 30:

Ustun 30rule

Slide 34:

Ustun 34rule

Slide 35: [WHA Approval – options under consideration]

Ustun 35rule
+++

References

1. Agenda Item No. 25: Revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) and Involvement of Psychology International Union of Psychological Science Committee on International Relations Action, March 28–30, 2008 IUPsyS Mar 08 Agenda Item 25 ICD-10

2. Letter Saxena, WHO, to Ritchie, IUPsyS (International Union for Psychological Science), August 2007 Exhibit 1 WHO Letter Aug 07

3. Dr Geoffrey Reed, Ph.D., May 2009, personal correspondence.

4. Closing remarks, PowerPoint presentation: “Proposal for the ICD Beta Platform”, Stanford team, 12.04.11, WHO, Geneva.

5. Committee for the Coordination of Statistical Activities, Twenty-second Session 4-6 September 2013, Items for discussion and decision: Item 8 of the provisional agenda, 3 September 2013 Full document in PDF format

6. Slide presentation: ICD Revision: Where are we? Bedirhan Ustun, World Health Organization Classifications, Terminologies, Standards, ICD Revision: Quality Safety Meeting 2013, September 9-10, 2013 http://www.slideshare.net/ustunb/icd-2013-qs-tag-26027668

7. DHSS Office of Secretary Final Rule document (Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations), Page 3332.

DSM-5 Somatic Symptoms Disorders work group publishes SSD field trial data

Post #272 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-3ke

Update: Somatic Symptom Disorder: An important change in DSM. is now published in the September 2013 issue, J Psychosom Res. A subscription or payment is required to access this paper.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23972410

J Psychosom Res. 2013 Sep;75(3):223-8. Epub 2013 Jul 25.
Dimsdale JE, Creed F, Escobar J, Sharpe M, Wulsin L, Barsky A, Lee S, Irwin MR, Levenson J.

DSM-5 Somatic Symptoms Disorders work group publishes SSD field trial data…behind a paywall

Reports on the findings of the DSM-5 field trials have been slow to emerge.

Kappa results trickled out in dribs and drabs; work group chairs presented limited field trial data at the APA’s 2012 Annual Meeting. There remains a paucity of information on field trial study protocols, patient selection, field test results and analysis.

This is of particular concern where radical changes to DSM-IV definitions and criteria were introduced into DSM-5 and are now out there in the field.

A good example is the new DSM-5 “Somatic Symptom Disorder” category, where there is no substantial body of evidence for the reliability, validity, prevalence, safety, acceptability and clinical utility of the implementation of this new disorder construct – though that did not stop them barrelling it through to the final draft.

In its paper, the SSD Work Group acknowledges the “small amount of validity data concerning SSD”; that much “remains to be determined” about the utility and reliability of the specific SSD criteria and its thresholds when applied in busy, general clinical practice and that there are “vital questions that must be answered” as they go forward.

They don’t sound any too confident about what they’ve barrelled through; but neither do they seem overly concerned.

With remarkable insouciance, SSD Work Group Chair, Joel E Dimsdale, told ABC journalist, Susan Donaldson James, “…If it doesn’t work, we’ll fix it in the DSM-5.1 or DSM-6.” (ABC News, February 27, 2013).

Cavia15The implementation of SSD in the DSM-5 is a Beta trial; the public – adults and children – unwitting guinea pigs.

Members of the DSM-5 Somatic Symptoms Disorders Work Group have just published a report – Somatic Symptom Disorder: An important change in DSM.

APA owns the output of the DSM-5 work groups but this report isn’t posted on the APA’s DSM-5 Development site or on the Field Trials or DSM-5 Resources pages.

It’s being published (currently In Press) in the Journal of Psychosomatic Research, for which DSM-5 SSD Work Group member, James Levenson, is a Co-Editor and for which SSD Work Group member, Francis Creed, a past Editor.

Unless you are a subscriber to JPS or have institution access you will need to cough up $30 to access this paper.

DSM-5 Task Force’s Regier and Kupfer have been banging on for years about how transparent the development process for this most recent iteration of the DSM has been. Yet reports on field trial findings and analysis of studies cited in support of the introduction of radical new constructs for DSM are stuffed behind paywalls.

Why are DSM-5 work group reports not being published on the DSM-5 Development website or other APA platforms or published in journals under Creative Commons Licenses, for ease of public accessibility, professional and consumer stakeholder scrutiny and discussion, and for accountability?

The development of ICD-11 is also being promoted by WHO’s Bedirhan Üstün as an open and transparent process.

But emerging proposals from the two working groups charged with making recommendations for revision of ICD-10′s Somatoform Disorders (the Primary Care Consultation Group, chaired by Prof Sir David Goldberg and the WHO Expert Working Group on Somatic Distress and Dissociative Disorders, chaired by Prof Oje Gureje) were also published, last year, in subscription journals and subject to those journals’ respective copyright restrictions [1] [2].

1. Lam TP et al. Proposed new diagnoses of anxious depression and bodily stress syndrome in ICD-11-PHC: an international focus group study. Fam Pract. 2013 Feb;30(1):76-87. [Abstract: PMID:22843638]
2. Creed F, Gureje O. Emerging themes in the revision of the classification of somatoform disorders. Int Rev Psychiatry 2012;24:556-67. [Abstract: PMID: 23244611]

Why are ICD-11 working group progress reports on emerging proposals for potential new ICD disorders and focus group study reports not being published on platforms accessible, without payment, to all classes of ICD stakeholder?

The SSD Work Group paper is authored by Joel E Dimsdale (Chair), Francis Creed, Javier Escobar, Michael Sharpe, Lawson Wulsin, Arthur Barsky, Sing Lee, Michael R. Irwin and James Levenson.

[Although not a member of the SSD Work Group, Javier Escobar is Task Force liaison to the SSD work group and works closely with the group. Francis J Keefe (not included in the paper’s authors) is a member of the SSD Work Group. Nancy Frasure-Smith (not included in the paper’s authors) served as a member of the Work Group from 2007-2011 and was not replaced following withdrawal.]

The paper describes the DSM-5 Work Group’s rationale for the new SSD diagnosis (which replaces four DSM-IV categories); defines the construct, discusses field trial kappa data (inter-rater reliability), presents limited data for validity of SSD, clinical utility and potential prevalence rates, and briefly discusses tasks for future research, education and clinical practice.

http://www.jpsychores.com/

July 2013, Vol. 75, No. 1

In Press

Somatic Symptom Disorder: An important change in DSM

29 July 2013

Joel E. Dimsdale, Francis Creed, Javier Escobar, Michael Sharpe, Lawson Wulsin, Arthur Barsky, Sing Lee, Michael R. Irwin, James Levenson

Received 4 April 2013; received in revised form 27 June 2013; accepted 29 June 2013. published online 29 July 2013.

Corrected Proof

doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2013.06.033

Abstract: http://www.jpsychores.com/article/S0022-3999(13)00265-1/abstract [Free]

Full text: http://www.jpsychores.com/article/S0022-3999(13)00265-1/fulltext  [Paywall]

References: http://www.jpsychores.com/article/PIIS0022399913002651/references  [Paywall]


Commentaries on Somatic Symptom Disorder in recent journal papers

In the June 2013 edition of Journal of Nervous and Mental Disorders, Allen Frances, MD, who chaired the Task Force for DSM-IV, discusses his concerns for the loosely defined DSM-5 category, Somatic Symptom Disorder, sets out his suggestions for revising the criteria prior to finalization, as presented to the SSD Work Group chair, in December 2012, and advises clinicians against using the new SSD diagnosis.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23719325

DSM-5 Somatic Symptom Disorder.

Frances A.

Department of Psychiatry, Duke University, Durham, NC.

J Nerv Ment Dis. 2013 Jun;201(6):530-1. doi: 10.1097/NMD.0b013e318294827c. No abstract available.

PMID: 23719325

+++

Commentary by Allen Frances, MD, and Suzy Chapman in the May 2012 issue of Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry. The paper discusses the over-inclusive DSM-5 Somatic Symptom Disorder criteria and the potential implications for diverse patient groups. The paper concludes by advising clinicians not to use the new SSD diagnosis.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23653063

DSM-5 somatic symptom disorder mislabels medical illness as mental disorder.

Allen Frances¹, Suzy Chapman²

1 Department of Psychiatry, Duke University 2 DxRevisionWatch.com

Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2013 May;47(5):483-4. doi: 10.1177/0004867413484525. No abstract available.

PMID: 23653063

+++

The April 22, 2013 edition of Current Biology published a feature article on DSM-5 by science writer, Michael Gross, Ph.D. The article includes quotes from Allen Frances, MD, and Suzy Chapman on potential implications for patients for the application of the new DSM-5 Somatic Symptom Disorder. The article includes concerns for the influence of Somatic Symptom Disorder on proposals for a new ICD category – Bodily Distress Disorder – being field tested for ICD-11.

Current Biology 22 April, 2013 Volume 23, Issue 8

Copyright 2013 All rights reserved. Current Biology, Volume  23, Issue  8, R295-R298, 22 April 2013

doi:10.1016/j.cub.2013.04.009

Feature

Has the manual gone mental?

Michael Gross

Full text: http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(13)00417-X

PDF: http://download.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/PIIS096098221300417X.pdf

+++

In a BMJ opinion piece, published March 2013, Allen Frances, MD, opposes the new Somatic Symptom Disorder, discusses lack of specificity, data from the field trials, and advises clinicians to ignore this new category.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23511949

The new somatic symptom disorder in DSM-5 risks mislabeling many people as mentally ill.

Frances A.

Allen Frances, chair of the DSM-IV task force

BMJ. 2013 Mar 18;346:f1580. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f1580. No abstract available.

PMID: 23511949

[PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

+++
Somatic Symptom Disorder is also included in Saving Normal: An Insider’s Revolt Against Out-Of-Control Psychiatric Diagnosis, DSM-5, Big Pharma, and the Medicalization of Ordinary Life (pp. 193-6): Allen Frances, William Morrow & Company (May 2013).

Also Essentials of Psychiatric Diagnosis: Responding to the Challenge of DSM-5 (Chapter 16): Allen Frances, Guilford Press (June 2013).

+++

Further reading

APA Somatic Symptom Disorder Fact Sheet APA DSM-5 Resources

Somatic Chapter Drops Centrality Of Unexplained Medical Symptoms Psychiatric News, Mark Moran, March 1, 2013

Somatic Symptoms Criteria in DSM-5 Improve Diagnosis, Care David J Kupfer, MD, Chair, DSM-5 Task Force, defends the SSD construct, Huffington Post, February 8, 2013

The new somatic symptom disorder in DSM-5 risks mislabeling many people as mentally ill Allen Frances, MD, BMJ 2013;346:f1580 BMJ Press Release

Somatic Symptom Disorder could capture millions more under mental health diagnosis Suzy Chapman, May 26, 2012

Mislabeling Medical Illness As Mental Disorder Allen Frances, MD, Psychology Today, DSM 5 in Distress, December 8, 2012

Why Did DSM 5 Botch Somatic Symptom Disorder? Allen Frances, MD, Psychology Today, Saving Normal, February 6, 2013

New Psych Disorder Could Mislabel Sick as Mentally Ill Susan Donaldson James, ABC News, February 27, 2013

Dimsdale JE. Medically unexplained symptoms: a treacherous foundation for somatoform disorders? Psychiatr Clin North Am 2011;34:511-3. [PMID: 21889675]

BDS, BDDs, BSS, BDD unscrambled

Post #268 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-3fA

BDS, BDDs, BSS, BDD and ICD-11, unscrambled

There are two WHO convened working groups charged with making recommendations for the revision of ICD-10’s Somatoform Disorders: the Primary Care Consultation Group (known as the PCCG) and the Expert Working Group on Somatic Distress and Dissociative Disorders (known as the S3DWG).

The revision of ICD-11 is being promoted as an open and transparent process. But to date, neither working group has published progress reports for stakeholder consumption and neither group has published its emerging proposals in public access journals.

Content populated in the public version of the ICD-11 Beta drafting platform sheds little light on proposals.

Consequently, there is considerable confusion around what is being recommended for the revision of ICD-10’s Somatoform Disorders, whether consensus between the two working groups has been reached, and what proposals will progress to field testing during the next two years.

ICD-11 Revision has been asked to clarify when it intends to define and characterize its current proposals within the Beta drafting platform.

The notes below set out some of what is known about the two working groups’ emerging proposals, how they diverge and how they compare with DSM-5’s Somatic Symptom Disorder and with Fink et al’s Bodily Distress Syndrome.

Caveat: the proposals of the two ICD-11 working groups may have undergone revision and refinement since emerging proposals were published, in July and December, last year; the two groups may or may not have reached consensus over how this proposed new ICD construct should be defined and characterized, its inclusions, exclusions and differential diagnoses, or what name it should be given.

What is Bodily Distress Syndrome (BDS)?

+++

Bodily Distress Syndrome is the name given to a disorder construct developed by Per Fink and colleagues, Aarhus University, that is already in use in Danish research studies and in clinical settings [1].

BDS is described by its authors as “a unifying diagnosis that encompasses a group of closely related conditions such as somatization disorder, fibromyalgia, irritable bowel syndrome and chronic fatigue syndrome.”

Per Fink and colleagues are lobbying for BDS to be integrated into forthcoming classification systems and adopted as a diagnosis by primary care practitioners.

Their proposal is for reclassifying somatoform disorders, pain disorder, neurasthenia and the so-called functional somatic syndromes, including fibromyalgia, irritable bowel syndrome and chronic fatigue syndrome, under a new classification, Bodily Distress Syndrome.

They consider these should be treated and managed as subtypes of the same disorder with CBT, GET, “mindfulness therapy” and in some cases, antidepressants.

The PDF format slide presentation in reference [2] will give an overview of BDS and there is more information and links in an earlier post, in reference [3].

Is Fink et al’s Bodily Distress Syndrome construct the same as DSM-5’s SSD?

+++

No, Bodily Distress Syndrome is a different construct to DSM-5’s Somatic Symptom Disorder.

Psychological or behavioural characteristics, central for the diagnosis of SSD, do not form part of the BDS criteria.

For BDS, physical symptoms are central to the diagnosis, which is based on identification of symptom patterns (not symptom count) from four body systems:

Cardiopulmonary/autonomic arousal; Gastrointestinal arousal; Musculoskeletal tension; General symptoms.

There is a “Modest” BDS (single-organ type) and a “Severe” BDS (multi-organ type).

If the symptoms are better explained by another disease, they cannot be labelled BDS.

The graphic below compares mutli-organ Bodily Distress Syndrome with Somatic Symptom Disorder, as the DSM-5 draft criteria had stood, in May 2012.

Note the defining characteristics of the DSM-5 SSD construct: the SSD definition calls for positive psychobehavioural characteristics (excessive or maladaptive responses or associated health concerns) in response to persistent distressing somatic symptoms; the requirement that the symptoms are “medically unexplained” is not central to the diagnosis and the symptoms may or may not be associated with a well-recognised medical condition.

The SSD diagnosis can be made in the presence of one or more unspecified, somatic symptoms associated with general medical conditions and diagnosed disease, like multiple sclerosis, cancer, diabetes or angina, or in the so-called “functional somatic syndromes” (for example, IBS, CFS or fibromyalgia) or in complaints with unclear etiology.

Compare Fink et al’s BDS with DSM-5’s SSD, in the table, below:

Depending on screen size/resolution, graphic may not display in full. Click on the image and the image file will load. Graphic: Suzy Chapman

Bodily Distress Syndrome comparison with Somtatic Symptom Disorder

Continued on Page 2

Update on ICD-11 Beta drafting: Bodily Distress Disorder: emerging proposals: Part One

Post #265 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-3cr

Update on ICD-11 Beta drafting: Bodily Distress Disorder: emerging proposals: Part One

This report should be read in conjunction with the caveats at the end of the post, on Page 3.

Part One

The technical work associated with the preparation of ICD-11, the field testing and trials evaluation will need to be completed next year if WHO is going to meet its target of presenting ICD-11 for World Health Assembly approval in May 2015, with pilot implementation by 2016.

Three distinct versions of the ICD-11 classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders are under development: an abridged version for use in primary care, a detailed version for use in specialty settings and a version for use in research.

The ICD-10 Somatoform Disorders are under revision for all three versions and the primary care and speciality versions are being developed simultaneously.

ICD10-PC, the abridged version of ICD, is used in developed and developing countries and in the training of medical officers, nurses and multi-purpose health workers. Globally, more than 90% of patients with mental health problems are managed by practitioners or health workers in general medical or primary care settings – not by psychiatrists.

Over 400 mental disorders are classified in the speciality version of ICD-10 Chapter V. These are condensed to 26 mental disorders for the primary care version – a list can be found on Page 49 of this book chapter, in Table 2.4.

Each disorder in ICD10-PC provides information on patient presentation, clinical descriptions, differential diagnoses, treatments, indications for referrals and information sheets for patients and families.

A revised list of disorders proposed for inclusion in the forthcoming ICD-11-PHC can be viewed on Page 51, in Table 2.5 [1].

For new and revised disorders included in the primary care version there will need to be an equivalent disorder in the core ICD-11 classification.

Existing Somatoform Disorders in the core ICD-10 version can be viewed here: ICD-10 Version: 2010 browser: Somatoform Disorders or from Page 129 in The ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders, Clinical descriptions and diagnostic guidelines.

A chart showing the grouping of the detailed core version categories and the 26 corresponding disorders in ICD10-PC can be found here, see Page 8, for F45 Unexplained somatic complaints and F45  Somatoform disorders (ICD-10): Connections between ICD-10 PC and ICD-10 Chapter V.

Where reports of emerging proposals for ICD-11 have been published by ICD revision working group members, the recommendations within them may be subject to refinement or revision following analysis of focus group studies, external review and multicentre field trials to assess the validity and clinical utility of proposals for application in developed and developing countries, in high and low resource settings and across general, speciality and research settings [2].

Not all proposals for new or revised disorders are expected to survive the field trials.

Two working groups are making recommendations for the revision of ICD-10’s Somatoform Disorders:

A WHO Primary Care Consultation Group (known as the PCCG) has been appointed to lead the development of the revision of ICD10-PC, the abridged classification of mental and behavioural disorders for use in primary care settings. The PCCG is charged with developing and field testing the full set of disorders for inclusion in ICD-11-PHC, for which 28 mental disorders are currently proposed.

The PCCG members are SWC Chan, AC Dowell, S Fortes, L Gask, KS Jacob, M Klinkman (Vice Chair), TP Lam, JK Mbatia, FA Minhas, G Reed, and M Rosendal. The PCCG is chaired by Prof, Sir David Goldberg.

A WHO Expert Working Group on Somatic Distress and Dissociative Disorders (known as the S3DWG) was constituted in 2011 to review the scientific evidence for, and clinical utility of the ICD-10 somatoform and dissociative disorders; to review proposals for the DSM-5 somatic symptom disorders and dissociative disorders categories and to consider their suitability or not for global applications; to review proposals and provide draft content for the somatic distress and dissociative disorder categories in line with the overall ICD revision requirements; to propose entities and descriptions for the classification of somatic distress and dissociative disorders for use in diverse global and primary care settings. External reviewers are also consulted on proposals and content.

The full S3DWG membership list is not publicly available but the group is understood to comprise 17 international behavioural health professionals, of which Prof Francis Creed is a member. The S3DWG is Chaired by Prof Oye Gureje.

Responsibilities of ICD-11 working groups are set out on Page 3 (1.1.) of document [3] in the References. Document [3] also includes information on the ICD-11 field trials, from Page 8 (4.).


1. Goldberg DP. Comparison Between ICD and DSM Diagnostic Systems for Mental Disorders. In: Sorel E, (Ed.) 21st Century Global Mental Health. Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2012: 37-53. Free PDF, Sample Chapter Two: http://samples.jbpub.com/9781449627874/Chapter2.pdf
2. PDF WHO ICD Revision Information Note, Field Testing, June 2012
3. Responsibilities of ICD-11 working groups set out on Page 3 of 2012 Annual Report of the International Union of Psychological Science to the American Psychological Association, Revision of World Health Organization’s ICD-10 Mental and Behavioural Disorders, Pierre L.-J. Ritchie, Ph.D., Main Representative to the World Health Organization, International Union of Psychological Science, January, 2013

Continued on Page 2

Psychologists’ perspectives on the diagnostic classification of mental disorders: Results from the WHO-IUPsyS Global Survey

Post #263 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-3dj

Psychologists’ perspectives on the diagnostic classification of mental disorders: Results from the WHO-IUPsyS Global Survey

Int J Psychol. 2013 Jun 10. [Epub ahead of print]

Psychologists’ perspectives on the diagnostic classification of mental disorders: Results from the WHO-IUPsyS Global Survey.

Evans SC, Reed GM, Roberts MC, Esparza P, Watts AD, Correia JM, Ritchie P, Maj M, Saxena S.
Source
a Clinical Child Psychology Program, University of Kansas, Lawrence , KS, USA.

Abstract

This study examined psychologists’ views and practices regarding diagnostic classification systems for mental and behavioral disorders so as to inform the development of the ICD-11 by the World Health Organization (WHO). WHO and the International Union of Psychological Science (IUPsyS) conducted a multilingual survey of 2155 psychologists from 23 countries, recruited through their national psychological associations. Sixty percent of global psychologists routinely used a formal classification system, with ICD-10 used most frequently by 51% and DSM-IV by 44%. Psychologists viewed informing treatment decisions and facilitating communication as the most important purposes of classification, and preferred flexible diagnostic guidelines to strict criteria. Clinicians favorably evaluated most diagnostic categories, but identified a number of problematic diagnoses. Substantial percentages reported problems with crosscultural applicability and cultural bias, especially among psychologists outside the USA and Europe. Findings underscore the priority of clinical utility and professional and cultural differences in international psychology. Implications for ICD-11 development and dissemination are discussed.

PMID: 23750927

[PubMed – as supplied by publisher]

+++

Slide Presentation: Aug 3, 2012

The WHO-IUPsyS Global Survey of Psychologists’ Attitudes Toward Mental Disorders Classification.

Download PDF WHO-IUPsyS Global Survey slides

+++
More information on this WHO study can be found on Page 7 (3.) of this report:

http://www.apa.org/international/outreach/icd-report-2012.pdf

2012 Annual Report of the International Union of Psychological Science to the American Psychological Association

Revision of World Health Organization’s ICD-10 Mental and Behavioural Disorders

Pierre L.-J. Ritchie, Ph.D., Main Representative to the World Health Organization, International Union of Psychological Science, January, 2013

Click link for PDF document    WHO-IUPsyS ICD Survey Report Report 2012

This report also sets out the responsibilities of ICD Revision working groups, on Page 3 (1.1), and gives some information on the field studies for ICD-11 and ICD11-PHC, on Page 8 (4.)

+++

The earlier study: WPA-WHO Global Survey of Psychiatrists’ Attitudes Towards Mental Disorders Classification can be downloaded here: 

The WPA-WHO Global Survey of Psychiatrists’ Attitudes Towards Mental Disorders Classification

World Psychiatry 2011;10:118-131

Research report

Geoffrey M Reed, João Mendonça Correia, Patricia Esparza, Shekhar Saxena, Mario Maj

+++

Somatic Symptom Disorder in recent journal papers

Post #261 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-3ah

Somatic Symptom Disorder in recent journal papers

Somatic Symptom Disorder is also included in Saving Normal: An Insider’s Revolt Against Out-Of-Control Psychiatric Diagnosis, Dsm-5, Big Pharma, and the Medicalization of Ordinary Life (pp. 193-6): Allen Frances, William Morrow & Company (20 May 2013).

Also in Essentials of Psychiatric Diagnosis: Responding to the Challenge of DSM-5 (Chapter 16): Allen Frances, Guilford Press (14 June 2013).

In the June edition of Journal of Nervous and Mental Disorders, Allen Frances, MD, who chaired the Task Force for DSM-IV, discusses his concerns for the loosely defined DSM-5 category, Somatic Symptom Disorder, sets out his suggestions for revising the criteria prior to finalization, as presented to the SSD Work Group chair, in December, and advises clinicians against using the new SSD diagnosis.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23719325

DSM-5 Somatic Symptom Disorder.

Frances A.

Department of Psychiatry, Duke University, Durham, NC.

J Nerv Ment Dis. 2013 Jun;201(6):530-1. doi: 10.1097/NMD.0b013e318294827c. No abstract available.

PMID: 23719325

[PubMed – in process]

+++

Commentary by Allen Frances, MD, and Suzy Chapman in the May issue of Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry. The paper discusses the over-inclusive DSM-5 Somatic Symptom Disorder criteria and the potential implications for diverse patient groups. The paper concludes by advising clinicians not to use the new SSD diagnosis.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23653063

DSM-5 somatic symptom disorder mislabels medical illness as mental disorder.

Allen Frances¹, Suzy Chapman²

1 Department of Psychiatry, Duke University 2 DxRevisionWatch.com

Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2013 May;47(5):483-4. doi: 10.1177/0004867413484525. No abstract available.

PMID: 23653063

[PubMed – in process]

+++

The April 22 edition of Current Biology published a feature article on DSM-5 by science writer, Michael Gross, Ph.D. The article includes quotes from Allen Frances, MD, and Suzy Chapman on the implications for patients for the application of the new DSM-5 Somatic Symptom Disorder. The article includes concerns for the influence of Somatic Symptom Disorder on proposals for a new ICD category – Bodily Distress Disorder – being field tested for ICD-11 and ICD-11-PHC.

Current Biology 22 April, 2013 Volume 23, Issue 8

Copyright 2013 All rights reserved. Current Biology, Volume  23, Issue  8, R295-R298, 22 April 2013

doi:10.1016/j.cub.2013.04.009

Feature

Has the manual gone mental?

Michael Gross

Full text: http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(13)00417-X

PDF: http://download.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/PIIS096098221300417X.pdf

+++

In this opinion piece, published in the BMJ, March 18, Allen Frances, MD, strongly opposes the new Somatic Symptom Disorder, discusses its lack of specificity, data from the field trials and advises clinicians to ignore this new category.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23511949

The new somatic symptom disorder in DSM-5 risks mislabeling many people as mentally ill.

Frances A.

Allen Frances, chair of the DSM-IV task force

BMJ. 2013 Mar 18;346:f1580. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f1580. No abstract available.

PMID: 23511949

[PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

+++

Further reading

APA Somatic Symptom Disorder Fact Sheet APA DSM-5 Resources

Somatic Chapter Drops Centrality Of Unexplained Medical Symptoms Psychiatric News, Mark Moran, March 1, 2013

Somatic Symptoms Criteria in DSM-5 Improve Diagnosis, Care David J Kupfer, MD, Chair, DSM-5 Task Force, defends the SSD construct, Huffington Post, February 8, 2013

The new somatic symptom disorder in DSM-5 risks mislabeling many people as mentally ill Allen Frances, MD, BMJ 2013;346:f1580 BMJ Press Release

Somatic Symptom Disorder could capture millions more under mental health diagnosis Suzy Chapman, May 26, 2012

Mislabeling Medical Illness As Mental Disorder Allen Frances, MD, Psychology Today, DSM 5 in Distress, December 8, 2012

Why Did DSM 5 Botch Somatic Symptom Disorder? Allen Frances, MD, Psychology Today, Saving Normal, February 6, 2013

New Psych Disorder Could Mislabel Sick as Mentally Ill Susan Donaldson James, ABC News, February 27, 2013

Dimsdale JE. Medically unexplained symptoms: a treacherous foundation for somatoform disorders? Psychiatr Clin North Am 2011;34:511-3. [PMID: 21889675]