Clinical Utility of ICD-11 Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Requirements for the Classification of Mental, Behavioral or Neurodevelopmental Disorders: A Systematic Review.
Luis Hualparuca-Olivera, Tomás Caycho-Rodríguez, Julio Torales, Cristian Ramos-Vera, Elsa Vigo-Ayasta, Antonio Ventriglio
{"title":"Clinical Utility of ICD-11 Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Requirements for the Classification of Mental, Behavioral or Neurodevelopmental Disorders: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Luis Hualparuca-Olivera, Tomás Caycho-Rodríguez, Julio Torales, Cristian Ramos-Vera, Elsa Vigo-Ayasta, Antonio Ventriglio","doi":"10.1177/00332941251335596","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Case-controlled field studies, ecological implementation field studies, and qualitative or mixed methodology studies have been conducted to evaluate the clinical utility of the ICD-11 clinical descriptions and diagnostic requirements (ICD-11 CDDR) for the diagnosis of mental disorders. This systematic review sought to analyze and synthesize the clinical utility indices of these guidelines from the perspectives of mental health professionals (MHPs) and patients from different regions of the world. A systematic search was carried out in five databases Science Direct, Google Scholar, PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus. The relevant studies were subjected to explicit eligibility criteria, resulting in 19 included studies. The study characteristics were tabulated, methodological quality was assessed, and findings were summarized using convergent narrative synthesis. The overall findings indicated that the clinical utility of the ICD-11 CDDR was positive for the majority of studies (78.95%) that analyzed a wide range of mental disorders. Analyses at the level of the disorder groups also revealed the same trend. Almost only qualitative or mixed studies have identified negative aspects or obstacles of this diagnostic system. The clinical utility of the ICD-11 CDDR for the diagnosis of mental disorders is supported. Future research could resolve concerns regarding the isolated negative outcomes of ICD-11 CDDR performance. Finally, it is necessary to expand the scope of the training programs for MHPs and policymakers regarding the use of these guidelines in clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":21149,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Reports","volume":" ","pages":"332941251335596"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Reports","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941251335596","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Case-controlled field studies, ecological implementation field studies, and qualitative or mixed methodology studies have been conducted to evaluate the clinical utility of the ICD-11 clinical descriptions and diagnostic requirements (ICD-11 CDDR) for the diagnosis of mental disorders. This systematic review sought to analyze and synthesize the clinical utility indices of these guidelines from the perspectives of mental health professionals (MHPs) and patients from different regions of the world. A systematic search was carried out in five databases Science Direct, Google Scholar, PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus. The relevant studies were subjected to explicit eligibility criteria, resulting in 19 included studies. The study characteristics were tabulated, methodological quality was assessed, and findings were summarized using convergent narrative synthesis. The overall findings indicated that the clinical utility of the ICD-11 CDDR was positive for the majority of studies (78.95%) that analyzed a wide range of mental disorders. Analyses at the level of the disorder groups also revealed the same trend. Almost only qualitative or mixed studies have identified negative aspects or obstacles of this diagnostic system. The clinical utility of the ICD-11 CDDR for the diagnosis of mental disorders is supported. Future research could resolve concerns regarding the isolated negative outcomes of ICD-11 CDDR performance. Finally, it is necessary to expand the scope of the training programs for MHPs and policymakers regarding the use of these guidelines in clinical practice.