Mental health professionals' perceived clinical utility of the ICD-10 vs. ICD-11 classification of personality disorders

Self-Reported ICD-11 Personality Disorder Severity in Peruvian Adolescents: Structure, Validity, and Tentative Cutoffs

Personality disorder (PD) is particularly common in adolescents, which underscores the significance of early screening, diagnosis, and intervention. To date, the definition of PD in the new ICD-11 has not yet been investigated in adolescents. This study therefore aimed to investigate the unidimensionality and criterion validity of self-reported ICD-11 PD features in Peruvian adolescents using the Personality Disorder Severity ICD-11 (PDS-ICD-11) scale. A total of 1,073 students (63% female; age range 12-16 years) were administered the PDS-ICD-11 scale along with criterion measures of personality pathology and symptom distress. The PDS-ICD-11 score showed adequate unidimensionality and conceptually meaningful associations with external criterion variables. The findings indicate that ICD-11 PD features, as measured with the PDS-ICD-11 scale, are structurally and conceptually sound when employed with adolescents. Norm-based cutoffs derived from the present study may be used for clinical interpretation. The PDS-ICD-11 may be employed as an efficient screening tool for personality dysfunction in adolescents.

The sensitivity of the ICD-11 trait model to the symptoms of clinical disorders in young adults

Hierarchical psychopathology contributes to providing a broader picture of the links between emerging personality structures such as the DSM-5/ICD-11 trait models and clinical disorders. The present study aimed to predict the specific and general clinical symptoms by the less studied constructs of the ICD-11 model (negative affectivity, detachment, dissociality, disinhibition, and anankastia). Data from 642 young adults from Iran (63% female, 18-34 years) were collected by three mental symptom scales and the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5), which was recently used to harmonize the constructs of the DSM-5 and ICD-11 trait models. Multiple linear regressions showed that the ICD-11 model significantly predicted both the specific clinical symptoms (ranging from R2 = 0.15 to 0.40) and the general factor of clinical symptoms extracted by exploratory factor analysis (R2 = 0.40, all p < 0.001). Negative affectivity was the strongest construct correlated with both the specific symptoms (ranging from β = 0.36 to 0.69) and the general symptom factor (β = 0.59, all p < 0.001). Because the ICD-11 trait model is a practical structure related to the clinical psychopathology in young adults, screening for maladaptive traits can help clinicians in case formulation for diagnosis and treatment.

Practical implications of ICD-11 personality disorder classifications

Personality disorders (PDs) are associated with an inferior quality of life, poor health, and premature mortality, leading to heavy clinical, familial, and societal burdens. The International Classification of Diseases-11 (ICD-11) makes a thorough, dramatic paradigm shift from the categorical to dimensional diagnosis of PD and expands the application into adolescence. We have reviewed the recent literature on practical implications, and severity and trait measures of ICD-11 defined PDs, by comparing with the alternative model of personality disorders in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), by mentioning the relevance in forensic and social concerns, and by referencing the developmental implication of life span, especially in adolescence. Study results strongly support the dimensional utility of ICD-11 PD diagnosis and application in adolescence which warrants early detection and intervention. More evidence-based research is needed along the ICD-11 PD application, such as its social relevance, measurement simplification, and longitudinal design of lifespan observation and treatment.

ICD-11 personality disorder features in the danish general population: Cut-offs and prevalence rates for severity levels

INTRODUCTION

Prevalence rates and correlates of personality disorders (PD) are relevant to health care policy and planning.

OBJECTIVES

To present normative data for self-reported ICD-11 personality disorder (PD) features including tentative cut-off scores and prevalence rates for severity levels along with psychosocial correlates.

METHODS

The Personality Disorder Severity ICD-11 (PDS-ICD-11) scale and criterion measures of impairment were administered to a social-demographically stratified sample of Danish citizens (N = 8,941) of which 3,044 delivered complete data. Item-Response Theory (IRT) was employed to indicate cut-offs based on standard deviations from the latent mean.

RESULTS

The unidimensionality of the PDS-ICD-11 score was supported and IRT analysis suggested norm-based thresholds at latent severity levels. Expected associations with criterion measures were found.

CONCLUSION

The normative data portray ICD-11 PD features in the general population and allow for interpretation of PDS-ICD-11 scores (e.g., scores of 12, 16, and 19 may indicate mild, moderate, and severe dysfunction), which may inform health care policy and planning. A total weighted prevalence of 6.9 % of the Danish general population is estimated to have clinically significant personality dysfunction, proportionally composed of Mild (4.8 %), Moderate (1.2 %), and Severe (0.9 %) levels. Future research should corroborate these findings using relevant clinical samples and methods.

New Zealand (Aotearoa) clinicians' perspectives on the utility of the ICD-11 personality disorder diagnosis

The ICD-11 has now taken effect and includes a new dimensional personality disorder (PD) diagnosis. The current study aimed to examine Aotearoa/New Zealand practitioners' perceptions of the clinical utility of the new PD system. A sample of 124 psychologists and psychiatrists completed a survey, applying the DSM-5 and ICD-11 PD diagnostic systems to a current patient, and completed clinical utility metrics on the DSM-5 and ICD-11 models. Additional open-ended questions further elicited clinicians' perceptions of the strengths, weaknesses and potential application issues of the ICD-11 PD diagnosis, and these responses were analysed through thematic analysis. Overall, the ICD-11 system was rated higher than the DSM-5 on all six clinical metrics, with no significant difference between psychologists' and psychiatrists' ratings. Five themes emerged: appreciation for an alternative to DSM-5, structural barriers preventing ICD-11 PD implementation, personal barriers to ICD-11 implementation, diagnoses viewed as low utility, clinician preference for formulation and cultural safety considerations for implementation of ICD-11 PD in Aotearoa/NZ. Overall, clinicians had positive opinions of the clinical utility of the ICD-11 PD diagnosis, although expressed some concerns about its implementation. The study expands upon initial evidence that mental health practitioners have generally positive perceptions of the ICD-11 PDs' clinical utility.

A Consumer Perspective on Personality Diagnostic Systems: One Size Does Not Fit All

Although providers and patients may largely agree on what is essential to clinically useful assessment and diagnosis, patients have a unique voice and contribute additional information to our conceptualization of clinical utility. The current study evaluated the clinical utility of three diagnostic models (Section II categorial, Section III hybrid, and the original ICD-11 dimensional) from the consumer/user perspective. Participants included 703 undergraduate students and 154 family members or individuals with borderline personality disorder. Participants rated mock diagnostic reports on six indices of clinical utility. Results indicated that undergraduates favored categorical reports over the original ICD-11 dimensional reports on three of six indices but rated categorical and hybrid reports as essentially equivalent. In the patient/family sample, participants favored the hybrid or categorical model on all indices. Our findings speak to the value of a clear diagnostic label and suggest that future iterations of the DSM adopting a hybrid or dimensional model should have a continued focus on simplicity in communication.

A Bridge Between DSM-5 Section II Personality Disorder Criteria and ICD-11 Personality Disorder Trait Domains

The organization of personality pathology into trait domains (vs. specific disorders) in ICD-11 represents an important shift in personality disorder (PD) nosology. However, to facilitate clinical implementation, a bridge is needed between this system and the DSM-5 Section II system familiar to many researchers and clinicians. In this study, individual DSM-5 PD criteria were assigned to ICD-11 trait domains based on the published Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Requirements. This scoring scheme was examined empirically alongside DSM-5 PD dimensions (using SIDP ratings from the MIDAS project; N = 2,147 outpatients) in terms of descriptive properties and relations with psychosocial morbidity and functioning. Most PD criteria could be matched to at least one ICD-11 trait domain, indicating considerable cross-system continuity. However, points of incongruity are noteworthy for research and clinical applications. Results provide key information for bridging categorical and dimensional frameworks, indicating that the shift toward trait-based PD models need not be as disruptive as feared.

Dimensional models of personality disorders: Challenges and opportunities

Categorical models of personality disorders have been beneficial throughout psychiatric history, providing a mechanism for organizing and communicating research and treatment. However, the view that individuals with personality disorders are qualitatively distinct from the general population is no longer tenable. This perspective has amassed steady criticism, ranging from inconsequential to irreconcilable. In response, stronger evidence has been accumulated in support of a dimensional perspective that unifies normal and pathological personality on underlying trait continua. Contemporary nosology has largely shifted toward this dimensional perspective, yet broader adoption within public lexicon and routine clinical practice appears slow. This review focuses on challenges and the related opportunities of moving toward dimensional models in personality disorder research and practice. First, we highlight the need for ongoing development of a broader array of measurement methods, ideally facilitating multimethod assessments that reduce biases associated with any single methodology. These efforts should also include measurement across both poles of each trait, intensive longitudinal studies, and more deeply considering social desirability. Second, wider communication and training in dimensional approaches is needed for individuals working in mental health. This will require clear demonstrations of incremental treatment efficacy and structured public health rebates. Third, we should embrace cultural and geographic diversity, and investigate how unifying humanity may reduce the stigma and shame currently generated by arbitrarily labeling an individual's personality as normal or abnormal. This review aims to organize ongoing research efforts toward broader and routine usage of dimensional perspectives within research and clinical spaces.

Personality Disorder Diagnoses in ICD-11: Transforming Conceptualisations and Practice

Background

Until the advent of the ICD-11, classification of personality disorders was based on categorical prototypes with a long history. These prototypes, whilst familiar, were not based in the science of personality. Prototypical classifications were also complex to administer in non-specialist settings requiring knowledge of many signs and symptoms.

Method

This article introduces the new structure of ICD-11 for personality disorders, describing the different severity levels and trait domain specifiers. Case studies illustrate the main aspects of the classification.

Results

The new ICD-11 system acknowledges the fundamentally dimensional nature of personality and its disturbances whilst requiring clinicians to make categorical decisions on the presence or absence of personality disorder and severity (mild, moderate or severe). The connection between normal personality functioning and personality disorder is established by identifying five trait domain specifiers to describe the pattern of a person's personality disturbance (negative affectivity, detachment, dissociality, disinhibition, and anankastia) that connect to the Big 5 personality traits established in the broader study of personality.

Conclusions

Whilst new assessment measures have been and are in development, the success of the new system will rely on clinicians and researchers embracing the new system to conceptualise and describe personality disturbances and to utilise the classification in the investigation of treatment outcome.

Female Narcissism: Assessment, Aetiology, and Behavioural Manifestations

Despite putative gender differences in the expression of narcissism, prominent theories have virtually dismissed the role of females in the development and manifestation of narcissism. The contention that narcissism is a pathology of the self that may partly differ in males and females is further evident in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). The DSM-5 reports that up to 75% of those diagnosed with Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) are men. Such figures suggest that the representation of narcissism as codified in the DSM-5 may only be marginally applicable to females, given its prominent focus and nature on capturing grandiose themes which closely resemble commonly masculine norms. The overemphasis on grandiose features extends to the empirical literature which defines narcissism as a normative personality trait and is widely assessed using the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI), on which males obtain significantly higher scores than females. As this review will demonstrate, one limitation frequently occurring in the literature is the attempt to comprehend narcissistic manifestations in females through the lens of what has commonly been defined as narcissism (DSM/NPI). In this review, the literature concerning the diagnostic assessment and conceptualisation of narcissistic personality disorder, aetiological factors, aggression, and partner violence perpetration will be discussed in relation to the importance of gender. This is followed by a review of existing gaps in theory and research, and suggestions for fruitful directions that can aid a richer and more meaningful literature on narcissism inclusive of gender issues.

Organization of Clinician-Rated Personality Disorder Types According to ICD-11 Severity of Personality Dysfunction

Objective: The International Classification of Diseases, 11th edition (ICD-11) model of personality disorders (PD) allows clinicians to classify personality dysfunction according to four levels of severity. This approach is partially inspired by Kernberg's levels of personality organization, in which various PD types are organized according to their level of severity. This study sought to investigate whether the established ICD-10 PD categories can be organized according to the four levels of ICD-11 PD severity, and to what extent this organization aligns with Kernberg's four levels of personality organization. Method: A sample of 247 patients were rated by their mental health professionals according to ICD-10 PD categories and ICD-11 PD severity levels. Results: The frequencies of ICD-10 PDs on the different ICD-11 PD severity levels were generally found to be consistent with Kernberg's model. Accordingly, borderline and antisocial PDs predominantly occurred at the most severe levels, whereas anankastic, avoidant, and dependent PDs typically occurred at the milder levels. Only paranoid and histrionic PDs were less consistent with Kernberg's model. Conclusions: The findings indicate that the new ICD-11 PD severity dimension largely aligns with Kernberg's model of personality functioning with respect to the organization of PD types. Clinicians may therefore conceptualize familiar PD types in terms of their ICD-11 PD severity and vice versa.

Clinical Implications of ICD-11 for Diagnosing and Treating Personality Disorders

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The International Classification of Diseases 11th revision (ICD-11) introduced a new approach to personality disorders and related traits. This paper reviews recent literature on the assessment of ICD-11 personality disorders and implications for clinical diagnosis, decision-making, and treatment.

RECENT FINDINGS

We reviewed findings on two measures developed for the ICD-11 model of personality dysfunction and six inventories for the ICD-11 trait specifiers. The psychometric qualities of these tools are promising, and they allow for both rapid screening and fine-grained assessment. Implications for clinical diagnosis and treatment of personality disorders are reviewed including utility for forensic practice. Based on evidence and our experience, we provide some recommendations for severity- and trait-informed interventions. Initial evidence supports the available instruments for assessing ICD-11 personality disorders. More research is needed including development of clinician-rating forms and diagnostic interviews as well as treatment protocols and trials based on the new ICD-11 classification.

The ICD-11 classification of personality disorders: a European perspective on challenges and opportunities

The 11th revision of the World Health Organization (WHO) International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) includes a fundamentally new approach to Personality Disorders (PD). ICD-11 is expected to be implemented first in European countries before other WHO member states. The present paper provides an overview of this new ICD-11 model including PD severity classification, trait domain specifiers, and the additional borderline pattern specifier. We discuss the perceived challenges and opportunities of using the ICD-11 approach with particular focus on its continuity and discontinuity with familiar PD categories such as avoidant PD and narcissistic PD. The advent of the ICD-11 PD classification involves major changes for health care workers, researchers, administrators, and service providers as well as patients and families involved. The anticipated challenges and opportunities are put forward in terms of specific unanswered questions. It is our hope that these questions will stimulate further research and discussion among researchers and clinicians in the coming years.

Prevalence and 10-Year Stability of Personality Disorders From Adolescence to Young Adulthood in a High-Risk Sample

Background

With the implementation of the 11th edition of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) in early 2022, there will be a radical change in the framework and process for diagnosing personality disorders (PDs), indicating a transition from the categorical to the dimensional model. Despite increasing evidence that PDs are not as stable as previously assumed, the long-term stability of PDs remains under major debate. The aim of the current paper was to investigate the categorical and dimensional mean-level and rank-order stability of PDs from adolescence into young adulthood in a high-risk sample.

Methods

In total, 115 young adults with a history of residential child welfare and juvenile-justice placements in Switzerland were included in the current study. PDs were assessed at baseline and at a 10-year follow-up. On a categorical level, mean-level stability was assessed through the proportion of enduring cases from baseline to follow-up. Rank-order stability was assessed through Cohen's κ and tetrachoric correlation coefficients. On a dimensional level, the magnitude of change between the PD trait scores at baseline and at follow-up was measured by Cohen's d. Rank-order stability was assessed through Spearman's ρ.

Results

The prevalence rate for any PD was 20.0% at baseline and 30.4% at follow-up. The most frequently diagnosed disorders were antisocial, borderline, and obsessive-compulsive PDs, both at baseline and at follow-up. On a categorical level, the mean-level stability of any PD was only moderate, and the mean-level stability of specific PDs was low, except of schizoid PD. Likewise, the rank-order stability of any PD category was moderate, while ranging from low to high for individual PD diagnoses. On a dimensional level, scores increased significantly for most PDs, except for histrionic traits, which decreased significantly from baseline to follow-up. Effect sizes were generally low. The rank-order stability for dimensional scores ranged from low to moderate.

Conclusion

The findings indicate low to moderate stability of Pds and Pd traits from adolescence to adulthood, which supports the growing evidence that categorical diagnoses of Pds are quite unstable. This in turn, emphasizes the use of the upcoming ICD-11 that Acknowledgments Pds to be only "relatively" stable.

Client and Clinical Utility of the Assessment of Personality Disorders

ABSTRACT

Clinical utility and client utility are important desirable properties when developing and evaluating a new classification system for mental disorders. This study reports on four focus groups followed up by a Delphi study among clinicians working with clients with personality disorders (PD) and clients with PD themselves to harness both user groups' perspectives on the utility of PD diagnosis. Our findings show that the client and clinician views of the concept of utility were closely aligned and include aspects of transparency of communication and the ability of an assessment to enhance hope, curiosity, motivation, and insight into a client's personality patterns. Unique to clinicians' appraisal was the ability of an assessment to capture both vulnerabilities and resilience of clients and to give information about the prognosis in treatment. Unique to clients' appraisal was the ability of an assessment to be destigmatizing and collaborative. These findings may serve to expand our definition and measurement of clinical utility, in that collaborative and nonstigmatizing procedures likely promote client acceptability. To capture both aspects, we offer two preliminary questionnaires (i.e., item sets open to further empirical testing) based on the data derived from the Delphi procedure.

The clinical utility of the ICD-11 classification of personality disorders and related traits: A preliminary scoping review

OBJECTIVES

A diagnostic system that fails to deliver clinically useful information will not be utilized and consequently will be unable to provide valuable data for health policy and clinical decision making. Therefore, it is imperative to obtain an accurate depiction of the clinical utility of the eleventh revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) Personality Disorder (PD) model. The current mixed-methods systematic review aimed to determine the clinical utility of the ICD-11 PD classification system.

METHOD

An electronic screening of six databases was conducted and resulting studies were subjected to specific exclusion criteria, which elicited eight studies of interest. Study characteristics were tabulated and methodological quality was appraised.

RESULTS

Four studies offered strong support for the model's clinical utility, three offered some support accompanied by notable limitations and one study could only offer criticisms.

CONCLUSION

Future investigation of the ICD-11 PD classification system's (a) communicative value between clinicians and their patients, and between clinicians and their patient's families; (b) ease of use; and (c) feasibility in terms of practical application is required to achieve a complete understanding of its clinical utility and ultimately bring clarity to the current ambiguous findings.

Change in the Definition of Personality Disorder in Transition to ICD-11: A Look from Clinical and Developmental Perspectives

The recent body of research reveals fundamental limitations to the categorical concept of a personality disorder that has led researchers to adopt a new personality disorder concept. During the last decade DSM-5 and ICD-11 diagnostic classifications have accepted the dimensional view towards personality pathology. Despite the differences between the two classifications, the joint aspect of both models is the construct of Levels of personality functioning. The construct of personality functioning involves personality (dys)function in the self and interpersonal domains. This two-step conceptualization includes (a) impairments of self and interpersonal functioning, indicating general signs and severity of personality disorder, and (b) pathological personality traits, reflecting ‘stylistic’ differences in the expression of personality disorder. The new conceptualization of personality disorder reflects the innovative multi-theoretical integration of known, empirically-based personality assessment paradigms. The relationship between personality functioning and interpersonal, psychodynamic, and personological paradigms provides the theoretical integrity and empirically-based structure necessary to understand the overall severity of personality pathology. Many methods (interviews, self-assessment scales, and questionnaires) have already been developed for the assessment of personality functioning, and their development will be encouraged by the ICD-11 classification established in 2022. At present, only one instrument has been developed in Lithuania for assessing the level of personality functioning in young people aged 12–18 (Barkauskienė & Skabeikytė, 2020). The empirical data about the validity of this construct and its capability to differentiate between the normal and impaired personality in adults and adolescents provide promising results, but are still accumulating. Research suggests that adolescence is a stage in development when personality pathology can fully unfold and be validly confirmed, which opens up opportunities for early intervention. Although the dimensional personality disorder model needs to further prove its importance, there is already evidence that it is less stigmatizing and returns psychology and personality into the concept of a personality disorder. This review presents changes in the conceptualization of personality disorders by discussing them from both clinical and developmental perspectives and highlighting the results of key research in recent years.

Development and initial evaluation of the ICD-11 personality disorder severity scale: PDS-ICD-11

AIM

No measure has formally been developed to assess the published ICD-11 model of Personality Disorder (PD) severity. We therefore set out to develop and evaluate the 14-item Personality Disorder Severity ICD-11 (PDS-ICD-11) scale.

METHOD

A representative U.S. community sample (N = 428; 50.9% women) and a New Zealand mental health sample (N = 87; 61.5% women) completed the PDS-ICD-11 scale along with a series of established PD and impairment measures.

RESULTS

Item response theory supported the unidimensionality of PDS-ICD-11 (median item loading of 0.68) and indicated that a PDS-ICD-11 score of 17.5 may serve as a benchmark for pronounced dysfunction. Correlation and regression analyses supported both criterion validity and incremental validity in predicting impairment and PD symptoms. The PDS-ICD-11 was particularly associated with measures of Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS), Global PD severity, and Borderline PD symptom score. A comparison between clinical individuals diagnosed with an ICD-11 PD vs. no PD supported diagnostic validity.

CONCLUSION

This initial construction study suggests that the PDS-ICD-11 constitutes a promising instrument that provides a quick impression of the severity of personality dysfunction according to the official ICD-11 PD guidelines. Clearly, more research is needed to corroborate its validity and utility. The PDS-ICD-11 scale is provided as online supporting information.

Changes from ICD-10 to ICD-11 and future directions in psychiatric classification

This article provides a brief overview of the changes from ICD-10 to ICD-11 regarding the classification of mental, behavioral, or neurodevelopmental disorders. These changes include a new chapter structure, new diagnostic categories, changes in diagnostic criteria, and steps towards dimensionality. Additionally, we review evaluative field studies of ICD-11, which provide preliminary evidence for higher reliability and clinical utility of ICD-11 compared with ICD-10. Despite the extensive revision process, changes from ICD-10 to ICD-11 were relatively modest in that both systems are categorical, classifying mental phenomena based on self-reported or clinically observable symptoms. Other recent approaches to psychiatric nosology and classification (eg, neurobiology-based or hierarchical) are discussed. To meet the needs of different user groups, we propose expanding the stepwise approach to diagnosis introduced for some diagnostic categories in ICD-11, which includes categorical and dimensional elements.


Personality Assessment Questionnaire for ICD-11 personality trait domains: Development and testing

BACKGROUND

We aimed to develop a questionnaire suitable for the assessment of trait domains in the forthcoming International Classification of Diseases 11th Revision (ICD-11). This questionnaire, the Personality Assessment Questionnaire for ICD-11 (PAQ-11) personality trait domains, was intended as a short and reliable self-report measure.

METHOD

The initial items were derived from the relevant traits of an established version of the Personality Assessment Schedule. In Phase 1, item selection and scale construction proceeded iteratively using data from 334 female university students and 75 psychiatric patients (combined N = 409) in Korea. In Phase 2, a validation study of the scale was conducted in a subset of the sample from Phase 1, who were deemed to be at high risk of personality disorders (N = 210).

RESULTS

Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of the Personality Assessment Schedule items created a 17-item scale. This scale, PAQ-11, demonstrated adequate convergent and discriminant validity with the five-factor model, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fifth Edition traits model and emotional difficulties. The results were consistent with its underlying theoretical structure.

CONCLUSIONS

The PAQ-11 appears to be potentially promising in terms of clinical utility to assess the five domains of ICD-11 personality disorders. More research must be conducted in other cultural backgrounds with gender-balanced populations. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Diagnostic Agreement between Physicians and a Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry Team at a General Hospital: An Exploratory Study across 20 Years of Referrals

Consultation-liaison psychiatry (CLP) manages psychiatric care for patients admitted to a general hospital (GH) for somatic reasons. We evaluated patterns in psychiatric morbidity, reasons for referral and diagnostic concordance between referring doctors and CL psychiatrists. Referrals over the course of 20 years (2000-2019) made by the CLP Service at Modena GH (Italy) were retrospectively analyzed. Cohen's kappa statistics were used to estimate the agreement between the diagnoses made by CL psychiatrist and the diagnoses considered by the referring doctors. The analyses covered 18,888 referrals. The most common referral reason was suspicion of depression (n = 4937; 32.3%), followed by agitation (n = 1534; 10.0%). Psychiatric diagnoses were established for 13,883 (73.8%) referrals. Fair agreement was found for depressive disorders (kappa = 0.281) and for delirium (kappa = 0.342), which increased for anxiety comorbid depression (kappa = 0.305) and hyperkinetic delirium (kappa = 0.504). Moderate agreement was found for alcohol or substance abuse (kappa = 0.574). Referring doctors correctly recognized psychiatric conditions due to their exogenous etiology or clear clinical signs; in addition, the presence of positive symptoms (such as panic or agitation) increased diagnostic concordance. Close daily collaboration between CL psychiatrists and GH doctors lead to improvements in the ability to properly detect comorbid psychiatric conditions.

Cross-cultural applicability of ICD-11 and DSM-5 personality disorder

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review explores recent literature on the applicability of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5) and International Classification of Disease, 11th Revision (ICD-11) personality disorder classification systems across countries and cultural contexts.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several studies examining the cultural validity and utility of DSM-5 and ICD-11 personality disorder have been conducted in a number of language and cultural groups that are different from those in which the tools were originally developed. These studies, using quantitative methods, have largely supported the applicability of the new dimensional and trait approaches to classifying personal disorders. Studies qualitatively exploring the views of service users and clinicians on the development or operationalization of DSM-5 and ICD-11 personality disorder report that a lay summary of diagnostic constructs thatreflect concern about language of diagnostic criteria as well the lived experience of service users would be found useful. Clinicians found the dimensional system of ICD-11 slightly more useful than the categorical system of ICD-10 on several utility scales, but the studies on ICD-11 have been much less in view of its latter appearance.

SUMMARY

DSM-5 and ICD-11 personality disorder have shown a preliminary evidence of improved utility across cultures. More studies, including those reflecting the views of service users, are needed to confirm this early observation across many more cultural and linguistic groups.

Psychometric Properties of the Independent 36-Item PID5BF+M for ICD-11 in the Czech-Speaking Community Sample

Background: Empirical soundness and international robustness of the PID5BF+M, a shortened version of the PID-5 developed for simultaneous evaluation of maladaptive personality traits in the DSM-5 AMPD and ICD-11 models for personality disorders, was recently confirmed in 16 samples from different countries. Because the modified PID5BF+ scale (36 items) was extracted from the complete 220-item PID-5, an independent evaluation of psychometric properties of a stand-alone PID5BF+M is still missing. Objectives: The present study evaluated the validity and reliability of the 36-item PID5BF+M in comparison with the extracted version from the original PID-5. It also assessed associations between the Borderline Pattern qualifier and trait domain qualifiers. Methods: Two non-clinical samples meeting the inclusion criteria were employed in the study. Sample 1 (n = 614) completed the 220-item PID-5; Sample 2 (n = 1,040) completed the independent 36-item PID5BF+M. Participants were from all 14 regions of the Czech Republic. The Borderline Pattern qualifier was evaluated using a shortened IPDEQ screener. Results: The proposed latent structure of the independent PID5BF+M was confirmed, with an exception of the Disinhibition domain. The results confirmed good internal consistency and test-retest reliability of the measure, as well as some support for the measurement invariance of the independent PID5BF+M in comparison with the extracted version from the original PID-5. Significant associations between the Negative affectivity, Disinhibition, and Psychoticism qualifiers and the IPDEQ items for the emotionally unstable personality disorder of both impulsive and borderline types confirmed good predictive validity of the PID5BF+M in pursuing borderline psychopathology within the ICD-11 model. Conclusions: The independent PID5BF+M was found to be a valid and reliable tool for evaluation of the ICD-11 trait model. However, the Disinhibition domain deserves further investigation in clinical samples as well as in international community samples.

ICD-11 Personality Disorders: Utility and Implications of the New Model

The ICD-11 classification of personality disorders represents a paradigm shift in diagnosis. This was felt necessary because previous personality disorder classifications had major problems. These included unnecessary complexity, inconsistency with data on normal personality traits, and minimal consideration of severity despite this being shown to be the major predictor of outcome. The ICD-11 classification abolishes all categories of personality disorder except for a general description of personality disorder. This diagnosis can be further specified as "mild," "moderate," or "severe." Patient behavior can be described using one or more of five personality trait domains; negative affectivity, dissociality, anankastia, detachment, and disinhibition. Clinicians may also specify a borderline pattern qualifier. The ICD-11 shows considerable alignment with the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders. Early evidence around the reliability and validity of the new model appear promising, although at present there is still limited specific evidence due to the model being so recently finalized. However, for the model to be successful, it needs to be embraced by clinicians and used widely in normal clinical practice.

Obsessive-Compulsive (Anankastic) Personality Disorder in the ICD-11: A Scoping Review

Introduction: With the shift from a categorical to a dimensional model, ICD-11 has made substantial changes to the diagnosis of personality disorders (PDs), including obsessive-compulsive (anankastic) personality disorder (OCPD). The ICD-11 PD model proposes a single diagnosis of PD with specifications regarding severity and domains. However, a systematic overview of ICD-11 anankastia is lacking. In this review we address the reformulation of the OCPD diagnosis in the ICD-11, and draw comparisons with the DSM-5, with a particular focus on diagnostic validity and clinical utility. We hypothesized that the ICD-11 PD model provides a diagnostically valid and clinically useful approach to OCPD, with specific emphasis on the anankastia domain as the primary trait qualifier. Methods: Literature published from 2010 to 2020 was systematically searched using the PubMed/MEDLINE, PsychInfo, Cochrane, and Web of Sciences search engines, in order to find all articles that addressed ICD-11 anankastia. Relevant articles were collated, and themes of these articles subsequently extracted. Results: Out of the 264 publications identified, 19 articles were included in this review. Four themes were identified, namely (a) overlap of DSM-5 OCPD with the ICD-11 PD model, (b) the factorial structure of the ICD-11 PD model with respect to the anankastia domain, (c) the clinical utility of the ICD-11 PD model, and (d) comparison of the ICD-11 PD model of anankastia with the DSM-5 alternative model for OCPD. Conclusions: The ICD-11 anankastia domain overlaps with DSM-5 OCPD traits, and the factor analyses of the ICD-11 PD model further support the diagnostic validity of this domain. There is some support for the clinical utility of the ICD-11 PD model of anankastia but further studies are needed, including of its relationship to obsessive-compulsive and related disorders.

How does level of personality functioning inform clinical management and treatment? Implications for ICD-11 classification of personality disorder severity

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The International Classification of Diseases, 11th Edition (ICD-11) classifies personality disturbance according to levels of severity. This article reviews the literature on levels of personality functioning in relation to clinical management and treatment, and proposes how these findings apply to the ICD-11 classification of personality disorders.

RECENT FINDINGS

Findings were primarily derived from studies using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5) Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS), Kernberg's Level of Personality Organization, and the general P-factor of personality disorder. Severity of personality dysfunction is related to treatment outcome, risk of dropout, therapeutic alliance, readiness for treatment, risk of harm to self or others, risk of dissociation and psychotic-like breaks, coherence in narrative identity, reflective functioning, and epistemic trust.

SUMMARY

The overall level of personality disorder severity indicates risk of negative outcomes and may be used as decision tool for 'personalized medicine' and required treatment intensity (e.g., strength of alliance and the need for establishing epistemic trust). Beyond the ICD-11 guidelines for determining personality disorder severity, these implications also apply to practitioners using comparable frameworks such as the DSM-5 LPFS and Kernberg's Level of Personality Organization. Future research should focus on the interaction of severity with trait qualifiers in relation to clinical management.

[The classification of personality disorders in ICD-11]

The classification of personality disorders in ICD-11 Abstract. In ICD-11, the classification of personality disorders (PD) is no longer categorical but dimensional, along a spectrum defined by the severity of the disorder. The definition of PD is based on the level of impairment of self-directed and interpersonal personality functioning. Only one general diagnostic category "Personality Disorder" remains (ICD-11 Code 6D10). All distinct PD diagnoses from ICD-10 are missing, with the exception of Borderline PD, which can be classified with a "trait qualifier." The type of PD is characterized by specific patterns of five maladaptive personality traits. From the perspective of child and adolescent psychiatry, the most important change from ICD-10 to ICD-11 is the removal of an age limit, meaning PDs can be diagnosed across the lifespan.

Scripting the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders assessment procedure: A clinically feasible multi-informant multi-method approach

Published case studies on the DSM-5 (section III) Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) generally utilized unstandardized assessment procedures or mono-method approaches. We present a case from clinical practice to illustrate a standardized, clinically feasible procedure for assessing personality pathology according to the full AMPD model, using a multi-method approach. We aim to present a procedure that can guide and inspire clinicians that are going to work with dimensional models as presented in DSM-5 and ICD-11. Specifically, we show how questionnaire and interview data from multiple sources (i.e. patient and family) can be combined. The clinical case also illustrates how Criterion A (i.e. functioning) and B (i.e. traits) are interrelated, suggesting that the joint assessment of both Criterion A and B is necessary for a comprehensive and clinically relevant case formulation. It also highlights how multi-method information can enhance diagnostic formulations. Finally, we show how the AMPD model can serve treatment planning and provide suggestions for how patient feedback might be delivered. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Integrating the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP) into clinical practice

OBJECTIVE

Diagnosis is a cornerstone of clinical practice for mental health care providers, yet traditional diagnostic systems have well-known shortcomings, including inadequate reliability, high comorbidity, and marked within-diagnosis heterogeneity. The Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP) is a data-driven, hierarchically based alternative to traditional classifications that conceptualizes psychopathology as a set of dimensions organized into increasingly broad, transdiagnostic spectra. Prior work has shown that using a dimensional approach improves reliability and validity, but translating a model like HiTOP into a workable system that is useful for health care providers remains a major challenge.

METHOD

The present work outlines the HiTOP model and describes the core principles to guide its integration into clinical practice.

RESULTS

Potential advantages and limitations of the HiTOP model for clinical utility are reviewed, including with respect to case conceptualization and treatment planning. A HiTOP approach to practice is illustrated and contrasted with an approach based on traditional nosology. Common barriers to using HiTOP in real-world health care settings and solutions to these barriers are discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

HiTOP represents a viable alternative to classifying mental illness that can be integrated into practice today, although research is needed to further establish its utility. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

DSM-5 Personality Disorders and Traits in Patients With Severe Health Anxiety

Severe health anxiety (SHA)/hypochondriasis (HY) is often associated with personality pathology; however, studies report inconsistent results. In general populations, 12% have a personality disorder (PD). We assessed physician-referred psychiatric outpatients with SHA enrolled for a treatment study (n = 84) with the Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition (DSM-IV) axis II (SCID-II), Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5), Whiteley Index 7, and Short Health Anxiety Inventory, and the healthy controls (n = 84) with PID-5 only. There were 71.4% of the patients who met criteria for PDs: avoidant (22.6%), obsessive-compulsive (16.7%), depressive (16.7%), dependent (7.1%), paranoid (3.6%), borderline (2.4%), and not otherwise specified (32.1%). Severity of personality pathology was associated with severity of health anxiety. In group comparisons, PID-5 trait domains of negative affectivity, detachment, low antagonism, and low disinhibition, and facets of anxiousness, separation insecurity, and low attention seeking emerged as unique predictors of SHA. Personality pathology is common among individuals with SHA/HY. Further research is needed to understand the nature of the relationship between health anxiety and personality pathology and to determine whether treatments that target both SHA/HY and personality pathology will improve short- and long-term outcomes.

A Brief but Comprehensive Review of Research on the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Both the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) and the chapter on personality disorders (PD) in the recent version of ICD-11 embody a shift from a categorical to a dimensional paradigm for the classification of PD. We describe these new models, summarize available measures, and provide a comprehensive review of research on the AMPD.

RECENT FINDINGS

A total of 237 publications on severity (criterion A) and maladaptive traits (criterion B) of the AMPD indicate (a) acceptable interrater reliability, (b) largely consistent latent structures, (c) substantial convergence with a range of theoretically and clinically relevant external measures, and (d) some evidence for incremental validity when controlling for categorical PD diagnoses. However, measures of criterion A and B are highly correlated, which poses conceptual challenges. The AMPD has stimulated extensive research with promising findings. We highlight open questions and provide recommendations for future research.