Clinicians' attitudes toward standardized assessment and diagnosis within child and adolescent psychiatry

A mixed-method systematic review of the perspectives of young people, carers and professionals on psychiatric diagnosis in childhood and adolescence

PROBLEM

The significance and complexities of a psychiatric diagnosis have been well-documented in existing literature. Despite the reliability and accuracy of such diagnoses, the impact and use of diagnostic labelling on young people remains unclear.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted using six databases, identifying 13 studies that explored psychiatric diagnosis experiences in professionals, caregivers, and young people.

FINDINGS

This review focuses on three main themes related to psychiatric diagnosis in young people. The first theme is diagnostic subjectivity, which explores the accuracy, usefulness, potential harm and alternatives (e.g. psychological formulation) to psychiatric diagnosis in this population. The second theme is the utility of psychiatric diagnosis, which considers whether it helps young people access appropriate support and gain a better understanding of themselves and their presenting issues. The third theme is stigma, which examines the negative experiences and discrimination that young people may face due to their psychiatric diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

There is relatively limited literature which discusses the experience of psychiatric diagnosis in young people, caregivers and professionals. The available literature is difficult to compare due to discrepancies between methodologies and services, and there are several gaps i.e. a limited focus on the experience of young people themselves. Different views and experiences of psychiatric diagnosis among professionals, caregivers, and young people could impact young people's quality of life, access to healthcare, and identity development. The current literature needs to be more comprehensive to draw firm conclusions about young people's experiences with psychiatric diagnosis.

Clinicians' perceptions and practices of diagnostic assessment in psychiatric services

BACKGROUND

Diagnostic assessment in psychiatric services typically involves applying clinical judgment to information collected from patients using multiple sources, including anamnesis and structured diagnostic interviews. Research shows that clinicians' perceptions of diagnostic assessment are associated with their diagnostic practices, and that perceptions and practices may vary according to clinician characteristics. Examining clinicians' perceptions and practices of diagnostic assessment is important for quality improvement in psychiatric services, including implementation of evidence-based practice procedures. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate clinicians' perceptions and practices of diagnostic assessment in psychiatric services and examine whether these perceptions and practices varied according to profession and age, with the aim of providing a basis for quality improvement.

METHODS

A total of 183 (53.2%) clinicians in community-based adult psychiatric services in Stockholm, Sweden participated in an online survey. Differences between professions were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis tests and effect sizes were calculated. Associations of clinicians' perceptions with their age were examined using Spearman correlations.

RESULTS

Overall, clinicians had positive attitudes toward diagnostic assessment, and they considered themselves as competent. Differences were as most pronounced between nurses and other professions. Nursed had conducted fewer assessments, perceived themselves as less competent, and reported to a smaller extent to be able to determine which diagnosis should be the target for treatment in patients with multiple diagnoses. There were no associations of clinicians' perceptions with their age. Some potential areas of improvement were identified, including clinician qualifications, education in diagnostic assessment, and contents of diagnostic assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the present study may provide a basis for quality improvement in psychiatric services. For example, it may be important to pay attention to potential differences in perceptions and practices between professions in efforts to improve quality of assessment and care.

'Instruments are good at eliciting information; scores are very dangerous': The perspectives of clinical professionals regarding neurodevelopmental assessment

LAY ABSTRACT

Autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder are common behaviourally diagnosed conditions. One of the key aspects of diagnosis is clinical judgement. Yet despite decades of research, it is only in recent times that researchers have started exploring clinicians' perspectives on diagnosing these conditions. We aimed to add to this body of knowledge by conducting interviews with 17 experienced health care professionals in the United Kingdom to hear their perspectives on diagnosing autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Clinicians reflected that for some children and young people, diagnosis is reasonably straightforward; however, in other situations, decisions are made on more pragmatic grounds (i.e. will this be helpful). We identified some differences of opinion between professionals and organisation which adds to the complexity of applying a diagnosis. We recommend several areas for future research and point to some practical and philosophical implications of the work.

Attitudes toward standardized assessment tools and their use among clinicians in a public mental health service

The aim of the present study was to investigate the use and attitudes toward standardized assessment tools among clinicians in a public mental health service in Norway. A total of 606 clinicians provided feedback on their use and attitudes regarding psychometric qualities of such tools, their practicality, and their benefit over clinical judgment alone using the Attitudes toward Standardized Assessment (ASA) Scales. Clinicians working in the adult mental health field scored significantly higher on use of diagnostic interviews, pre-post evaluations, and ongoing evaluations, whereas clinicians working in the child/adolescent mental health field scored significantly higher on use of screening instruments and held more positive attitudes towards using standardized assessment tools. Attitudes toward standardized assessment tools predicted use of such tools, and results were found to be similar to a study on US clinicians. Whereas the US study only found attitudes regarding the practicality of using such instrument as an independent predictor of assessment use, the current study found that attitudes regarding psychometric qualities of such tools, their practicality, and their benefit over clinical judgment alone were independent predictors of use.