...
首页> 外文期刊>Depression and anxiety >DSM-5 AND ICD-11 DEFINITIONS OF POSTTRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER:INVESTIGATING 'NARROW' AND 'BROAD' APPROACHES
【24h】

DSM-5 AND ICD-11 DEFINITIONS OF POSTTRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER:INVESTIGATING 'NARROW' AND 'BROAD' APPROACHES

机译:创伤后应激障碍的DSM-5和ICD-11定义:研究“狭窄”和“广泛”的方法

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

Background:The development of theDiagnostic and Statistical Manual ofMental Disorders 5th edition (DSM-5) and ICD-11 has led to reconsideration of diagnostic criteria for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The World Mental Health (WMH) Surveys allow investigation of the implications of the changing criteria compared to DSM-IV and ICD-10. Methods:WMH Surveys in 13 countries asked respondents to enumerate all their lifetime traumatic events (TEs) and randomly selected one TE per respondent for PTSD assessment. DSMIV and ICD-10 PTSD were assessed for the 23,936 respondents who reported lifetime TEs in these surveys with the fully structured Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI). DSM-5 and proposed ICD-11 criteria were approximated. Associations of the different criteria sets with indicators of clinical severity (distress-impairment, suicidality, comorbid fear-distress disorders, PTSD symptom duration) were examined to investigate the implications of using the different systems. Results:A total of 5.6% of respondents met criteria for "broadly defined" PTSD (i.e., full criteria in at least one diagnostic system), with prevalence ranging from 3.0% with DSM-5 to 4.4% with ICD-10. Only one-third of broadly defined cases met criteria in all four systems and another one third in only one system (narrowly defined cases). Between-system differences in indicators of clinical severity suggest that ICD-10 criteria are least strict and DSM-IV criteria most strict. The more striking result, though, is that significantly elevated indicators of clinical significance were found even for narrowly defined cases for each of the four diagnostic systems. Conclusions:These results argue for a broad definition of PTSD defined by any one of the different systems to capture all clinically significant cases of PTSD in future studies. Depression and Anxiety 31:494-505, 2014.
机译:背景:《精神疾病诊断和统计手册》第5版(DSM-5)和ICD-11的开发导致了对创伤后应激障碍(PTSD)诊断标准的重新考虑。与DSM-IV和ICD-10相比,世界心理健康(WMH)调查允许调查不断变化的标准的含义。方法:在13个国家/地区的WMH调查要求受访者枚举其一生中的所有创伤事件(TE),并为每位受访者随机选择一个TE用于PTSD评估。对23,936名通过完全结构化的国际诊断综合调查(CIDI)在这些调查中报告终生TE的受访者进行了DSMIV和ICD-10 PTSD评估。 DSM-5和建议的ICD-11标准是近似的。研究了不同标准集与临床严重性指标(窘迫损害,自杀倾向,合并性恐惧窘迫障碍,PTSD症状持续时间)的关联,以研究使用不同系统的含义。结果:共有5.6%的受访者符合“广泛定义” PTSD的标准(即至少一个诊断系统中的完整标准),患病率范围从DSM-5的3.0%到ICD-10的4.4%。在所有四个系统中,只有三分之一的广义病例符合标准,而在一个系统中只有三分之一(狭义病例)符合标准。系统之间临床严重性指标的差异表明,ICD-10标准最不严格,DSM-IV标准最严格。但是,更惊人的结果是,即使对于四个诊断系统中的每个诊断系统,即使在狭窄的病例中,也发现了显着升高的临床意义指标。结论:这些结果证明了由任何一种不同系统定义的PTSD的广泛定义,可以在以后的研究中捕获所有具有临床意义的PTSD病例。抑郁与焦虑31:494-505,2014。

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号