The authors are grateful to Dr. Roger Blashfield for his very helpful comments regarding the design of the study and the interpretation and presentation of the data. The World Health Organization Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse has received direct support that contributed to the conduct of this study from several sources: The International Union of Psychological Science, the National Institute of Mental Health (USA), the World Psychiatric Association, the Spanish Foundation of Psychiatry and Mental Health (Spain), and the Santander Bank UAM/UNAM endowed Chair for Psychiatry (Spain/Mexico). P. Sharan received a grant from Eli Lilly (India) unrelated to this project; J. Mari received speaking fees from Astra Zeneca, Eli Lilly, and Janssen unrelated to this project.
Mental Health Professionals’ Natural Taxonomies of Mental Disorders: Implications for the Clinical Utility of the ICD-11 and the DSM-5
Version of Record online: 7 OCT 2013
© 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Journal of Clinical Psychology
Volume 69, Issue 12, pages 1191–1212, December 2013
How to Cite
Reed, G. M., Roberts, M. C., Keeley, J., Hooppell, C., Matsumoto, C., Sharan, P., Robles, R., Carvalho, H., Wu, C., Gureje, O., Leal-Leturia, I., Flanagan, E. H., Correia, J. M., Maruta, T., Ayuso-Mateos, J. L., de Jesus Mari, J., Xiao, Z., Evans, S. C., Saxena, S. and Medina-Mora, M. E. (2013), Mental Health Professionals’ Natural Taxonomies of Mental Disorders: Implications for the Clinical Utility of the ICD-11 and the DSM-5. J. Clin. Psychol., 69: 1191–1212. doi: 10.1002/jclp.22031
Most of the authors of this article are members of the WHO International Advisory Group for the Revision of ICD-10 Mental and Behavioural Disorders and/or of Working Groups that report to the International Advisory Group. G. Reed and S. Saxena are members of the WHO Secretariat, Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse, WHO. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and, except as specifically noted, do not represent the official policies or positions of the International Advisory Group or of WHO. The WHO Research Ethics Review Committee as well as applicable local Institutional Review Boards reviewed and approved all procedures.
João Correia is now at the Department of Cognitive Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
- Issue online: 23 OCT 2013
- Version of Record online: 7 OCT 2013
- mental disorders;
- classification, International Classification of Diseases (ICD);
- Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM);
- clinical utility;
- cross-cultural applicability;
- low- and middle-income (LAMI) countries
To examine the conceptualizations held by psychiatrists and psychologists around the world of the relationships among mental disorders in order to inform decisions about the structure of the classification of mental and behavioral disorders in World Health Organization's International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 11th Revision (ICD-11).
517 mental health professionals in 8 countries sorted 60 cards containing the names of mental disorders into groups of similar disorders, and then formed a hierarchical structure by aggregating and disaggregating these groupings. Distance matrices were created from the sorting data and used in cluster and correlation analyses.
Clinicians’ taxonomies were rational, interpretable, and extremely stable across countries, diagnostic system used, and profession. Clinicians’ consensus classification structure was different from ICD-10 and the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 4th Edition (DSM-IV), but in many respects consistent with ICD-11 proposals.
The clinical utility of the ICD-11 may be improved by making its structure more compatible with the common conceptual organization of mental disorders observed across diverse global clinicians.