Suppr超能文献

国际疾病分类第11版人格障碍分类在实践中的初步研究。

Preliminary studies of the ICD-11 classification of personality disorder in practice.

作者信息

Tyrer Peter, Crawford Mike, Sanatinia Rahil, Tyrer Helen, Cooper Sylvia, Muller-Pollard Chris, Christodoulou Polyxeni, Zauter-Tutt Maria, Miloseska-Reid Katerina, Loebenberg Gemma, Guo Boliang, Yang Min, Wang Duolao, Weich Scott

机构信息

Centre for Mental Health, Imperial College, London, W6 8RP, UK.

出版信息

Personal Ment Health. 2014 Oct;8(4):254-63. doi: 10.1002/pmh.1275. Epub 2014 Sep 9.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to compare ICD-10 and putative ICD-11 classifications of personality disorder in different clinical populations.

DESIGN

Prospective recording of ICD-10 and ICD-11 personality disorder classifications was carried out in (1) an anxious medical population, (2) an acute psychiatric in-patient population and (3) a retrospective recording of a mixed anxiety depression cohort in which all baseline data were scored from baseline information using the ICD-11 classification and compared with the original ICD-10 assessments.

METHOD

Comparison of ICD-10 and ICD-11 prevalence of personality disorder in each population was carried out.

RESULTS

Data from 722 patients were recorded. Using the ICD-10 criteria, the prevalence of generic personality disorder was 33.8% compared with 40.4% using the ICD-11 ones (χ2  = 6.7; P < 0.01), with 103 (14.3%) discordant assessments. Using the severity definitions in ICD-11, 34.3% of patients had personality difficulty. Severity level varied greatly by population; severe personality disorder was five times more common in the inpatient group. The four domain traits originally denoted as qualifying severity in ICD-11, negative affective, dissocial, anankastic and detached, were linked to anxious, borderline, dissocial, anankastic and schizoid personality disorders in ICD-10. Many patients had pathology in two or more domains.

CONCLUSIONS

The ICD-11 classification of personality disorder yields somewhat higher levels of personality dysfunction than ICD-10, possibly because the age range for the onset of diagnosis is now flexible. The range of severity levels make the classification more useful than ICD-10 in clinical practice as it identifies the greater pathology necessary for intervention.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在比较不同临床人群中人格障碍的国际疾病分类第十版(ICD - 10)和假定的国际疾病分类第十一版(ICD - 11)分类。

设计

对以下人群进行了ICD - 10和ICD - 11人格障碍分类的前瞻性记录:(1)焦虑的内科患者群体;(2)急性精神科住院患者群体;以及对一个混合性焦虑抑郁队列进行回顾性记录,其中所有基线数据均根据ICD - 11分类从基线信息中评分,并与原始的ICD - 10评估进行比较。

方法

对各人群中人格障碍的ICD - 10和ICD - 11患病率进行比较。

结果

记录了722例患者的数据。使用ICD - 10标准,一般人格障碍的患病率为33.8%,而使用ICD - 11标准时为40.4%(χ2 = 6.7;P < 0.01),有103例(14.3%)评估结果不一致。根据ICD - 11中的严重程度定义,34.3%的患者存在人格困难。严重程度水平因人群而异;严重人格障碍在住院患者组中更为常见,是其他组的五倍。ICD - 11中最初表示为确定严重程度的四个领域特质,即消极情感、反社会、强迫和疏离,与ICD - 10中的焦虑、边缘性、反社会、强迫和分裂样人格障碍相关。许多患者在两个或更多领域存在病理问题。

结论

人格障碍的ICD - 11分类比ICD - 10产生的人格功能障碍水平略高,可能是因为现在诊断开始的年龄范围更加灵活。严重程度水平的范围使得该分类在临床实践中比ICD - 10更有用,因为它识别出了干预所需的更严重的病理问题。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验