Revising the classifications of mental disorders: Do we really need to bother?
O. Gureje,G. Reed
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/09540261.2012.742239
2012-12-01
International Review of Psychiatry
Abstract:The current revisions of diagnostic classifi cations of mental and behavioural disorders attract diametrically opposed reactions from those who have to use the classifi cations. There are those who regard the periodic exercise as nothing more than academic. These people often question the need for revision when the resulting confi gurations of syndromes rarely have direct relevance on patient care. A point that is often used to reinforce this scepticism is the fact that many of the available treatment modalities for mental health conditions are not syndrome-specifi c, with a given intervention approach often applied to a diverse array of ‘ disorders ’ . On the other hand, those who support the revision process often point to the fact that perhaps the most important advance in the fi eld of psychiatry over the past three decades has been the development of classifi cations that permit a reasonable degree of reliability in the assessment and diagnosis of mental disorders. While acknowledging that the progress in reliability has not been matched by similar gains in validity, there is nevertheless a wish to consolidate and expand on the progress that has been made over the past several years. One way of doing this is to ensure that the extant classifi cations refl ect the state of knowledge in the fi eld. In describing the basis for the current revision, the International Advisory Group for the Revision of ICD-10 Mental and Behavioral Disorders (2011, p. 86) stated that: ‘ As a common classifi cation framework, the ICD has fostered global communication and information exchange. At the clinical level, classifi cations enable communication among health professionals, their patients, and the health systems in which they work, and facilitate the training of health professionals across countries and cultures. World Health Organization (WHO) classifi cations also serve other sectors, including health policy makers and payers of health care services, the judicial system, and governments. Because the ICD plays such a crucial role in the international health community, it is critical that it be based on the best available scientifi c knowledge and that it keep pace with signifi cant advances in health care that have the potential to improve its reliability, validity, and utility. ’ However, there is a common realization, refl ected in the papers in this issue, that developments in neuroscience have not been defi nitive or far-reaching enough to provide support for specifi c major revisions of existing classifi cations (see also Hyman, 2007). Given this situation, the improvement of clinical utility is a putative priority for both the ICD and DSM revision efforts. The WHO Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse has emphasized improvement of the classifi cation ’ s clinical utility as a major priority for the current revisions (International Advisory Group, 2011; Reed, 2010). The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has also noted the importance of clinical utility in its public materials related to DSM-5. There is considerable wisdom in pursuing this common goal. Serious problems with the clinical utility of both the ICD-10 and the DSM-IV are widely acknowledged (e.g. Andrews et al., 2009; First, 2010; Flanagan & Blashfi eld, 2010; Kendell & Jablensky, 2003; Mullins-Sweatt & Widiger, 2009; Reed, 2010). Several papers in this issue describe specifi c aspects of clinical utility problems with both classifi cations (Creed & Gureje (pp. 556 – 567); Drescher et al. (pp. 568 – 577); Gaebel et al. (pp. 538 – 548); Maj, 2012 (pp. 530 – 537); Rutter & Uher (pp. 514 – 529)). At least for the WHO Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse, the most important goal of the current mental and behavioural disorders revision is to make the ICD-11 a better tool for helping WHO member states reduce the disease burden of mental and behavioural disorders (Saxena & Reed, 2011; WHO, 2012). This is particularly important in lowand middle-income countries, where the vast majority of the world ’ s people live and more than three-quarters of serious mental disorders go untreated (Kohn et al., 2004; WHO World Mental Health Survey Consortium, 2004), and where there are few psychiatrists and other specialist mental health professionals (WHO, 2005). In this regard an important justifi cation for focusing on clinical utility is because it is critical to the interface between clinical practice and health information. Global healthcare systems are overburdened, clinicians are under enormous time pressure and only a very small minority of persons with mental health needs will ever see a specialist mental health International Review of Psychiatry, December 2012; 24(6): 511–513