Testing DSM-5 in Routine Clinical Practice Settings: Feasibility and Clinical Utility

The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-5) attempts to capture the latest scientific advances and to enhance the reliability of diagnostic criteria. Among the new manual's most noticeable differences is the inclusion of patient-reported measures to identify initial clini...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.) D.C.), 2013-10, Vol.64 (10), p.952-960
Hauptverfasser: Mościcki, Eve K, Clarke, Diana E, Kuramoto, S. Janet, Kraemer, Helena C, Narrow, William E, Kupfer, David J, Regier, Darrel A
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 960
container_issue 10
container_start_page 952
container_title Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.)
container_volume 64
creator Mościcki, Eve K
Clarke, Diana E
Kuramoto, S. Janet
Kraemer, Helena C
Narrow, William E
Kupfer, David J
Regier, Darrel A
description The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-5) attempts to capture the latest scientific advances and to enhance the reliability of diagnostic criteria. Among the new manual's most noticeable differences is the inclusion of patient-reported measures to identify initial clinical status and monitor progress. In 2011 and 2012, clinicians and their patients from the United States, Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom undertook to assess the clinical utility and feasibility of the new manual. The results of the field trials are reported. ObjectiveThis article describes the clinical utility and feasibility of proposed DSM-5 criteria and measures as tested in the DSM-5 Field Trials in Routine Clinical Practice Settings (RCP).MethodsRCP data were collected online for six months (October 2011 to March 2012). Participants included psychiatrists, licensed clinical psychologists, clinical social workers, advanced practice psychiatric–mental health nurses, licensed counselors, and licensed marriage and family therapists. Clinicians received staged, online training and enrolled at least one patient. Patients completed self-assessments of cross-cutting symptom domains, disability measures, and an evaluation of these measures. Clinicians conducted diagnostic interviews and completed DSM-5 and related assessments and a clinical utility questionnaire.ResultsA total of 621 clinicians provided data for 1,269 patients. Large proportions of clinicians reported that the DSM-5 approach was generally very or extremely easy for assessment of both pediatric (51%) and adult (46%) patients and very or extremely useful in routine clinical practice for pediatric (48%) and adult (46%) patients. Clinicians considered the DSM-5 approach to be better (57%) or much better (18%) than that of DSM-IV. Patients, including children age 11 to 17 (47%), parents of children age six to ten (64%), parents of adolescents age 11 to 17 (72%), and adult patients (52%), reported that the cross-cutting measures would help their clinicians better understand their symptoms. Similar patterns in evaluations of feasibility and clinical utility were observed among clinicians from various disciplines.ConclusionsThe DSM-5 approach was feasible and clinically useful in a wide range of routine practice settings and favorably received by both clinicians and patients.
doi_str_mv 10.1176/appi.ps.201300098
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1443396360</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1443396360</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a398t-977791f13b1e7ac59defd68bd6a7e28907c1c8f4bea92a81849a6c7d6163a1aa3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kFFLwzAQx4MoTqcfwBcpiOBLZy5pk8Y3mU4FRVH3XK5pKpGurU37sG9vuk0Hgk8Jx-_u_vcj5AToBECKS2waO2nchFHglFKV7JADiGMZKknprv9TGYdMcjoih859egQkiH0yYjyJGZPsgMzfjets9RHcvD2FcWCr4LXufcEE09JWVmMZvLSoO6tN8Ga6AXVXwcygs5ktbbcMsMq37LxbFY_IXoGlM8ebd0zms9v36X34-Hz3ML1-DJGrpPMxpVRQAM_ASNSxyk2RiyTLBUrDEkWlBp0UUWZQMUwgiRQKLXMBgiMg8jG5WM9t2vqr95ekC-u0KUusTN27FKKIcyW4oB49-4N-1n1b-XQDFVEAxQcK1pRua-daU6RNaxfYLlOg6eA8HZynjUt_nfue083kPluY_LfjR7IHzjcAOi-paLHS1m05L4GJeBg0WXOrHdt4_27-Bq1EmKY</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1444011930</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Testing DSM-5 in Routine Clinical Practice Settings: Feasibility and Clinical Utility</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>American Psychiatric Publishing Journals (1997-Present)</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>Mościcki, Eve K ; Clarke, Diana E ; Kuramoto, S. Janet ; Kraemer, Helena C ; Narrow, William E ; Kupfer, David J ; Regier, Darrel A</creator><creatorcontrib>Mościcki, Eve K ; Clarke, Diana E ; Kuramoto, S. Janet ; Kraemer, Helena C ; Narrow, William E ; Kupfer, David J ; Regier, Darrel A</creatorcontrib><description>The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-5) attempts to capture the latest scientific advances and to enhance the reliability of diagnostic criteria. Among the new manual's most noticeable differences is the inclusion of patient-reported measures to identify initial clinical status and monitor progress. In 2011 and 2012, clinicians and their patients from the United States, Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom undertook to assess the clinical utility and feasibility of the new manual. The results of the field trials are reported. ObjectiveThis article describes the clinical utility and feasibility of proposed DSM-5 criteria and measures as tested in the DSM-5 Field Trials in Routine Clinical Practice Settings (RCP).MethodsRCP data were collected online for six months (October 2011 to March 2012). Participants included psychiatrists, licensed clinical psychologists, clinical social workers, advanced practice psychiatric–mental health nurses, licensed counselors, and licensed marriage and family therapists. Clinicians received staged, online training and enrolled at least one patient. Patients completed self-assessments of cross-cutting symptom domains, disability measures, and an evaluation of these measures. Clinicians conducted diagnostic interviews and completed DSM-5 and related assessments and a clinical utility questionnaire.ResultsA total of 621 clinicians provided data for 1,269 patients. Large proportions of clinicians reported that the DSM-5 approach was generally very or extremely easy for assessment of both pediatric (51%) and adult (46%) patients and very or extremely useful in routine clinical practice for pediatric (48%) and adult (46%) patients. Clinicians considered the DSM-5 approach to be better (57%) or much better (18%) than that of DSM-IV. Patients, including children age 11 to 17 (47%), parents of children age six to ten (64%), parents of adolescents age 11 to 17 (72%), and adult patients (52%), reported that the cross-cutting measures would help their clinicians better understand their symptoms. Similar patterns in evaluations of feasibility and clinical utility were observed among clinicians from various disciplines.ConclusionsThe DSM-5 approach was feasible and clinically useful in a wide range of routine practice settings and favorably received by both clinicians and patients.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1075-2730</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1557-9700</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1176/appi.ps.201300098</identifier><identifier>PMID: 23852272</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Biological and medical sciences ; Child ; Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders ; Feasibility Studies ; Humans ; Medical diagnosis ; Medical sciences ; Mental disorders ; Mental Disorders - diagnosis ; Mental Disorders - therapy ; Patient Satisfaction ; Psychiatry - methods ; Psychiatry - standards ; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry ; Psychopathology. Psychiatry ; Social psychiatry. Ethnopsychiatry ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.), 2013-10, Vol.64 (10), p.952-960</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2013 by the American Psychiatric Association 2013</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright © 2013 by the American Psychiatric Association</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a398t-977791f13b1e7ac59defd68bd6a7e28907c1c8f4bea92a81849a6c7d6163a1aa3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-a398t-977791f13b1e7ac59defd68bd6a7e28907c1c8f4bea92a81849a6c7d6163a1aa3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://psychiatryonline.org/doi/epdf/10.1176/appi.ps.201300098$$EPDF$$P50$$Gappi$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.ps.201300098$$EHTML$$P50$$Gappi$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,2842,21605,21606,21607,27901,27902,77536,77541</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=27792658$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23852272$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Mościcki, Eve K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Clarke, Diana E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kuramoto, S. Janet</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kraemer, Helena C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Narrow, William E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kupfer, David J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Regier, Darrel A</creatorcontrib><title>Testing DSM-5 in Routine Clinical Practice Settings: Feasibility and Clinical Utility</title><title>Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.)</title><addtitle>Psychiatr Serv</addtitle><description>The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-5) attempts to capture the latest scientific advances and to enhance the reliability of diagnostic criteria. Among the new manual's most noticeable differences is the inclusion of patient-reported measures to identify initial clinical status and monitor progress. In 2011 and 2012, clinicians and their patients from the United States, Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom undertook to assess the clinical utility and feasibility of the new manual. The results of the field trials are reported. ObjectiveThis article describes the clinical utility and feasibility of proposed DSM-5 criteria and measures as tested in the DSM-5 Field Trials in Routine Clinical Practice Settings (RCP).MethodsRCP data were collected online for six months (October 2011 to March 2012). Participants included psychiatrists, licensed clinical psychologists, clinical social workers, advanced practice psychiatric–mental health nurses, licensed counselors, and licensed marriage and family therapists. Clinicians received staged, online training and enrolled at least one patient. Patients completed self-assessments of cross-cutting symptom domains, disability measures, and an evaluation of these measures. Clinicians conducted diagnostic interviews and completed DSM-5 and related assessments and a clinical utility questionnaire.ResultsA total of 621 clinicians provided data for 1,269 patients. Large proportions of clinicians reported that the DSM-5 approach was generally very or extremely easy for assessment of both pediatric (51%) and adult (46%) patients and very or extremely useful in routine clinical practice for pediatric (48%) and adult (46%) patients. Clinicians considered the DSM-5 approach to be better (57%) or much better (18%) than that of DSM-IV. Patients, including children age 11 to 17 (47%), parents of children age six to ten (64%), parents of adolescents age 11 to 17 (72%), and adult patients (52%), reported that the cross-cutting measures would help their clinicians better understand their symptoms. Similar patterns in evaluations of feasibility and clinical utility were observed among clinicians from various disciplines.ConclusionsThe DSM-5 approach was feasible and clinically useful in a wide range of routine practice settings and favorably received by both clinicians and patients.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Child</subject><subject>Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders</subject><subject>Feasibility Studies</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Medical diagnosis</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Mental disorders</subject><subject>Mental Disorders - diagnosis</subject><subject>Mental Disorders - therapy</subject><subject>Patient Satisfaction</subject><subject>Psychiatry - methods</subject><subject>Psychiatry - standards</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</subject><subject>Psychopathology. Psychiatry</subject><subject>Social psychiatry. Ethnopsychiatry</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>1075-2730</issn><issn>1557-9700</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kFFLwzAQx4MoTqcfwBcpiOBLZy5pk8Y3mU4FRVH3XK5pKpGurU37sG9vuk0Hgk8Jx-_u_vcj5AToBECKS2waO2nchFHglFKV7JADiGMZKknprv9TGYdMcjoih859egQkiH0yYjyJGZPsgMzfjets9RHcvD2FcWCr4LXufcEE09JWVmMZvLSoO6tN8Ga6AXVXwcygs5ktbbcMsMq37LxbFY_IXoGlM8ebd0zms9v36X34-Hz3ML1-DJGrpPMxpVRQAM_ASNSxyk2RiyTLBUrDEkWlBp0UUWZQMUwgiRQKLXMBgiMg8jG5WM9t2vqr95ekC-u0KUusTN27FKKIcyW4oB49-4N-1n1b-XQDFVEAxQcK1pRua-daU6RNaxfYLlOg6eA8HZynjUt_nfue083kPluY_LfjR7IHzjcAOi-paLHS1m05L4GJeBg0WXOrHdt4_27-Bq1EmKY</recordid><startdate>20131001</startdate><enddate>20131001</enddate><creator>Mościcki, Eve K</creator><creator>Clarke, Diana E</creator><creator>Kuramoto, S. Janet</creator><creator>Kraemer, Helena C</creator><creator>Narrow, William E</creator><creator>Kupfer, David J</creator><creator>Regier, Darrel A</creator><general>American Psychiatric Association</general><general>American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20131001</creationdate><title>Testing DSM-5 in Routine Clinical Practice Settings: Feasibility and Clinical Utility</title><author>Mościcki, Eve K ; Clarke, Diana E ; Kuramoto, S. Janet ; Kraemer, Helena C ; Narrow, William E ; Kupfer, David J ; Regier, Darrel A</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a398t-977791f13b1e7ac59defd68bd6a7e28907c1c8f4bea92a81849a6c7d6163a1aa3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Child</topic><topic>Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders</topic><topic>Feasibility Studies</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Medical diagnosis</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Mental disorders</topic><topic>Mental Disorders - diagnosis</topic><topic>Mental Disorders - therapy</topic><topic>Patient Satisfaction</topic><topic>Psychiatry - methods</topic><topic>Psychiatry - standards</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</topic><topic>Psychopathology. Psychiatry</topic><topic>Social psychiatry. Ethnopsychiatry</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Mościcki, Eve K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Clarke, Diana E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kuramoto, S. Janet</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kraemer, Helena C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Narrow, William E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kupfer, David J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Regier, Darrel A</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Mościcki, Eve K</au><au>Clarke, Diana E</au><au>Kuramoto, S. Janet</au><au>Kraemer, Helena C</au><au>Narrow, William E</au><au>Kupfer, David J</au><au>Regier, Darrel A</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Testing DSM-5 in Routine Clinical Practice Settings: Feasibility and Clinical Utility</atitle><jtitle>Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.)</jtitle><addtitle>Psychiatr Serv</addtitle><date>2013-10-01</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>64</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>952</spage><epage>960</epage><pages>952-960</pages><issn>1075-2730</issn><eissn>1557-9700</eissn><abstract>The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-5) attempts to capture the latest scientific advances and to enhance the reliability of diagnostic criteria. Among the new manual's most noticeable differences is the inclusion of patient-reported measures to identify initial clinical status and monitor progress. In 2011 and 2012, clinicians and their patients from the United States, Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom undertook to assess the clinical utility and feasibility of the new manual. The results of the field trials are reported. ObjectiveThis article describes the clinical utility and feasibility of proposed DSM-5 criteria and measures as tested in the DSM-5 Field Trials in Routine Clinical Practice Settings (RCP).MethodsRCP data were collected online for six months (October 2011 to March 2012). Participants included psychiatrists, licensed clinical psychologists, clinical social workers, advanced practice psychiatric–mental health nurses, licensed counselors, and licensed marriage and family therapists. Clinicians received staged, online training and enrolled at least one patient. Patients completed self-assessments of cross-cutting symptom domains, disability measures, and an evaluation of these measures. Clinicians conducted diagnostic interviews and completed DSM-5 and related assessments and a clinical utility questionnaire.ResultsA total of 621 clinicians provided data for 1,269 patients. Large proportions of clinicians reported that the DSM-5 approach was generally very or extremely easy for assessment of both pediatric (51%) and adult (46%) patients and very or extremely useful in routine clinical practice for pediatric (48%) and adult (46%) patients. Clinicians considered the DSM-5 approach to be better (57%) or much better (18%) than that of DSM-IV. Patients, including children age 11 to 17 (47%), parents of children age six to ten (64%), parents of adolescents age 11 to 17 (72%), and adult patients (52%), reported that the cross-cutting measures would help their clinicians better understand their symptoms. Similar patterns in evaluations of feasibility and clinical utility were observed among clinicians from various disciplines.ConclusionsThe DSM-5 approach was feasible and clinically useful in a wide range of routine practice settings and favorably received by both clinicians and patients.</abstract><cop>Arlington, VA</cop><pub>American Psychiatric Association</pub><pmid>23852272</pmid><doi>10.1176/appi.ps.201300098</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1075-2730
ispartof Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.), 2013-10, Vol.64 (10), p.952-960
issn 1075-2730
1557-9700
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1443396360
source MEDLINE; American Psychiatric Publishing Journals (1997-Present); EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals
subjects Adolescent
Adult
Biological and medical sciences
Child
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
Feasibility Studies
Humans
Medical diagnosis
Medical sciences
Mental disorders
Mental Disorders - diagnosis
Mental Disorders - therapy
Patient Satisfaction
Psychiatry - methods
Psychiatry - standards
Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry
Psychopathology. Psychiatry
Social psychiatry. Ethnopsychiatry
Young Adult
title Testing DSM-5 in Routine Clinical Practice Settings: Feasibility and Clinical Utility
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-04T20%3A35%3A13IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Testing%20DSM-5%20in%20Routine%20Clinical%20Practice%20Settings:%20Feasibility%20and%20Clinical%20Utility&rft.jtitle=Psychiatric%20services%20(Washington,%20D.C.)&rft.au=Mo%C5%9Bcicki,%20Eve%20K&rft.date=2013-10-01&rft.volume=64&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=952&rft.epage=960&rft.pages=952-960&rft.issn=1075-2730&rft.eissn=1557-9700&rft_id=info:doi/10.1176/appi.ps.201300098&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1443396360%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1444011930&rft_id=info:pmid/23852272&rfr_iscdi=true