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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.) D.C.), 2013-10, Vol.64 (10), p.952-960 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
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&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 & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & 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 |