Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-hw7sx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T22:04:33.879Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Exploring the feasibility of a meta-structure for DSM-V and ICD-11: could it improve utility and validity?

Paper 1 of 7 of the thematic section: ‘A proposal for a meta-structure for DSM-V and ICD-11’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2009

G. Andrews ,
D. P. Goldberg ,
R. F. Krueger ,
W. T. Carpenter Jr. ,
S. E. Hyman ,
P. Sachdev  and
D. S. Pine
G. Andrews*
Affiliation:
School of Psychiatry, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
D. P. Goldberg
Affiliation:
Institute of Psychiatry, King's College, London, UK
R. F. Krueger
Affiliation:
Departments of Psychology and Psychiatry, Washington University in St Louis, USA
W. T. Carpenter Jr.
Affiliation:
University of Maryland School of Medicine, the Maryland Psychiatric Research Center, and the VISN 5 Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center, Baltimore, MD, USA
S. E. Hyman
Affiliation:
Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA
P. Sachdev
Affiliation:
School of Psychiatry, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
D. S. Pine
Affiliation:
National Institute of Mental Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
*
*Address for correspondence: Professor G. Andrews, 299 Forbes Street, Darlinghurst, NSW, Australia2010. (Email: gavina@unsw.edu.au)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

The organization of mental disorders into 16 DSM-IV and 10 ICD-10 chapters is complex and based on clinical presentation. We explored the feasibility of a more parsimonious meta-structure based on both risk factors and clinical factors.

Method

Most DSM-IV disorders were allocated to one of five clusters as a starting premise. Teams of experts then reviewed the literature to determine within-cluster similarities on 11 predetermined validating criteria. Disorders were included and excluded as determined by the available data. These data are intended to inform the grouping of disorders in the DSM-V and ICD-11 processes.

Results

The final clusters were neurocognitive (identified principally by neural substrate abnormalities), neurodevelopmental (identified principally by early and continuing cognitive deficits), psychosis (identified principally by clinical features and biomarkers for information processing deficits), emotional (identified principally by the temperamental antecedent of negative emotionality), and externalizing (identified principally by the temperamental antecedent of disinhibition).

Conclusions

Large groups of disorders were found to share risk factors and also clinical picture. There could be advantages for clinical practice, public administration and research from the adoption of such an organizing principle.

Keywords

ClassificationDSM-VICD-11mental disordersmeta structure

Information

Type
Thematic section: A proposal for a meta-structure for DSM-V and ICD-11
Information
Psychological Medicine , Volume 39 , Issue 12 , December 2009 , pp. 1993 - 2000
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Andreasen, NC (1995). The validation of psychiatric diagnosis: new models and approaches. American Journal of Psychiatry 152, 161–162.Google Scholar
Andrews, G, Anderson, TM, Slade, T, Sunderland, M (2008). Classification of anxiety and depressive disorders: problems and solutions. Depression and Anxiety 25, 274–281.Google Scholar
Andrews, G, Pine, DS, Hobbs, MJ, Anderson, TM, Sunderland, M (2009). Neurodevelopmental disorders: Cluster 2 of the proposed meta-structure for DSM-V and ICD-11. Psychological Medicine. doi:10.1017/S0033291709990274.Google Scholar
Andrews, G, Slade, T, Issakidis, C (2002). Deconstructing current comorbidity: data from the Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Well-being. British Journal of Psychiatry 181, 306–314.Google Scholar
Andrews, G, Stewart, GW, Morris-Yates, A, Holt, PE, Henderson, AS (1990). Evidence for a general neurotic syndrome. British Journal of Psychiatry 157, 6–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Begg, S, Vos, T, Barker, B, Stevenson, C, Stanley, L, Lopez, A (2007). The Burden of Disease and Injury in Australia 2003. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare: Canberra, Australia.Google Scholar
Carpenter, WT Jr., Bustillo, JR, Thaker, GK, van Os, J, Krueger, RF, Green, MJ (2009). Psychoses: Cluster 3 of the proposed meta-structure for DSM-V and ICD-11. Psychological Medicine. doi:10.1017/S0033291709990286.Google Scholar
Cox, BJ, Clara, IP, Enns, MW (2002). Posttraumatic stress disorder and the structure of common mental disorders. Depression and Anxiety 15, 168–171.Google Scholar
First, MB (2009). Summaries of the DSM-V research planning conferences (www.psych.org/MainMenu/Research/DSMIV/DSMV/DSMRevisionActivities/ResearchPlanningatHigherMagnification.aspx). Accessed 28 February 2009.Google Scholar
Goldberg, DP, Andrews, G, Hobbs, MJ (2009 b). Where should bipolar appear in the meta-structure? Psychological Medicine. doi:10.1017/S0033291709990304.Google Scholar
Goldberg, DP, Bridges, K, Duncan-Jones, P, Grayson, D (1987). Dimensions of neuroses seen in primary care settings. Psychological Medicine 17, 461–470.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldberg, DP, Krueger, RF, Andrews, G, Hobbs, MJ (2009 a). Emotional disorders: Cluster 4 of the proposed meta-structure for DSM-V and ICD-11. Psychological Medicine. doi:10.1017/S0033291709990298.Google Scholar
Kendell, RE (1989). Clinical validity. Psychological Medicine 19, 45–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kendell, RE, Jablensky, A (2003). Distinguishing between the validity and utility of psychiatric diagnoses. American Journal of Psychiatry 160, 4–12.Google Scholar
Kendler, KS (1980). The nosologic validity of paranoia (simple delusional disorder). Archives of General Psychiatry 37, 699–706.Google Scholar
Kendler, KS, Prescott, CA, Myers, J, Neale, MC (2003). The structure of genetic and environmental risk factors for common psychiatric and substance use disorders in men and women. Archives of General Psychiatry 60, 929–937.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krueger, RF (1999). The structure of common mental disorders. Archives of General Psychiatry 56, 921–926.Google Scholar
Krueger, RF, Caspi, A, Moffitt, TE, Silva, PA (1998). The structure and stability of common mental disorders (DSM-III-R) : a longitudinal-epidemiological study. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 107, 216–227.Google Scholar
Krueger, RF, Chentsova-Dutton, YE, Markon, KE, Goldberg, DP, Ormel, JH (2003). A cross-cultural study of the structure of comorbidity among common psychopathological syndromes in the general health care setting. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 112, 437–447.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krueger, RF, South, SC (2009). Externalizing disorders: Cluster 5 of the proposed meta-structure for DSM-V and ICD-11. Psychological Medicine. doi:10.1017/S0033291709990328.Google Scholar
Robins, E, Guze, SB (1970). Establishment of diagnostic validity in psychiatric illness: its application to schizophrenia. American Journal of Psychiatry 126, 107–111.Google Scholar
Sachdev, P, Andrews, G, Hobbs, MJ, Sunderland, M, Anderson, TM (2009). Neurocognitive disorders: Cluster 1 of the proposed meta-structure for DSM-V and ICD-11. Psychological Medicine. doi:10.1017/S0033291709990262.Google Scholar
Slade, T, Watson, D (2006). The structure of common DSM-IV and ICD-10 mental disorder in the Australian general population. Psychological Medicine 36, 1593–1600.Google Scholar
Vollebergh, WA, Iedema, J, Bijl, RV, de Graaf, R, Smit, F, Ormel, J (2001). The structure and stability of common mental disorders: the NEMESIS study. Archives of General Psychiatry 58, 597–603.Google Scholar