Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Prolonged grief disorder: clinical utility of ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines


Mauro, Christine; Reynolds, Charles F; Maercker, Andreas; Skritskaya, Natalia; Simon, Naomi; Zisook, Sidney; Lebowitz, Barry; Cozza, Stephen J; Shear, M Katherine (2019). Prolonged grief disorder: clinical utility of ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines. Psychological Medicine, 49(5):861-867.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) International Classification of Disease (ICD-11) is expected to include a new diagnosis for prolonged grief disorder (ICD-11PGD). This study examines the validity and clinical utility of the ICD-11PGD guideline by testing its performance in a well-characterized clinical sample and contrasting it with a very different criteria set with the same name (PGDPLOS).

METHODS: We examined data from 261 treatment-seeking participants in the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)-sponsored multicenter clinical trial to determine the rates of diagnosis using the ICD-11PGD guideline and compared these with diagnosis using PGDPLOS criteria.

RESULTS: The ICD-11PGD guideline identified 95.8% [95% confidence interval (CI) 93.3-98.2%] of a treatment-responsive cohort of patients with distressing and impairing grief. PGDPLOS criteria identified only 59.0% (95% CI 53.0-65.0%) and were more likely to omit those who lost someone other than a spouse, were currently married, bereaved by violent means, or not diagnosed with co-occurring depression. Those not diagnosed by PGDPLOS criteria showed the same rate of treatment response as those who were diagnosed.

CONCLUSIONS: The ICD-11PGD diagnostic guideline showed good performance characteristics in this sample, while PGDPLOS criteria did not. Limitations of the research sample used to derive PGDPLOS criteria may partly explain their poor performance in a more diverse clinical sample. Clinicians and researchers need to be aware of the important difference between these two identically named diagnostic methods.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) International Classification of Disease (ICD-11) is expected to include a new diagnosis for prolonged grief disorder (ICD-11PGD). This study examines the validity and clinical utility of the ICD-11PGD guideline by testing its performance in a well-characterized clinical sample and contrasting it with a very different criteria set with the same name (PGDPLOS).

METHODS: We examined data from 261 treatment-seeking participants in the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)-sponsored multicenter clinical trial to determine the rates of diagnosis using the ICD-11PGD guideline and compared these with diagnosis using PGDPLOS criteria.

RESULTS: The ICD-11PGD guideline identified 95.8% [95% confidence interval (CI) 93.3-98.2%] of a treatment-responsive cohort of patients with distressing and impairing grief. PGDPLOS criteria identified only 59.0% (95% CI 53.0-65.0%) and were more likely to omit those who lost someone other than a spouse, were currently married, bereaved by violent means, or not diagnosed with co-occurring depression. Those not diagnosed by PGDPLOS criteria showed the same rate of treatment response as those who were diagnosed.

CONCLUSIONS: The ICD-11PGD diagnostic guideline showed good performance characteristics in this sample, while PGDPLOS criteria did not. Limitations of the research sample used to derive PGDPLOS criteria may partly explain their poor performance in a more diverse clinical sample. Clinicians and researchers need to be aware of the important difference between these two identically named diagnostic methods.

Statistics

Citations

Dimensions.ai Metrics
9 citations in Web of Science®
6 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:06 Faculty of Arts > Institute of Psychology
Dewey Decimal Classification:150 Psychology
Language:English
Date:April 2019
Deposited On:09 Oct 2018 12:09
Last Modified:20 Mar 2019 02:01
Publisher:Cambridge University Press
ISSN:0033-2917
OA Status:Closed
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291718001563
PubMed ID:29909789

Download

Full text not available from this repository.
View at publisher

Get full-text in a library