Clinical utility of ICD‐11 diagnostic guidelines for high‐burden mental disorders: results from mental health settings in 13 countries

In this paper we report the clinical utility of the diagnostic guidelines for ICD‐11 mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders as assessed by 339 clinicians in 1,806 patients in 28 mental health settings in 13 countries. Clinician raters applied the guidelines for schizophrenia and other primary psychotic disorders, mood disorders (depressive and bipolar disorders), anxiety and fear‐related disorders, and disorders specifically associated with stress. Clinician ratings of the clinical utility of the proposed ICD‐11 diagnostic guidelines were very positive overall. The guidelines were perceived as easy to use, corresponding accurately to patients’ presentations (i.e., goodness of fit), clear and understandable, providing an appropriate level of detail, taking about the same or less time than clinicians’ usual practice, and providing useful guidance about distinguishing disorder from normality and from other disorders. Clinicians evaluated the guidelines as less useful for treatment selection and assessing prognosis than for communicating with other health professionals, though the former ratings were still positive overall. Field studies that assess perceived clinical utility of the proposed ICD‐11 diagnostic guidelines among their intended users have very important implications. Classification is the interface between health encounters and health information; if clinicians do not find that a new diagnostic system provides clinically useful information, they are unlikely to apply it consistently and faithfully. This would have a major impact on the validity of aggregated health encounter data used for health policy and decision making. Overall, the results of this study provide considerable reason to be optimistic about the perceived clinical utility of the ICD‐11 among global clinicians.     

Diagnosis and classification of disorders specifically associated with stress: proposals for ICD‐11

The diagnostic concepts of post‐traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and other disorders specifically associated with stress have been intensively discussed among neuro‐ and social scientists, clinicians, epidemiologists, public health planners and humanitarian aid workers around the world. PTSD and adjustment disorder are among the most widely used diagnoses in mental health care worldwide. This paper describes proposals that aim to maximize clinical utility for the classification and grouping of disorders specifically associated with stress in the forthcoming 11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD‐11). Proposals include a narrower concept for PTSD that does not allow the diagnosis to be made based entirely on non‐specific symptoms; a new complex PTSD category that comprises three clusters of intra‐ and interpersonal symptoms in addition to core PTSD symptoms; a new diagnosis of prolonged grief disorder, used to describe patients that undergo an intensely painful, disabling, and abnormally persistent response to bereavement; a major revision of “adjustment disorder” involving increased specification of symptoms; and a conceptualization of “acute stress reaction” as a normal phenomenon that still may require clinical intervention. These proposals were developed with specific considerations given to clinical utility and global applicability in both low‐ and high‐income countries.     

A conceptual framework for the revision of the ICD-10 classification of mental and behavioural disorders

The World Health Organization (WHO) is revising the ICD-10 classification of mental and behavioural disorders, under the leadership of the Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse and within the framework of the overall revision framework as directed by the World Health Assembly. This article describes WHO’s perspective and priorities for mental and behavioural disorders classification in ICD-11, based on the recommendations of the International Advisory Group for the Revision of ICD-10 Mental and Behavioural Disorders. The WHO considers that the classification should be developed in consultation with stakeholders, which include WHO member countries, multidisciplinary health professionals, and users of mental health services and their families. Attention to the cultural framework must be a key element in defining future classification concepts. Uses of the ICD that must be considered include clinical applications, research, teaching and training, health statistics, and public health. The Advisory Group has determined that the current revision represents a particular opportunity to improve the classification’s clinical utility, particularly in global primary care settings where there is the greatest opportunity to identify people who need mental health treatment. Based on WHO’s mission and constitution, the usefulness of the classification in helping WHO member countries, particularly low- and middle-income countries, to reduce the disease burden associated with mental disorders is among the highest priorities for the revision. This article describes the foundation provided by the recommendations of the Advisory Group for the current phase of work.     

Nature and prevalence of combinations of mental disorders and their association with excess mortality in a population‐based cohort study

The nature and prevalence of combinations of mental disorders and their associations with premature mortality have never been reported in a comprehensive way. We describe the most common combinations of mental disorders and estimate excess mortality associated with these combinations. We designed a population‐based cohort study including all 7,505,576 persons living in Denmark at some point between January 1, 1995 and December 31, 2016. Information on mental disorders and mortality was obtained from national registers. A total of 546,090 individuals (10.5%) living in Denmark on January 1, 1995 were diagnosed with at least one mental disorder during the 22‐year follow‐up period. The overall crude rate of diagnosis of mental disorders was 9.28 (95% CI: 9.26‐9.30) per 1,000 person‐years. The rate of diagnosis of additional mental disorders was 70.01 (95% CI: 69.80‐70.26) per 1,000 person‐years for individuals with one disorder already diagnosed. At the end of follow‐up, two out of five individuals with mental disorders were diagnosed with two or more disorder types. The most prevalent were neurotic/stress‐related/somatoform disorders (ICD‐10 F40‐F48) and mood disorders (ICD‐10 F30‐F39), which – alone or in combination with other disorders – were present in 64.8% of individuals diagnosed with any mental disorder. Mortality rates were higher for people with mental disorders compared to those without mental disorders. The highest mortality rate ratio was 5.97 (95% CI: 5.52‐6.45) for the combination of schizophrenia (ICD‐10 F20‐F29), neurotic/stress‐related/somatoform disorders and substance use disorders (ICD‐10 F10‐F19). Any combination of mental disorders was associated with a shorter life expectancy compared to the general Danish population, with differences in remaining life expectancy ranging from 5.06 years (95% CI: 5.01‐5.11) to 17.46 years (95% CI: 16.86‐18.03). The largest excess mortality was observed for combinations that included substance use disorders. This study reports novel estimates related to the “force of comorbidity” and provides new insights into the contribution of substance use disorders to premature mortality in those with comorbid mental disorders.     

Disorders related to sexuality and gender identity in the ICD‐11: revising the ICD‐10 classification based on current scientific evidence,best clinical practices,and human rights considerations

In the World Health Organization's forthcoming eleventh revision of the International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD‐11), substantial changes have been proposed to the ICD‐10 classification of mental and behavioural disorders related to sexuality and gender identity. These concern the following ICD‐10 disorder groupings: F52 Sexual dysfunctions, not caused by organic disorder or disease; F64 Gender identity disorders; F65 Disorders of sexual preference; and F66 Psychological and behavioural disorders associated with sexual development and orientation. Changes have been proposed based on advances in research and clinical practice, and major shifts in social attitudes and in relevant policies, laws, and human rights standards. This paper describes the main recommended changes, the rationale and evidence considered, and important differences from the DSM‐5. An integrated classification of sexual dysfunctions has been proposed for a new chapter on Conditions Related to Sexual Health, overcoming the mind/body separation that is inherent in ICD‐10. Gender identity disorders in ICD‐10 have been reconceptualized as Gender incongruence, and also proposed to be moved to the new chapter on sexual health. The proposed classification of Paraphilic disorders distinguishes between conditions that are relevant to public health and clinical psychopathology and those that merely reflect private behaviour. ICD‐10 categories related to sexual orientation have been recommended for deletion from the ICD‐11.     

Delay and failure in treatment seeking after first onset of mental disorders in the World Health Organization's World Mental Health Survey Initiative

Data are presented on patterns of failure and delay in making initial treatment contact after first onset of a mental disorder in 15 countries in the World Health Organization (WHO)''s World Mental Health (WMH) Surveys. Representative face-to-face household surveys were conducted among 76,012 respondents aged 18 and older in Belgium, Colombia, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Lebanon, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, People''s Republic of China (Beijing and Shanghai), Spain, and the United States. The WHO Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) was used to assess lifetime DSM-IV anxiety, mood, and substance use disorders. Ages of onset for individual disorders and ages of first treatment contact for each disorder were used to calculate the extent of failure and delay in initial help seeking. The proportion of lifetime cases making treatment contact in the year of disorder onset ranged from 0.8 to 36.4% for anxiety disorders, from 6.0 to 52.1% for mood disorders, and from 0.9 to 18.6% for substance use disorders. By 50 years, the proportion of lifetime cases making treatment contact ranged from 15.2 to 95.0% for anxiety disorders, from 7.9 to 98.6% for mood disorders, and from 19.8 to 86.1% for substance use disorders. Median delays among cases eventually making contact ranged from 3.0 to 30.0 years for anxiety disorders, from 1.0 to 14.0 years for mood disorders, and from 6.0 to 18.0 years for substance use disorders. Failure and delays in treatment seeking were generally greater in developing countries, older cohorts, men, and cases with earlier ages of onset. These results show that failure and delays in initial help seeking are pervasive problems worldwide. Interventions to ensure prompt initial treatment contacts are needed to reduce the global burdens and hazards of untreated mental disorders.     

Do mental health professionals use diagnostic classifications the way we think they do? A global survey

We report on a global survey of diagnosing mental health professionals, primarily psychiatrists, conducted as a part of the development of the ICD‐11 mental and behavioural disorders classification. The survey assessed these professionals' use of various components of the ICD‐10 and the DSM, their attitudes concerning the utility of these systems, and usage of “residual” (i.e., “other” or “unspecified”) categories. In previous surveys, most mental health professionals reported they often use a formal classification system in everyday clinical work, but very little is known about precisely how they are using those systems. For example, it has been suggested that most clinicians employ only the diagnostic labels or codes from the ICD‐10 in order to meet administrative requirements. The present survey was conducted with clinicians who were members of the Global Clinical Practice Network (GCPN), established by the World Health Organization as a tool for global participation in ICD‐11 field studies. A total of 1,764 GCPN members from 92 countries completed the survey, with 1,335 answering the questions with reference to the ICD‐10 and 429 to the DSM (DSM‐IV, DSM‐IV‐TR or DSM‐5). The most frequent reported use of the classification systems was for administrative or billing purposes, with 68.1% reporting often or routinely using them for that purpose. A bit more than half (57.4%) of respondents reported often or routinely going through diagnostic guidelines or criteria systematically to determine whether they apply to individual patients. Although ICD‐10 users were more likely than DSM‐5 users to utilize the classification for administrative purposes, other differences were either slight or not significant. Both classifications were rated to be most useful for assigning a diagnosis, communicating with other health care professionals and teaching, and least useful for treatment selection and determining prognosis. ICD‐10 was rated more useful than DSM‐5 for administrative purposes. A majority of clinicians reported using “residual” categories at least sometimes, with around 12% of ICD‐10 users and 19% of DSM users employing them often or routinely, most commonly for clinical presentations that do not conform to a specific diagnostic category or when there is insufficient information to make a more specific diagnosis. These results provide the most comprehensive available information about the use of diagnostic classifications of mental disorders in ordinary clinical practice.     

Lifetime prevalence and age-of-onset distributions of mental disorders in the World Health Organization's World Mental Health Survey Initiative

Data are presented on the lifetime prevalence, projected lifetime risk, and age-of-onset distributions of mental disorders in the World Health Organization (WHO)''s World Mental Health (WMH) Surveys. Face-to-face community surveys were conducted in seventeen countries in Africa, Asia, the Americas, Europe, and the Middle East. The combined numbers of respondents were 85,052. Lifetime prevalence, projected lifetime risk, and age of onset of DSM-IV disorders were assessed with the WHO Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI), a fully-structured lay administered diagnostic interview. Survival analysis was used to estimate lifetime risk. Median and inter-quartile range (IQR) of age of onset is very early for some anxiety disorders (7-14, IQR: 8-11) and impulse control disorders (7-15, IQR: 11-12). The age-of-onset distribution is later for mood disorders (29-43, IQR: 35-40), other anxiety disorders (24-50, IQR: 31-41), and substance use disorders (18-29, IQR: 21-26). Median and IQR lifetime prevalence estimates are: anxiety disorders 4.8-31.0% (IQR: 9.9-16.7%), mood disorders 3.3-21.4% (IQR: 9.8-15.8%), impulse control disorders 0.3-25.0% (IQR: 3.1-5.7%), substance use disorders 1.3-15.0% (IQR: 4.8-9.6%), and any disorder 12.0-47.4% (IQR: 18.1-36.1%). Projected lifetime risk is proportionally between 17% and 69% higher than estimated lifetime prevalence (IQR: 28-44%), with the highest ratios in countries exposed to sectarian violence (Israel, Nigeria, and South Africa), and a general tendency for projected risk to be highest in recent cohorts in all countries. These results document clearly that mental disorders are commonly occurring. As many mental disorders begin in childhood or adolescents, interventions aimed at early detection and treatment might help reduce the persistence or severity of primary disorders and prevent the subsequent onset of secondary disorders.     

Intellectual developmental disorders: towards a new name, definition and framework for "mental retardation/intellectual disability" in ICD-11

Although "intellectual disability" has widely replaced the term "mental retardation", the debate as to whether this entity should be conceptualized as a health condition or as a disability has intensified as the revision of the World Health Organization (WHO)'s International Classification of Diseases (ICD) advances. Defining intellectual disability as a health condition is central to retaining it in ICD, with significant implications for health policy and access to health services. This paper presents the consensus reached to date by the WHO ICD Working Group on the Classification of Intellectual Disabilities. Literature reviews were conducted and a mixed qualitative approach was followed in a series of meetings to produce consensus-based recommendations combining prior expert knowledge and available evidence. The Working Group proposes replacing mental retardation with intellectual developmental disorders, defined as "a group of developmental conditions characterized by significant impairment of cognitive functions, which are associated with limitations of learning, adaptive behaviour and skills". The Working Group further advises that intellectual developmental disorders be incorporated in the larger grouping (parent category) of neurodevelopmental disorders, that current subcategories based on clinical severity (i.e., mild, moderate, severe, profound) be continued, and that problem behaviours be removed from the core classification structure of intellectual developmental disorders and instead described as associated features.     

A meta‐review of “lifestyle psychiatry”: the role of exercise,smoking, diet and sleep in the prevention and treatment of mental disorders

There is increasing academic and clinical interest in how “lifestyle factors” traditionally associated with physical health may also relate to mental health and psychological well‐being. In response, international and national health bodies are producing guidelines to address health behaviors in the prevention and treatment of mental illness. However, the current evidence for the causal role of lifestyle factors in the onset and prognosis of mental disorders is unclear. We performed a systematic meta‐review of the top‐tier evidence examining how physical activity, sleep, dietary patterns and tobacco smoking impact on the risk and treatment outcomes across a range of mental disorders. Results from 29 meta‐analyses of prospective/cohort studies, 12 Mendelian randomization studies, two meta‐reviews, and two meta‐analyses of randomized controlled trials were synthesized to generate overviews of the evidence for targeting each of the specific lifestyle factors in the prevention and treatment of depression, anxiety and stress‐related disorders, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Standout findings include: a) convergent evidence indicating the use of physical activity in primary prevention and clinical treatment across a spectrum of mental disorders; b) emerging evidence implicating tobacco smoking as a causal factor in onset of both common and severe mental illness; c) the need to clearly establish causal relations between dietary patterns and risk of mental illness, and how diet should be best addressed within mental health care; and d) poor sleep as a risk factor for mental illness, although with further research required to understand the complex, bidirectional relations and the benefits of non‐pharmacological sleep‐focused interventions. The potentially shared neurobiological pathways between multiple lifestyle factors and mental health are discussed, along with directions for future research, and recommendations for the implementation of these findings at public health and clinical service levels.     

Association of preceding psychosis risk states and non‐psychotic mental disorders with incidence of clinical psychosis in the general population: a prospective study in the NEMESIS‐2 cohort

The validity and clinical utility of the concept of “clinical high risk” (CHR) for psychosis have so far been investigated only in risk‐enriched samples in clinical settings. In this population‐based prospective study, we aimed – for the first time – to assess the incidence rate of clinical psychosis and es­timate the population attributable fraction (PAF) of that incidence for preceding psychosis risk states and DSM‐IV diagnoses of non‐psychotic mental disorders (mood disorders, anxiety disorders, alcohol use disorders, and drug use disorders). All analyses were adjusted for age, gender and education. The incidence rate of clinical psychosis was 63.0 per 100,000 person‐years. The mutually‐adjusted Cox proportional hazards model indicated that preceding diagnoses of mood disorders (hazard ratio, HR=10.67, 95% CI: 3.12‐36.49), psychosis high‐risk state (HR=7.86, 95% CI: 2.76‐22.42) and drug use disorders (HR=5.33, 95% CI: 1.61‐17.64) were associated with an increased risk for clinical psychosis incidence. Of the clinical psychosis incidence in the population, 85.5% (95% CI: 64.6‐94.1) was attributable to prior psychopathology, with mood disorders (PAF=66.2, 95% CI: 33.4‐82.9), psychosis high‐risk state (PAF=36.9, 95% CI: 11.3‐55.1), and drug use disorders (PAF=18.7, 95% CI: –0.9 to 34.6) as the most important factors. Although the psychosis high‐risk state displayed a high relative risk for clinical psychosis outcome even after adjusting for other psychopathology, the PAF was comparatively low, given the low prevalence of psychosis high‐risk states in the population. These findings provide empirical evidence for the “prevention paradox” of targeted CHR early intervention. A comprehensive prevention strategy with a focus on broader psychopathology may be more effective than the current psychosis‐focused approach for achieving population‐based improvements in prevention of psychotic disorders.     

Transdiagnostic risk of mental disorders in offspring of affected parents: a meta-analysis of family high-risk and registry studies

The offspring of parents with mental disorders are at increased risk for developing mental disorders themselves. The risk to offspring may extend transdiagnostically to disorders other than those present in the parents. The literature on this topic is vast but mixed. To inform targeted prevention and genetic counseling, we performed a comprehensive, PRISMA 2020-compliant meta-analysis. We systematically searched the literature published up to September 2022 to retrieve original family high-risk and registry studies reporting on the risk of mental disorders in offspring of parents with any type of mental disorder. We performed random-effects meta-analyses of the relative risk (risk ratio, RR) and absolute risk (lifetime, up to the age at assessment) of mental disorders, defined according to the ICD or DSM. Cumulative incidence by offspring age was determined using meta-analytic Kaplan-Meier curves. We measured heterogeneity with the I² statistic, and risk of bias with the Quality In Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool. Sensitivity analyses addressed the impact of study design (family high-risk vs. registry) and specific vs. transdiagnostic risks. Transdiagnosticity was appraised with the TRANSD criteria. We identified 211 independent studies that reported data on 3,172,115 offspring of parents with psychotic, bipolar, depressive, disruptive, attention-deficit/hyperactivity, anxiety, substance use, eating, obsessive-compulsive, and borderline personality disorders, and 20,428,575 control offspring. The RR and lifetime risk of developing any mental disorder were 3.0 and 55% in offspring of parents with anxiety disorders; 2.6 and 17% in offspring of those with psychosis; 2.1 and 55% in offspring of those with bipolar disorder; 1.9 and 51% in offspring of those with depressive disorders; and 1.5 and 38% in offspring of those with substance use disorders. The offspring's RR and lifetime risk of developing the same mental disorder diagnosed in their parent were 8.4 and 32% for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; 5.8 and 8% for psychosis; 5.1 and 5% for bipolar disorder; 2.8 and 9% for substance use disorders; 2.3 and 14% for depressive disorders; 2.3 and 1% for eating disorders; and 2.2 and 31% for anxiety disorders. There were 37 significant transdiagnostic associations between parental mental disorders and the RR of developing a different mental disorder in the offspring. In offspring of parents with psychosis, bipolar and depressive disorder, the risk of the same disorder onset emerged at 16, 5 and 6 years, and cumulated to 3%, 19% and 24% by age 18; and to 8%, 36% and 46% by age 28. Heterogeneity ranged from 0 to 0.98, and 96% of studies were at high risk of bias. Sensitivity analyses restricted to prospective family high-risk studies confirmed the pattern of findings with similar RR, but with greater absolute risks compared to analyses of all study types. This study demonstrates at a global, meta-analytic level that offspring of affected parents have strongly elevated RR and lifetime risk of developing any mental disorder as well as the same mental disorder diagnosed in the parent. The transdiagnostic risks suggest that offspring of parents with a range of mental disorders should be considered as candidates for targeted primary prevention.     

The WPA-WHO Global Survey of Psychiatrists�� Attitudes Towards Mental Disorders Classification

This article describes the results of the WPA-WHO Global Survey of 4,887 psychiatrists in 44 countries regarding their use of diagnostic classification systems in clinical practice, and the desirable characteristics of a classification of mental disorders. The WHO will use these results to improve the clinical utility of the ICD classification of mental disorders through the current ICD-10 revision process. Participants indicated that the most important purposes of a classification are to facilitate communication among clinicians and to inform treatment and management. They overwhelmingly preferred a simpler system with 100 or fewer categories, and over two-thirds preferred flexible guidance to a strict criteria-based approach. Opinions were divided about how to incorporate severity and functional status, while most respondents were receptive to a system that incorporates a dimensional component. Significant minorities of psychiatrists in Latin America and Asia reported problems with the cross-cultural applicability of existing classifications. Overall, ratings of ease of use and goodness of fit for specific ICD-10 categories were fairly high, but several categories were described as having poor utility in clinical practice. This represents an important focus for the ICD revision, as does ensuring that the ICD-11 classification of mental disorders is acceptable to psychiatrists throughout the world.     

The DSM‐5: Classification and criteria changes

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM‐5) marks the first significant revision of the publication since the DSM‐IV in 1994. Changes to the DSM were largely informed by advancements in neuroscience, clinical and public health need, and identified problems with the classification system and criteria put forth in the DSM‐IV. Much of the decision‐making was also driven by a desire to ensure better alignment with the International Classification of Diseases and its upcoming 11th edition (ICD‐11). In this paper, we describe select revisions in the DSM‐5, with an emphasis on changes projected to have the greatest clinical impact and those that demonstrate efforts to enhance international compatibility, including integration of cultural context with diagnostic criteria and changes that facilitate DSM‐ICD harmonization. It is anticipated that this collaborative spirit between the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and the World Health Organization (WHO) will continue as the DSM‐5 is updated further, bringing the field of psychiatry even closer to a singular, cohesive nosology.     

Risks of all‐cause and suicide mortality in mental disorders: a meta‐review

A meta‐review, or review of systematic reviews, was conducted to explore the risks of all‐cause and suicide mortality in major mental disorders. A systematic search generated 407 relevant reviews, of which 20 reported mortality risks in 20 different mental disorders and included over 1.7 million patients and over a quarter of a million deaths. All disorders had an increased risk of all‐cause mortality compared with the general population, and many had mortality risks larger than or comparable to heavy smoking. Those with the highest all‐cause mortality ratios were substance use disorders and anorexia nervosa. These higher mortality risks translate into substantial (10‐20 years) reductions in life expectancy. Borderline personality disorder, anorexia nervosa, depression and bipolar disorder had the highest suicide risks. Notable gaps were identified in the review literature, and the quality of the included reviews was typically low. The excess risks of mortality and suicide in all mental disorders justify a higher priority for the research, prevention, and treatment of the determinants of premature death in psychiatric patients.     

“Prolonged grief disorder” and “persistent complex bereavement disorder”, but not “complicated grief”, are one and the same diagnostic entity: an analysis of data from the Yale Bereavement Study

There exists a general consensus that prolonged grief disorder (PGD), or some variant of PGD, represents a distinct mental disorder worthy of diagnosis and treatment. Nevertheless, confusion remains over whether different names and proposed symptom criteria for this disorder identify the same or different diagnostic entities. This study aimed to determine whether PGD, complicated grief (CG), and persistent complex bereavement disorder (PCBD) as described by the DSM‐5 are substantively or merely semantically different diagnostic entities. Data were derived from the Yale Bereavement Study, a longitudinal community‐based study of bereaved individuals funded by the US National Institute of Mental Health, designed explicitly to evaluate diagnostic criteria for disordered grief. The results suggested that the difference between PGD and PCBD is only semantic. The level of agreement between the original PGD test, a new version of the PGD test proposed for ICD‐11 and the PCBD test was high (pairwise kappa coefficients = 0.80‐0.84). Their estimates of rate of disorder in this community sample were similarly low (～10%). Their levels of diagnostic specificity were comparably high (95.0‐98.3%). Their predictive validity was comparable. In contrast, the test for CG had only moderate agreement with those for PGD and PCBD; its estimate of rate of disorder was three‐fold higher (～30%); its diagnostic specificity was poorer, and it had no predictive validity. We conclude that PGD, PCBD and proposed ICD‐11, but not CG, symptom‐diagnostic tests identify a single diagnostic entity. Ultimately, brief symptom‐diagnostic tests, such as the one proposed here for ICD‐11, may have the greatest clinical utility.     

Increased risk of COVID‐19 infection and mortality in people with mental disorders: analysis from electronic health records in the United States

Concerns have been expressed that persons with a pre‐existing mental disorder may represent a population at increased risk for COVID‐19 infec­tion and with a higher likelihood of adverse outcomes of the infection, but there is no systematic research evidence in this respect. This study assessed the impact of a recent (within past year) diagnosis of a mental disorder – including attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), bipolar disorder, depression and schizophrenia – on the risk for COVID‐19 infection and related mortality and hospitalization rates. We analyzed a nation‐wide database of electronic health records of 61 million adult patients from 360 hospitals and 317,000 providers, across 50 states in the US, up to July 29, 2020. Patients with a recent diagnosis of a mental disorder had a significantly increased risk for COVID‐19 infection, an effect strongest for depression (adjusted odds ratio, AOR=7.64, 95% CI: 7.45‐7.83, p<0.001) and schizophrenia (AOR=7.34, 95% CI: 6.65‐8.10, p<0.001). Among patients with a recent diagnosis of a mental disorder, African Americans had higher odds of COVID‐19 infection than Caucasians, with the strongest ethnic disparity for depression (AOR=3.78, 95% CI: 3.58‐3.98, p<0.001). Women with mental disorders had higher odds of COVID‐19 infection than males, with the strongest gender disparity for ADHD (AOR=2.03, 95% CI: 1.73‐2.39, p<0.001). Patients with both a recent diagnosis of a mental disorder and COVID‐19 infection had a death rate of 8.5% (vs. 4.7% among COVID‐19 patients with no mental disorder, p<0.001) and a hospitalization rate of 27.4% (vs. 18.6% among COVID‐19 patients with no mental disorder, p<0.001). These findings identify individuals with a recent diagnosis of a mental disorder as being at increased risk for COVID‐19 infection, which is further exacerbated among African Americans and women, and as having a higher frequency of some adverse outcomes of the infection. This evidence highlights the need to identify and address modifiable vulnerability factors for COVID‐19 infection and to prevent delays in health care provision in this population.     

The effectiveness of psychodynamic psychotherapies: An update

This paper provides a comprehensive review of outcome studies and meta‐analyses of effectiveness studies of psychodynamic therapy (PDT) for the major categories of mental disorders. Comparisons with inactive controls (waitlist, treatment as usual and placebo) generally but by no means invariably show PDT to be effective for depression, some anxiety disorders, eating disorders and somatic disorders. There is little evidence to support its implementation for post‐traumatic stress disorder, obsessive‐compulsive disorder, bulimia nervosa, cocaine dependence or psychosis. The strongest current evidence base supports relatively long‐term psychodynamic treatment of some personality disorders, particularly borderline personality disorder. Comparisons with active treatments rarely identify PDT as superior to control interventions and studies are generally not appropriately designed to provide tests of statistical equivalence. Studies that demonstrate inferiority of PDT to alternatives exist, but are small in number and often questionable in design. Reviews of the field appear to be subject to allegiance effects. The present review recommends abandoning the inherently conservative strategy of comparing heterogeneous “families” of therapies for heterogeneous diagnostic groups. Instead, it advocates using the opportunities provided by bioscience and computational psychiatry to creatively explore and assess the value of protocol‐directed combinations of specific treatment components to address the key problems of individual patients.