Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Evaluation of the Applicability and Usefulness of the Latin American Guide for Psychiatric Diagnosis, Revised Version, in Comparison with other International Systems among Latin American Psychiatrists

Javier Esteban Saavedra

Abstract


Background: The Latin American Guide to Psychiatric Diagnosis, Revised Version (GLADP-VR) represents an adaptation of the ICD-10 that seeks through a biopsychosocial approach to better reflect the holistic framework and culture of Latin American countries. This revision of the original GLADP included updated Latin American annotations and a new integrated diagnostic model centered on the person.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate among Latin American psychiatrists the levels of applicability and usefulness of the GLADP-VR in comparison with major international diagnostic classification systems.

Method: The survey evaluation instrument included questions about fundamental characteristics of a useful diagnostic guide and comparative questions about the acceptability and usefulness of the GLADP-VR, the original ICD-10, DSM-IV and DSM-5, and suggestions to improve the guide. The sample included 127 Latin American psychiatrists with an interest on Diagnosis and Classification and membership in one of the 17 national psychiatric societies affiliated with Latin American Psychiatric Association (APAL). They were sent the evaluation instrument by e-mail. Thirty-seven (29.1%) responses were obtained. There were no indications of demographic bias among respondents and no-respondents.The vast majority of respondents answered the questionnaire completely. Ninety-two percent reported knowing the GLADP-VR before the survey and 65.6% had actually used it before.

Results: The most commonly used diagnostic system was the original ICD-10 (86.5%), followed by the GLADP-VR (56.8%). Regarding applicability, the diagnostic system recognized as the most user-friendly was the ICD-10 followed by the GLADP-VR, with the most difficult being the DSM-5. Concerning diagnostic accuracy, the GLADP-VR was found most useful; and the DSM-5 was least useful. Regarding usefulness for clinical care and professional practice, the ICD-10 was rated highest, followed by the GLADP-VR, and lowest was DSM-5. The least valued in this regard was the DSM-5. Regarding usefulness for yielding a complete view of the clinical situation, the GLADP-VR was best (83.3%), and DSM-5 was the lowest. Concerning cultural and psychosocial contextualization, the GLADP-VR was considered most useful, well above ICD-10 and the DSMs. Furthermore, the GLADP-VR was considered more useful for teaching and research by about 80% of psychiatrists, superior to the other diagnostic systems.

Discussion: The findings of this study on the most prevalent use of ICD-10 are consistent with the results of a survey conducted earlier by the World Psychiatric Association across the world. In addition, in the present study less than half of the respondents used regularly the DSMs. The findings of the present study concerning the GLADP-VR were quite consistent with the corresponding findings of an earlier preliminary evaluation of the GLADP-VR. This seems to be related to the GLADP-VR comprehensive personalized diagnostic formulation with various components, including narratives. Conclusions: There are indications that the GLADP-VR is seen in Latin America as having higher diagnostic accuracy, yielding a comprehensive view of the clinical situation and its context, and more suitable for teaching, research, and work in community mental health.


Full Text:

PDF

References


Phillips, J.: Idiographic Formulations, Symbols, Narratives, Context and Meaning. Psychopathology. 2005; 38, 180-184.

Vaillant, G.E.: The disadvantages of DSM-III outweigh its advantages. American Journal of Psychiatry. 1984; 141: 542-545.

Andreasen NC. DSM and the Death of Phenomenology in America: An Example of Unintended Consequences. Schizophrenia Bulletin. 2007; 33 (1): 108-112.

Reiser MF. Are psychiatric educators “losing the mind”? American Journal of Psychiatry. 1988; 145: 148-153.

Mezzich, J.E. &Berganza, C.E.: International Psychiatric Diagnosis. In: Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry, 8th Edition. (Eds. Sadock, B.J. &Sadock, V.A.). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.2004.

Otero Ojeda, A.: Third Cuban Glossary of Psychiatry (GC-3): Key features and contributions. Psychopathology, 2002; 35, 181-184.

Berganza, C.E., Mezzich, J.E. & Jorge, M.R.: Latin American Guide for Psychiatric Diagnosis (GLADP). Psychopathology. 2002; 35, 185-190.

Saxena, S. &Saraceno, B.: The Revision of ICD Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders. In: Psychiatric Diagnosis: Challenges and Prospects (Eds. I.M. Salloum & J.E. Mezzich). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.2009.

Saavedra JE, Otero A, Mezzich JE, Salloum IM. The Revision of the Latin American Guide for Psychiatric Diagnosis (GLADP): a person-centered approach to international classification. The International Journal of Person Centered Medicine. 2011; 1(3):440-445.

AsociaciónPsiquiátrica de América Latina, Sección de Diagnóstico y Clasificación. (2012). GuíaLatinoamericana de DiagnósticoPsiquiátrico-VersiónRevisada. Lima: AsociaciónPsiquiátrica de América Latina.

Leme Lopes, J.: As Dimensões do DiagnosticoPsiquiátrico. Rio de Janeiro: Agir,1954.

Delgado, H.:Curso de Psiquiatría. 1ra Edición. Editorial Científico-Medica, Barcelona,1953.

Horwitz, J. & Marconi, J.: El problema de las definicionesen el campo de la salud mental: Definicionesaplicablesenestudiosepidemiológicos. Boletín de la Oficina Sanitaria Panamericana 1966; 60, 300-309.

World Health Organization. International Clasification of Diseases and Health Related Problems, Tenth Revision (ICD-10). Geneva: OMS; 1992.

Reed GM, MendonçaCorreia J, Esparza P, Saxena S, Maj M. The WPA-WHO Global Survey of Psychiatrists’ Attitudes Towards Mental Disorders Classification. World Psychiatry 2011;10:118-131.

American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th ed. (DSM-5). Arlington, Virginia: Author.2013.

Carroll BJ. Lessons for ICD-11 coming after DSM-5. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry. 2014; 48(1):90-91.

Goldberg JF. What should ICD-11 do that DSM-5 did not. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 2014, Vol 48(1): 87–93.

Saavedra JE, Otero A, Mezzich JE, Salloum IM. The Revision of the Latin American Guide for Psychiatric Diagnosis (GLADP) and an initial survey on its utility and prospects. The International Journal of Person Centered Medicine. 2011; 2(2):214-221.

Saavedra JE, Otero A, Mezzich JE, Salloum IM. The Revision of the Latin American Guide for Psychiatric Diagnosis (GLADP): a person-centered approach to international classification. The International Journal of Person Centered Medicine. 2011; 1(3):440-445.

Salloum IM, Mezzich JE. Person-centered diagnosis. International Journal of Integrated Care 2010; 10: 75-78.

AsociaciónPsiquiátrica de América Latina, Sección de Diagnóstico y Clasificación. GuíaLatinoamericana de DiagnósticoPsiquiátrico-VersiónRevisada. Lima: AsociaciónPsiquiátrica de América Latina, 2012.

Laín Entralgo, P.: El Diagnóstico Médico. Barcelona: Salvat,1982.

Cloninger R. Implications of comorbidity for the classifications of mental disorders: The need for a psychobiology of coherent; in Maj M, Gaebel W, et al (eds): Psychiatric Diagnosis and Classification. Chichester, Wiley, 2002.

Herrman H, Saxena S Moodie R (eds): Promoting Mental Health: Concepts, Emerging Evidence, Practice. Geneva, WHO, 2005.

Mezzich JE. International Surveys on the Use of ICD-10 and Related Diagnostic Systems. Psychopathology. 35: 72-75, 2002.

Salloum IM, Mezzich JE, Saavedra JE, Kirisci L. Usefulness of DSM-III Axis III in Psychiatric Inpatients: An Actuarial Comparison With The DSM-II Period. American Journal of Psychiatry, 151:768-769, 1994.

Saavedra JE, Mezzich JE, Salloum IM, Kirisci L. Impact of DSM-III Axis III on the Diagnosis of Physical Disorders in Ambulatory Psychiatric Patients. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 183:711-714, 1995.

Lopez-Ibor, J.J.: Cultural Adaptations of Current Psychiatric Classifications: Are they the Solution? Psychopathology.2003; 36, 114-119.

Kirmayer LJ. Culture, Context and Experience in Psychiatric Diagnosis. Psychopathology 2005; 38: 192-196.

Van Ommeren M, Sharma B, Makaju R, Thapa S, De Jong J. Limited Cultural Validity of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview’s Probe Flow Chart. Transcultural Psychiatry 2000; 37: 119-129.

.Mead N, Bower P. Patient-centered consultations and outcomes in primary care: a review of the literature. Patient Education and Counseling. 2002; 48:51-61.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5750/ijpcm.v7i4.671

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.