The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Can clinicians use dimensional information to make a categorical diagnosis of paraphilic disorders? An ICD-11 field study

Can clinicians use dimensional information to make a categorical diagnosis of paraphilic disorders? An ICD-11 field study
Can clinicians use dimensional information to make a categorical diagnosis of paraphilic disorders? An ICD-11 field study
Background: the diagnosis of paraphilic disorder is a complicated clinical judgment based on the integration of information from multiple dimensions to arrive at a categorical (present/absent) conclusion. The recent update of the guidelines for paraphilic disorders in ICD-11 presents an opportunity to investigate how mental health professionals use the diagnostic guidelines to arrive at a diagnosis which thereby can optimize the guidelines for clinical use.

Aim: this study examined clinicians’ ability to use the ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines for paraphilic disorders which contain multiple dimensions that must be simultaneously assessed to arrive at a diagnosis.

Methods: the study investigated the ability of 1,263 international clinicians to identify the dimensions of paraphilic disorder in the context of written case vignettes that varied on a single dimension only.

Outcomes: participants provided diagnoses for the case vignettes along with dimensional ratings of the degree of presence of five dimensions of paraphilic disorder (arousal, consent, action, distress, and risk).

Results: across a series of analyses, clinicians demonstrated a clear ability to recognize and appropriately integrate the dimensions of paraphilic disorders; however, there was some evidence that clinicians may over-diagnose non-pathological cases.

Clinical Translation: clinicians would likely benefit from targeted training on the ICD-11 definition of paraphilic disorder and should be cautious of over-diagnosing.

Strengths and Limitations: this study represents a large international sample of health professionals and is the first to examine clinicians’ ability to apply the ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines for paraphilic disorders. Important limitations include not generalizing to all clinicians and acknowledging that results may be different in direct clinical interactions vs written case vignettes.

Conclusion: these results indicate that clinicians appear capable of interpreting and implementing the diagnostic guidelines for paraphilic disorders in ICD-11.
Paraphilic Disorder, ICD-11, Diagnosis, Sensitivity & Specificity, Dimensions, Categories
1743-6095
1592-1606
Keeley, Jared W.
a2cfaf65-9c44-449d-bbc7-d2b0d1c550d0
Briken, Peer
ecffa123-808f-4e4d-9f88-79e9de331943
Evans, Spencer C.
d05c2bfe-65ba-4963-bc53-4cfbf665c090
First, Michael B.
fbeaee5e-e3dc-46ae-9c18-2a2bc0c54d75
Klein, Verena
ae0b3b07-e55d-4793-bdc0-ceea23f00b9e
Krueger, Richard B.
c06bcc19-c23f-45e2-81b0-7e5d5d3cc2cf
Matsumoto, Chihiro
2c844291-38a6-44a3-abcd-0f6466fac33b
Fresan, Ana
42f9e19e-76df-4a50-bfe1-dcd5a2c87c6d
Rebello, Tahilia J.
761f82eb-c153-41df-b719-912d93b967d9
Robles, Rebeca
149861cc-c750-40eb-a266-b329f49419b9
Sharan, Pratap
0b388ce2-f32f-45a2-8fda-ab010c1ea3b3
Reed, Geoffrey M.
f5512d58-9bb4-401a-a5f6-c01f4fbef7b4
Keeley, Jared W.
a2cfaf65-9c44-449d-bbc7-d2b0d1c550d0
Briken, Peer
ecffa123-808f-4e4d-9f88-79e9de331943
Evans, Spencer C.
d05c2bfe-65ba-4963-bc53-4cfbf665c090
First, Michael B.
fbeaee5e-e3dc-46ae-9c18-2a2bc0c54d75
Klein, Verena
ae0b3b07-e55d-4793-bdc0-ceea23f00b9e
Krueger, Richard B.
c06bcc19-c23f-45e2-81b0-7e5d5d3cc2cf
Matsumoto, Chihiro
2c844291-38a6-44a3-abcd-0f6466fac33b
Fresan, Ana
42f9e19e-76df-4a50-bfe1-dcd5a2c87c6d
Rebello, Tahilia J.
761f82eb-c153-41df-b719-912d93b967d9
Robles, Rebeca
149861cc-c750-40eb-a266-b329f49419b9
Sharan, Pratap
0b388ce2-f32f-45a2-8fda-ab010c1ea3b3
Reed, Geoffrey M.
f5512d58-9bb4-401a-a5f6-c01f4fbef7b4

Keeley, Jared W., Briken, Peer, Evans, Spencer C., First, Michael B., Klein, Verena, Krueger, Richard B., Matsumoto, Chihiro, Fresan, Ana, Rebello, Tahilia J., Robles, Rebeca, Sharan, Pratap and Reed, Geoffrey M. (2021) Can clinicians use dimensional information to make a categorical diagnosis of paraphilic disorders? An ICD-11 field study. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 18 (9), 1592-1606. (doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2021.06.016).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Background: the diagnosis of paraphilic disorder is a complicated clinical judgment based on the integration of information from multiple dimensions to arrive at a categorical (present/absent) conclusion. The recent update of the guidelines for paraphilic disorders in ICD-11 presents an opportunity to investigate how mental health professionals use the diagnostic guidelines to arrive at a diagnosis which thereby can optimize the guidelines for clinical use.

Aim: this study examined clinicians’ ability to use the ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines for paraphilic disorders which contain multiple dimensions that must be simultaneously assessed to arrive at a diagnosis.

Methods: the study investigated the ability of 1,263 international clinicians to identify the dimensions of paraphilic disorder in the context of written case vignettes that varied on a single dimension only.

Outcomes: participants provided diagnoses for the case vignettes along with dimensional ratings of the degree of presence of five dimensions of paraphilic disorder (arousal, consent, action, distress, and risk).

Results: across a series of analyses, clinicians demonstrated a clear ability to recognize and appropriately integrate the dimensions of paraphilic disorders; however, there was some evidence that clinicians may over-diagnose non-pathological cases.

Clinical Translation: clinicians would likely benefit from targeted training on the ICD-11 definition of paraphilic disorder and should be cautious of over-diagnosing.

Strengths and Limitations: this study represents a large international sample of health professionals and is the first to examine clinicians’ ability to apply the ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines for paraphilic disorders. Important limitations include not generalizing to all clinicians and acknowledging that results may be different in direct clinical interactions vs written case vignettes.

Conclusion: these results indicate that clinicians appear capable of interpreting and implementing the diagnostic guidelines for paraphilic disorders in ICD-11.

Text
jsm_18_9_1592 - Version of Record
Restricted to Repository staff only
Request a copy

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 23 June 2021
e-pub ahead of print date: 6 August 2021
Published date: 6 August 2021
Keywords: Paraphilic Disorder, ICD-11, Diagnosis, Sensitivity & Specificity, Dimensions, Categories

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 474046
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/474046
ISSN: 1743-6095
PURE UUID: 1602d6a4-1ab2-4578-ba73-a01798775089
ORCID for Verena Klein: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-5830-7991

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 09 Feb 2023 17:54
Last modified: 17 Mar 2024 04:16

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Jared W. Keeley
Author: Peer Briken
Author: Spencer C. Evans
Author: Michael B. First
Author: Verena Klein ORCID iD
Author: Richard B. Krueger
Author: Chihiro Matsumoto
Author: Ana Fresan
Author: Tahilia J. Rebello
Author: Rebeca Robles
Author: Pratap Sharan
Author: Geoffrey M. Reed

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×