Addictive behaviors · 2016
Diagnostic Concordance between DSM-5 and ICD-10 Cannabis Use Disorders.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Proctor Steven L, Williams Daniel C, Kopak Albert M, Voluse Andrew C, Connolly Kevin M, Hoffmann Norman G
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: With the recent federal mandate that all U.S. health care settings transition to ICD-10 billing codes, empirical evidence is necessary to determine if the DSM-5 designations map to their respective ICD-10 diagnostic categories/billing codes. The present study examined the concordance between DSM-5 and ICD-10 cannabis use disorder diagnoses.
METHOD: Data were derived from routine clinical assessments of 6871 male and 801 female inmates recently admitted to a state prison system from 2000 to 2003. DSM-5 and ICD-10 diagnostic determinations were made from algorithms corresponding to the respective diagnostic formulations.
RESULTS: Past 12-month prevalence rates of cannabis use disorders were comparable across classification systems. The vast majority of inmates with no DSM-5 diagnosis continued to have no diagnosis per the ICD-10, and a similar proportion with a DSM-5 severe diagnosis received an ICD-10 dependence diagnosis. Most of the variation in diagnostic classifications was accounted for by those with a DSM-5 moderate diagnosis in that approximately half of these cases received an ICD-10 dependence diagnosis while the remaining cases received a harmful use diagnosis.
CONCLUSIONS: Although there appears to be a generally high level of agreement between diagnostic classification systems for those with no diagnosis or those evincing symptoms of a more severe condition, concordance between DSM-5 moderate and ICD-10 dependence diagnoses was poor. Additional research is warranted to determine the appropriateness and implications of the current DSM-5 coding guidelines regarding the assignment of an ICD-10 dependence code for those with a DSM-5 moderate diagnosis.
METHOD: Data were derived from routine clinical assessments of 6871 male and 801 female inmates recently admitted to a state prison system from 2000 to 2003. DSM-5 and ICD-10 diagnostic determinations were made from algorithms corresponding to the respective diagnostic formulations.
RESULTS: Past 12-month prevalence rates of cannabis use disorders were comparable across classification systems. The vast majority of inmates with no DSM-5 diagnosis continued to have no diagnosis per the ICD-10, and a similar proportion with a DSM-5 severe diagnosis received an ICD-10 dependence diagnosis. Most of the variation in diagnostic classifications was accounted for by those with a DSM-5 moderate diagnosis in that approximately half of these cases received an ICD-10 dependence diagnosis while the remaining cases received a harmful use diagnosis.
CONCLUSIONS: Although there appears to be a generally high level of agreement between diagnostic classification systems for those with no diagnosis or those evincing symptoms of a more severe condition, concordance between DSM-5 moderate and ICD-10 dependence diagnoses was poor. Additional research is warranted to determine the appropriateness and implications of the current DSM-5 coding guidelines regarding the assignment of an ICD-10 dependence code for those with a DSM-5 moderate diagnosis.