Search

Importance Variables such as severe symptoms, comorbidity, and sociodemographic characteristics (eg, low educational attainment or unemployment) are associated with a poorer prognosis in adults treated for depressive symptoms. The exclusion of patients with a poor prognosis from RCTs is negatively associated with the generalizability of research findings. Objective To compare the prognostic risk factors (PRFs) in patient samples of RCTs of face-to-face therapy (FTF) and internet-based therapy (IBT) for depression. Data Sources PsycINFO, Cochrane CENTRAL, and reference lists of published meta-analyses were searched from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2021.Study SelectionRCTs that compared FTF (individual or group therapy) and IBT (guided or self-guided interventions) against a control (waitlist or treatment as usual) in adults with symptoms of depression were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis Data were extracted by 2 independent observers. The Cochrane revised risk-of-bias tool was used to assess the risk of bias. The study was preregistered with OSF Registries and followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was the standardized mean difference (Hedges g effect size) in depressive symptoms at treatment termination (assessed with standard patient self-report questionnaires), with a positive standardized mean difference indicating larger improvements in the intervention compared with those in the control group. Meta-regression analyses were adjusted for the type of control group. Three preregistered and 2 exploratory sensitivity analyses were conducted. A prognostic risk index (PROG) was created that calculated the sum of 12 predefined individual indicators, with scores ranging from 0 to 12 and higher scores indicating that a sample comprised patients with poorer prognoses. Results This systematic review and meta-regression analysis identified 105 el

[Background] Prolonged grief disorder (PGD) is a new disorder included in the 11th edition of the International classification of diseases (ICD-11). An important remit of the new ICD-11 is the global applicability of the mental health disorder guidelines or definitions. Although previous definitions and descriptions of disordered grief have been assessed worldwide, this new definition has not yet been systematically validated. [Method] Here we assess the validity and applicability of core items of the ICD-11 PGD across five international samples of bereaved persons from Switzerland (N = 214), China (N = 325); Israel (N = 544), Portugal (N = 218) and Ireland (N = 830). [Results] The results confirm that variation in the diagnostic algorithm for PGD can greatly impact the rates of disorder within and between international samples. Different predictors of PGD severity may be related to sample differences. Finally, a threshold for diagnosis of clinically relevant PGD symptoms using a new scale, the International Prolonged Grief Disorder Scale (IPGDS), in three samples was confirmed. [Conclusions] Although this study was limited by lack of questionnaire data points across all five samples, the findings for the diagnostic threshold and algorithm iterations have implications for clinical use of the new ICD-11 PGD criteria worldwide.

Background: Prolonged grief disorder (PGD) is a new disorder included in the 11th edition of the International classification of diseases (ICD-11). An important remit of the new ICD-11 is the global applicability of the mental health disorder guidelines or definitions. Although previous definitions and descriptions of disordered grief have been assessed worldwide, this new definition has not yet been systematically validated. Method: Here we assess the validity and applicability of core items of the ICD-11 PGD across five international samples of bereaved persons from Switzerland (N = 214), China (N = 325); Israel (N = 544), Portugal (N = 218) and Ireland (N = 830). Results: The results confirm that variation in the diagnostic algorithm for PGD can greatly impact the rates of disorder within and between international samples. Different predictors of PGD severity may be related to sample differences. Finally, a threshold for diagnosis of clinically relevant PGD symptoms using a new scale, the International Prolonged Grief Disorder Scale (IPGDS), in three samples was confirmed. Conclusions: Although this study was limited by lack of questionnaire data points across all five samples, the findings for the diagnostic threshold and algorithm iterations have implications for clinical use of the new ICD-11 PGD criteria worldwide.

Background: Prolonged grief disorder (PGD) is a new mental health disorder included in the WHO ICD-11 however, the operationalization of the guidelines still needs to be empirically validated, particularly in different cultural contexts. Here we provide a preliminary validation study of the new International Prolonged Grief Disorder Scale (IPGDS) that serves to be the first self-report questionnaire directly based on the ICD-11 PGD and contains culturally adapted items. Methods: In addition to core symptom items new culturally specific items were developed in two phases. Phase 1: key informant interviews with 10 German-speaking and 14 Chinese experts in grief and mental health, followed by a focus group with four bereaved German-speaking participants. Phase 2: 214 German-speaking and 325 Chinese bereaved participants completed self-report questionnaires. Results: Phase 1 resulted in 19 potential culturally relevant items (e.g. feeling stuck in grief). Phase 2 exploratory factor analysis confirmed the one-dimensional nature of the IPGDS, additionally the 32-item scale revealed two factors (core grief and culturally specific symptoms). Psychometric analysis revealed strong internal consistency, concurrent validity and criterion validity. Limitations: The German-speaking and Chinese samples significantly differed in terms of several demographic variables including age, gender and type of loss. Conclusions: This preliminary validity study confirms that the IPGDS is a valid and reliable measure of the new ICD-11 PGD guidelines. This is the first scale of disordered grief to contain both core items and culturally specific supplementary items and aims to improve the clinical utility of the ICD-11 narrative approach.

BACKGROUND: Prolonged grief disorder (PGD) is included in the ICD-11 (11th edition of the International Classification of Diseases). The new PGD criteria reflect the requirements and recommendations of the World Health Organization for improved clinical utility and international applicability. Even though the ICD classification system is globally used, no research has investigated how healthcare professionals (HP) in non-Western countries may adopt this change for their own practice. OBJECTIVE: The present study explored the extent to which the new PGD criteria were accepted and perceived to meet the standards for clinical utility and international applicability among Chinese and German-speaking HP. METHODS: Individual semistructured interviews were conducted in person, by phone, or online (e.g., via Skype), with 24 Chinese (n = 10) and German-speaking (n = 14) HP working with bereaved populations in China and Switzerland, and analyzed using a qualitative framework analysis. Questions included "what items are currently missing from the PGD criteria?". RESULTS: Across all HP, the majority supported the inclusion of PGD and were generally aligned with the current criteria. HP found that the criteria distinguished between normal and abnormal grief and considered the criteria easy to use if their modifications were considered. Merits included, among others, improved clinical decision making, research promotion, and social acknowledgment. Main concerns included misdiagnosis, pathologization, and a lack of specificity of criteria. The importance of international applicability was emphasized across Chinese and German-speaking HP. Different grief-specific symptoms were identified by German-speaking and Chinese HP. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide evidence for the clinical utility and international applicability of ICD-11 PGD criteria among German-speaking and Chinese HP, as well as cultural similarities and differences in the barriers to implementation of these criteria.