• Users Online: 85
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 


 
 Table of Contents  
DEBATE/PERSPECTIVE/VIEWPOINT
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 34  |  Issue : 5  |  Page : 63-67

Childhood disorders in international classification of diseases and related health Problems-11 and their relationship to diagnostic and statistical manual of mental Disorders-5 and international classification of diseases and related health Problems-10


1 Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
2 Department of Psychiatry, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry, Tamil Nadu, India
3 Department of Psychiatry, PSG Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India

Date of Web Publication20-Nov-2018

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Shoba Srinath
Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences, Bengaluru, Karnataka
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ijsp.ijsp_36_18

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 


Disorders in latest editions of the classificatory systems ICD-11 and DSM-5 have been categorised from a developmental lifespan perspective which is step in the right direction. Other laudatory features include highlighting developmental presentations, grouping neurodevelopmental disorders and including new diagnoses such as Complex PTSD and Prolonged Grief Disorder among others. However, conditions such as Conduct Disorder confined to the family context and Mixed Neurodevelopmental Disorder have been eliminated from the new classificatory system. These changes which have special clinical relevance especially from the Indian context have been reviewed and discussed below.

Keywords: Childhood disorders, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5, International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems-11


How to cite this article:
Srinath S, Jacob P, Kandasamy P, Bhaskaran S. Childhood disorders in international classification of diseases and related health Problems-11 and their relationship to diagnostic and statistical manual of mental Disorders-5 and international classification of diseases and related health Problems-10. Indian J Soc Psychiatry 2018;34, Suppl S1:63-7

How to cite this URL:
Srinath S, Jacob P, Kandasamy P, Bhaskaran S. Childhood disorders in international classification of diseases and related health Problems-11 and their relationship to diagnostic and statistical manual of mental Disorders-5 and international classification of diseases and related health Problems-10. Indian J Soc Psychiatry [serial online] 2018 [cited 2018 Dec 11];34, Suppl S1:63-7. Available from: http://www.indjsp.org/text.asp?2018/34/5/63/245831




  Introduction Top


The eleventh revision of the International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD) is currently underway by the World Health Organization (WHO) and will be made available by 2018 (www.who.int/classifications/icd/whoresponseicd11.pdf? ua = 1).[1] Meanwhile, the beta draft of the chapter on mental and behavioral disorders in the 11th revision of the (ICD) is available for contributions and comments (http://apps.who. int/classifications/icd11/browse/l-m/en).[2] This is one such commentary on childhood disorders in the 11th revision of the ICD when compared to the previous revision in what is most assuredly a mammoth undertaking. A critique of all the mental, behavioral, and neurodevelopmental disorders of childhood were not possible due to space constraints and this is a limitation. We have selected a few disorders that have special relevance from a sociocultural perspective, particularly with respect to their clinical utility and have highlighted them here.

Both the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and the ICD have always followed a descriptive categorical approach despite the limitations of this type of classification.[3] However, the categorical approach also has a number of advantages in both the clinical sphere and with respect to our understanding and research into psychiatric disorders.[4] The ICD and DSM classificatory systems have some significant differences in their conceptualization of certain disorders.[5] This lack of concordance between the two major classificatory systems across diagnoses has always been a source of ire and frustration for practitioners and researchers worldwide.[5] Keeping this in mind, the American Psychiatric Association and the WHO have strived hard to achieve conceptual and item-wise disorder-specific congruence between their respective classificatory systems.[4],[6] Both classificatory systems (ICD-11 and DSM-5) have now taken a developmental lifespan approach and have, thereby drastically reduced the number of classified disorders.[7] This has been achieved by inclusion of additional features and subcategorization to account for the clinical heterogeneity and developmental presentations.

A discussion on the broad categorization of disorders relevant to children and based on the authors' clinical experience and research involvement from teaching hospitals in India is presented below.


  Neurodevelopmental Disorders Top


A welcome change in both the latest revisions of the classificatory systems is that they have combined all neurodevelopmental disorders into one big cluster. Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), stereotypic movement disorder, and tic disorders have been recognized as neurodevelopmental disorders and have rightly found a place under this section. This change reflects our current conceptual understanding of these disorders from shared genetic and environmental risk factors affecting neural and biological characteristics and ultimately the phenotypes that they represent.[8],[9],[10] Given the familial nature of enuresis and its obvious comorbidity with other neurodevelopmental disorders, a case can be made for the inclusion of this condition under the rubric of neurodevelopmental disorders as well.[11],[12]

Based on the current understanding of neurodevelopmental disorders, the omission of mixed specific developmental disorders (F83) as a category from the latest revision of the ICD is abstruse. DSM-5[13] has a category called other specified neurodevelopmental disorder (F315.8) and an unspecified neurodevelopmental disorder (315.9) which corresponds to F88 and F89 in the 10th revision and to other neurodevelopmental disorder in the 11th revision of the ICD.[14] The “unspecified” and the “other” categories nevertheless are not equivalent to the “mixed” category. “Mixed” presentations are accommodated under “other specified neurodevelopmental disorder” (315.8) in DSM-5, which includes presentations with sociooccupational dysfunction/impairment that does not meet the criteria for specific neurodevelopment disorders. A separate category with mixed presentation with combination of symptoms from different disorders is not delineated. This is suboptimal because mixed presentations need further assessment, intervention, and follow-up. The “unspecified” category also does not cover these presentations well because it is meant for situations where there is insufficient information to make a more specific diagnosis. While there is a place for strict categories both in clinical practice and research, our experience often times is that children with neurodevelopmental symptoms, especially early on, do not neatly fall into these categories. This has been described in the concept known as “early symptomatic syndromes eliciting neurodevelopmental clinical examinations” (ESSENCE).[15] While comorbid diagnoses are allowed in both classificatory systems now, some cases do not meet criteria for specific disorders and have an admixture of symptoms from different neurodevelopmental disorders.[15] Delineation of “mixed neurodevelopmental disorder” would help the clinician appreciate that there is an assortment of difficulties and impairments in the child that requires holistic and continual assessment and management over the lifespan. ICD-10 included a category of “mixed specific developmental disorders”-“this is an ill-defined, inadequately conceptualized (but necessary) residual category of disorders.….”[14] With the recognition of ESSENCE the need for “mixed specific developmental disorders” category is greater than earlier. We suggest that while specifying this category, the classificatory system should mention that it is a temporary diagnosis requiring reassessment and that it should be reserved for children below 5 years of age. The diagnosis would also help the clinician to focus on the neurodevelopmental disorder as well as other subthreshold symptoms suggestive of related disorders (e.g., ADHD and ASD) with regard to evaluation, interventions, referral, and follow-up.


  Anxiety and Fear-Related Disorders Top


The DSM-5 and ICD-11 have espoused a developmental lifespan approach to the disorders classified under this section with the inclusion of separation anxiety disorder and selective mutism. Both revisions have given “anxiety and fear related disorders” their due by classifying them as an independent grouping, unlike their previous editions. Other laudatory features are the inclusion of developmental presentations under each category and discussions about boundaries with normal development and differential diagnosis to enable better clinical judgment. Both classificatory systems have allowed for comorbid diagnosis, both across anxiety disorders and with depression, in keeping with our current conceptual understanding of these conditions.[16] However, a qualifier for social anxiety, namely “performance only,” has not been recorded in the beta version of ICD-11. This is an important qualifier in the Indian context, given that “board examinations” which take place at the age of 16 and 18 years (Secondary and Higher Secondary School Examinations) are a common cause of anxiety, especially in adolescents; either because of undue pressure from parents and teachers or internalization of such expectations on the part of the adolescents. Many adolescents have a range of psychiatric and psychological problems at this juncture, including school refusal, depression, suicidal ideation/attempt, and debilitating anxiety.[17],[18] The qualifier “performance only” under social anxiety disorder would help clinicians in formulating targeted intervention for both the adolescents and their family.


  Disorders Specifically Associated with Stress Top


There is a change in the title of the grouping from “reaction to severe stress and adjustment disorders” in ICD-10 to “disorders specifically associated with stress” in ICD-11. An identifiable stressor is necessary for the diagnosis of disorders specifically associated with stress, and the classification of disorders in this grouping is based on the nature, pattern, and duration of the symptoms that arise in response to the stressful event. The change of title, in our opinion, has important implications for our understanding of the disorders listed under this section as well as our understanding of stress. The latest revision of the ICD has taken into account that not all stress needs to be life-threatening and horrific and less severe psychosocial stress (life events) can also lead to psychological symptoms and disorders. At the same time, ICD-11 has conceptualized acute stress reaction as a normal response to recent overwhelming stressor and has included it under the category of “factors influencing health status and contact with services,” so as to not pathologize what is essentially a transient state occurring in the immediate aftermath of an acute stressful event, but which may still require clinical attention.[19]

As with other disorders in ICD-11, developmental presentations have been included in this section as well which is praiseworthy. In fact, for a condition such as posttraumatic stress disorder, ICD-11 has acknowledged what is known in the literature that children may not present like adults due to their “emerging cognitive capacities and limited verbal abilities” and may thus find it difficult to report internal states.[20]

Complex posttraumatic stress disorder (complex PTSD) is a new diagnosis in this grouping. This diagnosis is a combination of PTSD and ICD-10 category of “enduring personality change after catastrophic experience (F62.0)” as the latter did not garner adequate clinical and scientific interest.[19] Children are more vulnerable to this disorder than adults and thus the previous practice of undermining the importance of prolonged stress in early childhood because it was difficult to diagnosis “enduring personality change after catastrophic experience” in childhood was not appropriate.[19] This diagnosis is not present in DSM-5. Complex PTSD is envisaged as a disorder that occurs in the wake of an event or a series of events that are horrific, life-threatening, and are often times repetitive and prolonged, where the person feels escape is difficult. This is especially relevant given that children are often the target of severe and significant violence and human rights violations including sexual violence, trafficking, and other such heinous crimes.[21],[22],[23]

Prolonged grief disorder has been given the status of an independent disorder in ICD-11, while its counterpart in DSM-5, persistent complex bereavement disorder has been placed under the section of “conditions for future study.” With respect to children, ICD-11 has discussed the boundaries of normal bereavement and prolonged grief disorder with developmental presentations and expressions of grief, including other relevant psychological and psychosocial factors such as the nature and intensity of child's relationship with the deceased (e.g., loss of primary caregiver) and the contextual factors such as change in social environment, family communication, and caregivers' coping with the loss among others; issues that are pertinent to the clinical situation.

In ICD-10, attachment disorders were classified under the section of “Disorders of social functioning with onset specific to childhood and adolescence” (F94).[14] Research over the last decade has established that exposure to chronic stress in the form of severe social neglect and grossly inadequate caregiving specifically in the early developmental period is necessary for attachment disorders to occur and both DSM-5 and ICD-11 have taken cognizance of the accumulating literature in this area and these two disorders have been aptly classified under this section.[24]

Finally, with respect to adjustment disorders, this is a diagnosis, that is, frequently used in the clinical setting[25] despite its diagnostic criteria being unclear and the lack of epidemiological and other research in this area. The lack of precise criteria for adjustment disorders in ICD-10 resulted in conflation with other disorders and the excessive use of psychotropic agents.[26] The diagnostic guidelines for adjustment disorders in the ICD-11 have been made more specific, especially delineating the boundary with normality and other mental and behavioral disorders. This will certainly prevent this diagnosis from being misused as a wastebasket diagnosis for subthreshold symptoms. However, ICD-11 beta version does not have any qualifiers in the section on adjustment disorders as opposed to DSM-5. In our experience, qualifiers such as “with mixed anxiety and depressed mood” or “with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct” have considerable clinical utility as the management differs and ICD-11 should consider adding these qualifiers. In addition, regression is a frequently occurring symptom complex in children and adolescents, and while it is mentioned in the developmental presentation of the disorder, a qualifier “with regression” would have considerable clinical relevance.


  Disruptive Behavior and Dissocial Disorders Top


A number of important issues have been noted with regard to disruptive and dissocial disorders in ICD-11 and DSM-5. First, there is no stated age cutoff, and while there was not one even in the previous revisions, these disorders were coded under the section on “disorders of childhood and adolescence” (F90–98).[14],[27] It is now clear that conduct disorder (CD) under the category of “disruptive behaviors and dissocial disorders” can persist the past developmental periods of childhood and adolescence.

Oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) (F 91.3) was seen as a subtype of CD[14] in ICD-10. The disorders are considered separate in ICD-11 based on low rates of conversion from ODD to CD; and the findings suggesting that ODD mostly predicted emotional outcomes and CD, predicted behavioral outcomes.[28] Research in the past decade has also shown that the “irritable” dimension of ODD was predictive of depression and many patients with ODD also had a family history of mood disorders.[28] Only the headstrong and the hurtful dimensions of ODD were predictive of ADHD and nonaggressive/aggressive CD.[28],[29] The 11th revision of the ICD reflects this understanding of ODD and we feel that these qualifiers will have substantial usefulness in the clinical setting. DSM-5 also recognizes angry/irritable mood as a core symptom of ODD but does not include it as a specifier.[13] On the other hand, DSM-5 has a category called disruptive mood dysregulation disorder (DMDD) (296.99). This diagnosis is not available in ICD-11.[13] The ICD-11 category of “ODD with chronic irritability and anger” is the closest counterpart of DSM-5 DMDD. We feel this lack of concordance between the two classificatory systems is a cause for concern. While, there is some support for (DMDD) as a diagnostic entity,[30] whether it will actually reduce the rates of diagnosis of bipolar disorder in children and adolescents remains to be seen.[31] Furthermore, the lack of global evidence on DMDD makes its inclusion in ICD-11 difficult.[32] It is therefore understandable that ICD-11 has been circumspect and has included “chronic irritability” as a qualifier under ODD because of its public health and clinical utility.[32]

CD confined to the family context (F 91.0) has been removed from the beta draft of ICD-11. This was an extremely important diagnostic entity in India, both from a clinical and sociocultural perspective. In fact, CD in the family context was the most common diagnosis in a file review on CD from India.[33] India is undergoing massive changes in terms of urbanization and globalization where there is a constant struggle between old and new values and this is very evident in the realm of parenting.[34] Indian families are mostly patriarchal and the parenting style continues to be authoritarian for most part. Parents of boys are indulgent and punitive even though these two styles seem contradictory.[35] Often parents have unrealistic expectations regarding academic success and achievement resulting in a number of psychiatric and psychological disturbances including CD confined to the family context.[36] A study done on parenting dimensions and externalizing behaviors in the Indian context showed that there was a significant correlation between punitive, physically coercive, and verbally hostile parenting that predicted externalizing behaviors in children.[37] Indian as well as Western research has shown that familial factors such as inconsistent disciplining, overinvolvement, marital conflict, discordant intrafamilial relations, lack of parental supervision/control, presence of parental mental disorder, and anomalous family situations; are associated with CD.[38],[39],[40],[41] As the symptoms of CD are mostly present in the family context, this is an important diagnosis from the perspective of intervention. ICD-11 must reconsider retaining this diagnostic category as it is extremely relevant in the present Indian context.


  Other Considerations – Multiaxial Classification Top


Multiaxial systems help circumvent problem of false dichotomies, wherein clinicians have to choose between two diagnoses as it provides a means to record the main clinical picture and other dimensional features.[7] Given the ease of use, multiaxial classification is considered the norm in child psychiatry and it is hoped that like ICD-10 (https://www.bookdepository.com/Multiaxial-Classification-Child-Adolescent-Psychiatric-Disorders-World-Health-Organization-WHO/9780521 581332), the 11th revision will also incorporate a similar version. In ICD-11 beta draft, “Factors influencing health status or contact with health services” compensate to an extent in this regard.


  Conclusions Top


No classificatory system is perfect. However, both DSM-5 and ICD-11 are in keeping with our current conceptual understanding of mental and behavioral disorders. Classificatory systems are meant to ease communication between professionals and with clients so that appropriate clinical interventions can be instituted. In this regard, the congruence between ICD-11 and DSM-5 will aid in their greater global acceptance and applicability. This will help in establishing comparability of research findings across countries. But as with all categorical systems in a dimensional world, there are always problems when people do not neatly fall into categories and thus the continued need for “mixed” categories. The aim of classificatory systems must be that more people use it across a multitude of settings and across cultures, and therefore, these factors must be paid attention to for greater applicability. There are certain diagnostic categories that are particularly useful in specific countries or cultures. Since ICD is a global classificatory system, it must retain these diagnostic categories. Multiaxial classificatory systems have tremendous clinical utility and allow a more holistic conceptualization of the child and family factors and hopefully, a system like that in ICD-10 for children and adolescents will be incorporated in ICD-11. Overall, ICD-11 brings greater clarity regarding the presentation of all disorders seen in children and adolescents, and there is hope that it will improve recognition of these disorders across various health-care settings.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Department of Health Statistics and Information Systems WHO. Initial WHO Response to the Report of the External Review of the ICD-11 Revision; 12 May, 2015.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Luciano M. The ICD-11 beta draft is available online. World Psychiatry 2015;14:375-6.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
van Praag HM. Nosologomania: A disorder of psychiatry. World J Biol Psychiatry 2000;1:151-8.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
First MB. Harmonisation of ICD-11 and DSM-V: Opportunities and challenges. Br J Psychiatry 2009;195:382-90.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Andrews G, Slade T, Peters L. Classification in psychiatry: ICD-10 versus DSM-IV. Br J Psychiatry 1999;174:3-5.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
International Advisory Group for the Revision of ICD-10 Mental and Behavioural Disorders WHO. Summary Report of the 3rd Meeting of the International Advisory Group for the Revision of ICD-10 Mental and Behavioural Disorders; 2008. Available from: http://www.int/mental_health/evidence/icd_summary_report_march_2008.pdf. [Last accessed on 2017 Aug 30].  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Rutter M. Research review: Child psychiatric diagnosis and classification: Concepts, findings, challenges and potential. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 2011;52:647-60.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Lahey BB, Van Hulle CA, Singh AL, Waldman ID, Rathouz PJ. Higher-order genetic and environmental structure of prevalent forms of child and adolescent psychopathology. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2011;68:181-9.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Cristino AS, Williams SM, Hawi Z, An JY, Bellgrove MA, Schwartz CE, et al. Neurodevelopmental and neuropsychiatric disorders represent an interconnected molecular system. Mol Psychiatry 2014;19:294-301.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Thapar A, Rutter M. Neurodevelopmental disorders. In: Thapar A, Pine DS, Leckman JF, Scott S, Snowling MJ, et al., editors. Rutter's Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 6th ed. Oxford, United Kingdom: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.; 2015. p. 31-40.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Elian M, Elian E, Kaushansky A. Nocturnal enuresis: A familial condition. J R Soc Med 1984;77:529-30.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Shreeram S, He JP, Kalaydjian A, Brothers S, Merikangas KR. Prevalence of enuresis and its association with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder among U.S. children: Results from a nationally representative study. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2009;48:35-41.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 5th ed. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association; 2013.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
World Health Organization. The ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders: Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Guidelines. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1992.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Gillberg C. The ESSENCE in child psychiatry: Early symptomatic syndromes eliciting neurodevelopmental clinical examinations. Res Dev Disabil 2010;31:1543-51.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Angold A, Costello EJ, Erkanli A. Comorbidity. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 1999;40:57-87.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Deb S. A study on the negative effects of academic stress. Paper presented at the International Seminar on Learning and Motivation. Kedah Darul Aman, Malaysia; 2001.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Kumar KS, Akoijam BS. Depression, anxiety and stress among higher secondary school students of Imphal, Manipur. Indian J Community Med 2017;42:94-6.  Back to cited text no. 18
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
19.
Maercker A, Brewin CR, Bryant RA, Cloitre M, van Ommeren M, Jones LM, et al. Diagnosis and classification of disorders specifically associated with stress: Proposals for ICD-11. World Psychiatry 2013;12:198-206.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Cohen JA, Bukstein O, Walter H, Benson SR, Chrisman A, Farchione TR, et al. Practice parameter for the assessment and treatment of children and adolescents with posttraumatic stress disorder. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2010;49:414-30.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs. Crime in India 2012 Statistics. Available from: http://www.ncrb.nic.in/CD.CII2012/Statistics2012.pdf. [Last accessed on 2017 Aug 30].  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Singh MM, Parsekar SS, Nair SN. An epidemiological overview of child sexual abuse. J Family Med Prim Care 2014;3:430-5.  Back to cited text no. 22
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
23.
Kacker L, Varadan S, Kumar P. Study on Child Abuse: India 2007. New Delhi: Ministry of Women and Child Development, Government of India; 2007.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Zeanah CH, Gleason MM. Annual research review: Attachment disorders in early childhood – Clinical presentation, causes, correlates, and treatment. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 2015;56:207-22.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Patra BN, Sarkar S. Adjustment disorder: Current diagnostic status. Indian J Psychol Med 2013;35:4-9.  Back to cited text no. 25
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
26.
Casey P, Doherty A. Adjustment disorder: Implications for ICD-11 and DSM-5. Br J Psychiatry 2012;201:90-2.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Text Revision (DSM–IV–TR). 4th ed. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association; 2000.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Rowe R, Costello EJ, Angold A, Copeland WE, Maughan B. Developmental pathways in oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder. J Abnorm Psychol 2010;119:726-38.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Stringaris A, Goodman R. Longitudinal outcome of youth oppositionality: Irritable, headstrong, and hurtful behaviors have distinctive predictions. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2009;48:404-12.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Blader JC, Carlson GA. Increased rates of bipolar disorder diagnoses among U.S. child, adolescent, and adult inpatients, 1996-2004. Biol Psychiatry 2007;62:107-14.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Margulies DM, Weintraub S, Basile J, Grover PJ, Carlson GA. Will disruptive mood dysregulation disorder reduce false diagnosis of bipolar disorder in children? Bipolar Disord 2012;14:488-96.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Evans SC, Burke JD, Roberts MC, Fite PJ, Lochman JE, de la Peña FR, et al. Irritability in child and adolescent psychopathology: An integrative review for ICD-11. Clin Psychol Rev 2017;53:29-45.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Swaminatha G, Srinath S, Sharan R. Conduct disorders – A file review of 110 cases. In: Paper presented at the Annual Conference of Indian Psychiatric Society, Jaipur; 1986.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Carson D, Chowdhary A. Family therapy in India: A new profession in an ancient land. Contemp Fam Ther 2000;22:387-406.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Saraswathi TS, Ganapathy H. Indian parents ethno theories as a reflection of Hindu scheme of child and human development. In: Keller H, Poortinga YH, Scholmerich A, editors. Between Culture and Biology: Perspectives on Ontogenetic Development. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press; 2002. p. 79-88.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Sharma I. Parenting, challenge in the new millennium: Implications for mental health of children. J Indian Assoc Child Adolesc Ment Health 2004;1:4.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Sharma V, Sandhu GK. A community study of association between parenting dimensions and externalizing behaviors. J Indian Assoc Child Adolesc Ment Health 2006;2:48-58.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
Gowridevi M. A Study of Families of Children with Conduct Disorder (Unpublished MD thesis). National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences; 1983.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
Talwar P. The family and peer group influences in aggression. Indian J Psychiatry 1998;40:346-9.  Back to cited text no. 39
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
40.
Sundaram M. Diagnostic and Correlative Study of Conduct Symptoms in Children and Adolescents. (Unpublished MD Thesis). National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences (NIMHANS); 2005.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
Anant S, Raghuram A. Marital conflict among parents: implications for family therapy with adolescent conduct disorder. Contemp Fam Ther 2005;27:473-82.  Back to cited text no. 41
    




 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Neurodevelopment...
Anxiety and Fear...
Disorders Specif...
Disruptive Behav...
Other Considerat...
Conclusions
References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed82    
    Printed0    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded19    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]