Strategies for Establishing Clinical-Decision Thresholds in Psychiatry

Importance: Nearly all psychopathology is inherently continuous, but both clinical practice and research often require categorical decisions (eg, treat or wait, pay for treatment or decline, enroll in study or not); therefore, thresholds are applied to continuous phenomena to guide these decisions. The most common strategy is to select cutoffs by focusing on diagnoses, but this may be unhelpful in many decisions (eg, selective prevention, choice between treatment options). This review evaluates strategies for developing thresholds for psychopathology dimensions that may enhance clinical decision-making, drawing on methods used in psychiatry, psychology, internal medicine, and health economics. Observations: One strategy used extensively in neuropsychology, child psychiatry, clinical psychology, and laboratory medicine is to define multiple thresholds (eg, mild, moderate, and severe), using statistical deviance vis-à-vis the general population. A second strategy is to select thresholds in reference to functional impairment, as has been done for some psychopathology measures. A third approach, common in internal medicine but underused in psychiatry, references probability of a negative outcome (eg, mortality). A fourth option, gaining momentum in European psychiatry, is to select thresholds based on costs and benefits of a clinical action at different levels of severity or risk. Common examples of these 4 strategies are reviewed, comparing their strengths and limitations. They are relevant not only to clinical measures but also research instruments. Value judgments are inherent in approaches 2, 3, and 4; thus, selection of such thresholds requires stakeholder input. Importantly, clinicians make decisions by considering all information, and thresholds are only 1 factor. Conclusions and Relevance: Although diagnosis-focused thresholds are sometimes valuable, the field would be served best by also considering the aforementioned alternative strategies. These approaches have been greatly underused in psychiatry, and studies are urgently needed to address this gap. Herein, recommendations are offered for this research.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
JAMA Psychiatry
Published
2026-05-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2026.1078
Primary Topic
Mental Health and Psychiatry
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Strategies for Establishing Clinical-Decision Thresholds in Psychiatry

William E. Narrow, Yuliya Kotelnikova, Lee Anna Clark, Geoffrey M. Reed et al.
JAMA Psychiatry
Mental Health and Psychiatry
article

Strategies for Establishing Clinical-Decision Thresholds in Psychiatry

William E. Narrow, Yuliya Kotelnikova, Lee Anna Clark, Geoffrey M. Reed, Mark Zimmerman, Whitney Ringwald, Andrew E. Skodol, Roman Kotov, Peter J. Tyrer, Camilo J. Ruggero
article en

Abstract

Importance: Nearly all psychopathology is inherently continuous, but both clinical practice and research often require categorical decisions (eg, treat or wait, pay for treatment or decline, enroll in study or not); therefore, thresholds are applied to continuous phenomena to guide these decisions. The most common strategy is to select cutoffs by focusing on diagnoses, but this may be unhelpful in many decisions (eg, selective prevention, choice between treatment options). This review evaluates strategies for developing thresholds for psychopathology dimensions that may enhance clinical decision-making, drawing on methods used in psychiatry, psychology, internal medicine, and health economics. Observations: One strategy used extensively in neuropsychology, child psychiatry, clinical psychology, and laboratory medicine is to define multiple thresholds (eg, mild, moderate, and severe), using statistical deviance vis-à-vis the general population. A second strategy is to select thresholds in reference to functional impairment, as has been done for some psychopathology measures. A third approach, common in internal medicine but underused in psychiatry, references probability of a negative outcome (eg, mortality). A fourth option, gaining momentum in European psychiatry, is to select thresholds based on costs and benefits of a clinical action at different levels of severity or risk. Common examples of these 4 strategies are reviewed, comparing their strengths and limitations. They are relevant not only to clinical measures but also research instruments. Value judgments are inherent in approaches 2, 3, and 4; thus, selection of such thresholds requires stakeholder input. Importantly, clinicians make decisions by considering all information, and thresholds are only 1 factor. Conclusions and Relevance: Although diagnosis-focused thresholds are sometimes valuable, the field would be served best by also considering the aforementioned alternative strategies. These approaches have been greatly underused in psychiatry, and studies are urgently needed to address this gap. Herein, recommendations are offered for this research.

JAMA Psychiatry
University of Notre Dame (US), University of Minnesota (US), University of Arizona (US), Johns Hopkins University (US), University of Alberta (CA), The University of Texas at Dallas (US), Brown University (US), Johns Hopkins Medicine (US), NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre (GB), Imperial College London (GB), Stony Brook University (US), Columbia University (US)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 2%
Mental Health and Psychiatry
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.