Psychiatric classification in the setting of medical disease: comparing the clinical value of different proposals

Assessing demoralization in medically ill patients: Factor structure of the Italian version of the demoralization scale and development of short versions with the item response theory framework

OBJECTIVE

Demoralization has been mostly investigated in oncology but is also relevant for patients with other physical illnesses. Our aims were to investigate the psychometric properties of the 24-item Italian version of the Demoralization Scale (DS-24) among medically ill inpatients, and to develop shorter versions for screening.

METHODS

Four-hundred and seventy-three participants were recruited from medical wards of the University Hospital of Ferrara. Patients were assessed using the Diagnostic Criteria for Psychosomatic Research-Demoralization module (DCPR/D), Demoralization Scale (DS-24), Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), Brief-Symptom Inventory-18, Anxiety subscale (BSI-Anx) and EuroQol Group (EQ-5D). Confirmatory factor analyses of previous structures and exploratory factor analyses were conducted using an Item Response Theory approach, including a bifactor model.

RESULTS

According to DCPR/D criteria, the prevalence of demoralization was 40%. Confirmatory analyses revealed that none out of seven factor structures from oncology studies adequately fitted data from hospital inpatients. Exploratory Item Factor Analysis uncovered a four-factor model comprising Disheartenment, Dysphoria, Sense of Failure, Loss of Meaning and Purpose, or a bifactor model, comprising similar factors with the addition of a general factor accounting for 45% of the variance. Moreover, we developed 13 and 6-item versions of the DS, both retaining high correlation with DS-24 scores (r = 0.98 and r = 0.95, respectively) and concordance with DCPR/D criteria (AUC-ROC 0.82 and 0.81).

CONCLUSION

The DS factor structure differs between general hospital and cancer patients. Differences may depend on intrinsic disease features and cultural-geographic factors. The short versions of the DS-24 may aid clinicians in identifying demoralized patients in hospital settings.

The unifying concept of illness behavior

The concept of illness behavior was introduced to indicate the ways in which given symptoms may be perceived, evaluated and acted upon at an individual level. Illness behavior may vary greatly according to illness-related, patient-related and doctor-related variables and their complex interactions. In the past decades, important lines of research have been concerned with illness perception, frequent attendance at medical facilities, health care-seeking behavior, treatment-seeking behavior, delay in seeking treatment, and treatment adherence. They have, however, mostly investigated single aspects separately. In this concise review, we suggest that the concept of illness behavior may provide a unifying framework and useful insights to observations and findings that would otherwise remain scattered and unrelated in the medical literature. The wide range of expressions of illness behavior is likely to affect the presentation of any disease and its identification, course and treatment. Assessing illness behavior and devising appropriate responses by health care providers may contribute to the improvement of final outcomes.

Assessing psychological factors affecting medical conditions: comparison between different proposals

OBJECTIVE

We compared the provisional Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) criteria for Somatic Symptom Disorders (SSD) and an alternative classification based on the Diagnostic Criteria for Psychosomatic Research (DCPR) as to prevalence and associations with dimensional measures of psychological distress and functioning in a population of medical patients.

METHOD

Seventy consecutive outpatients with congestive heart failure were administered an ad hoc structured clinical interview for the identification of DSM-5 SSD, the section concerning hypochondriasis of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV, the Structured Interview for DCPR and Paykel's Clinical Interview for Depression. Subjects also completed the Symptom Questionnaire and the Psychosocial Index. Global assessment of functioning was performed with the DSM-IV Axis V.

RESULTS

A diagnosis within DSM-5 SSD was found in 13 patients (18.5%): 61.5% of them were diagnosed with the Psychological Factors Affecting Medical Condition category. Twenty-nine patients (41.4%) were classified according to the DCPR-based proposal: illness denial, demoralization and irritable mood were the most frequent specifiers. The DCPR-based classification showed a greater number of significant associations with dimensional measures of psychological distress, global functioning and stress.

CONCLUSION

Compared to DSM-5 SSD, the DCPR-based proposal was more sensitive in detecting psychological factors relevant to illness course and provided a better characterization of such factors. The DCPR-based proposal was also superior in identifying patients with increased psychological distress and poor psychosocial functioning.

Somatization and somatic symptom presentation in cancer: a neglected area

Abstract The recognition of somatization process in cancer patients is a challenging and neglected area, for the extreme difficulty in differentiating and assessing the psycho(patho)logical components from those biologically determined and related to cancer and cancer treatment, as well as for the scarce usefulness of rigid categorical DSM criteria. However, several dimensions of somatization (and the interconnected concept of abnormal illness behaviour) have been shown to be diagnosable in cancer patients and to negatively influence coping and quality of life outcomes. An integration of the formal DSM-ICD nosology with a system specifically taking into account the patients' emotional responses to cancer and cancer treatment, such as the Diagnostic Criteria for Psychosomatic Research (DCPR), is suggested. More data on some specific symptom dimensions, including pain, fatigue and sexual disorders, are needed to examine their possible psychological components. More research is also needed regarding the association of somatization with personality traits (e.g. type D distressed personality, alexithymia), developmental dimensions (e.g. attachment), and cultural issues (e.g. culturally mediated attributional styles to somatic symptoms). Also, the impact and effectiveness of specific therapeutic intervention in 'somatizing' cancer patients is necessary.

Diagnostic criteria for psychosomatic research and somatic symptom disorders

The Diagnostic Criteria for Psychosomatic Research (DCPR) were introduced in 1995 by an international group of investigators to expand the traditional domains of the disease model. The DCPR are a set of 12 'psychosomatic syndromes' which provide operational tools for psychosocial variables with prognostic and therapeutic implications in clinical settings. Eight syndromes concern the main manifestations of abnormal illness behaviour: somatization, hypochondriacal fears and beliefs, and illness denial. The other four syndromes (alexithymia, type A behaviour, demoralization and irritable mood) refer to the domain of psychological factors affecting medical conditions. This review describes the conceptual bases of the DCPR and the main findings concerning their application, with particular reference to the incremental information they added to the customary psychiatric classification. The DCPR were also compared with the provisional DSM-5 somatic symptom disorders. The DCPR were found to be more sensitive than DSM-IV in identifying subthreshold psychological distress and characterizing patients' psychological response to medical illness. DSM-5 somatic symptom disorders seem to neglect important clinical phenomena, such as illness denial, resulting in a narrow view of patients' functioning. The additional information provided by the DCPR may enhance the decision-making process.