Multiple somatic symptoms in primary care: A field study for ICD-11 PHC, WHO's revised classification of mental disorders in primary care settings

Pathways of depressive symptoms to self-harm and suicide warning signs during COVID-19 pandemic: The role of anxiety and related distress, dysfunction and somatization

BACKGROUND

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, concern about widespread waves of depression and suicide emerged worldwide. Clarity on the relationship between mental health symptoms and warning signs of current self-harm or suicide thoughts and behaviors (ShSTB) in Mexican adults could be useful for designing effective public health policies and preventive strategies during health emergencies.

OBJECTIVE

The present study uses a path model to explore the relationship between depressive symptoms, anxiety, and related distress, dysfunction, and somatization with ShSTB warning signs in Mexican adults during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study also describes the relative risks of these mental health variables for men and women, and for those who were seeking psychological care versus those who were not.

METHOD

The study was conducted with 18,449 Mexicans (M = 33 years, SD = 11.00, range = 18-59), including 12,188 women (66.10 %) and 2706 (14.67 %) who were seeking psychological care. A web-based application included two multidimensional screening scales to evaluate depression, anxiety and somatic symptoms and related distress/dysfunction, as well as past and current ShSTB. Based on the participants' sex, the entire sample was randomly divided into two sub-samples to compare and replicate the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) results, getting evidence of the multidimensionality of the scales. With the two sub-samples, we also tested the nested models from a structural equation model (SEM) to suggest a relationship between mental health and self-harm/suicide variables.

FINDINGS

Our findings suggest that 31 % of participants were at risk for depression, 42.30 % for anxiety, 38.30 % for Marked Distress, Dysfunction and Somatization (MDDS), 33.30 % for at least one ShSTB, and 4.20 % for Previous Self Harm Thoughts and Behaviors (PShTB) during the COVID-19 pandemic. A greater percentage of women and participants seeking psychological care showed high levels of mental health symptoms, PShTB, MDDS, and ShSTB. The path model suggested a direct influence of PShTB and MDDS on ShSTB. Depression symptoms lead to ShSTB in three possible ways: through PShTB, PShTB affecting MDDS, and generalized anxiety affecting MDDS.

DISCUSSION AND OUTLOOK

The pandemic was accompanied by a high prevalence of depression-anxiety, marked distress, dysfunction and somatization and self-harm/suicide thoughts and behaviors. The findings of this study suggest evidence over the well-known association between depression and anxiety, and between depression, previous self-harm thoughts and behaviors, and self-harm/suicide. The evidence suggests to distinguish when participants were suffering from MDDS and anxious depression from those only suffering from depression. The methodological conditions of the study suggest a comprehensive model of ShSTB prevention. Findings also suggest the need to care for Mexicans with depressive symptoms and PShTB as well as those suffering from anxious depression with MDDS to prevent suicide, by implementing effective public health policies and preventive strategies to reduce the mental health gap during health emergencies.

LIMITATIONS

This research was a cross-sectional study, suggesting that future analyses should focus on the evaluation of its consistency with confirmed diagnoses of mental health disorders, self-harm/suicide risks, and the effect of remote psychological help to address these problems.

Case-controlled field study of the ICD-11 clinical descriptions and diagnostic requirements for Bodily Distress Disorders

AIMS

Mental disorders characterized by preoccupation with distressing bodily symptoms and associated functional impairment have been a target of major reconceptualization in the ICD-11, in which a single category of Bodily Distress Disorder (BDD) with different levels of severity replaces most of the Somatoform Disorders in ICD-10. This study compared the accuracy of clinicians' diagnosis of disorders of somatic symptoms using either the ICD-11 or ICD-10 diagnostic guidelines in an online study.

METHODS

Clinically active members of the World Health Organization's Global Clinical Practice Network (N = 1065) participating in English, Spanish, or Japanese were randomly assigned to apply ICD-11 or ICD-10 diagnostic guidelines to one of nine pairs of standardized case vignettes. The accuracy of the clinicians' diagnoses as well as their ratings of the guidelines' clinical utility were assessed.

RESULTS

Overall, clinicians were more accurate using ICD-11 compared to ICD-10 for every presentation of a vignette characterized primarily by bodily symptoms associated with distress and impairment. Clinicians who made a diagnosis of BDD using ICD-11 were generally correct in applying the severity specifiers for the condition.

LIMITATIONS

This sample may represent some self-selection bias and thus may not generalize to all clinicians. Additionally, diagnostic decisions with live patients may lead to different results.

CONCLUSIONS

The ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines for BDD represent an improvement over those for Somatoform Disorders in ICD-10 in regard to clinicians' diagnostic accuracy and perceived clinical utility.

Functional Somatic Disorders, Their Subtypes, and Their Association With Self-Rated Health in the German General Population

OBJECTIVE

The heterogeneous conceptualizations and classifications of persistent and troublesome physical symptoms impede their adequate clinical management. Functional somatic disorder (FSD) is a recently suggested interface concept that is etiologically neutral and allows for dysfunctional psychobehavioral characteristics as well as somatic comorbidity. However, its prevalence and impact are not yet known.

METHODS

We analyzed 2379 participants (mean age = 48.3 years, 52.5% female) from a representative German community survey using operationalized FSD criteria. These criteria defined FSD types based on somatic symptom count, type, and severity assessed by the Bodily Distress Syndrome Checklist. In addition, the associations of those types with health concerns, comorbidity, psychological distress, and self-rated health were determined.

RESULTS

There were four clearly demarcated groups with no relevant bothering symptoms, with one or with few bothering symptoms from one organ system, and with multiple bothering symptoms from at least two organ systems. Psychological distress, health concerns, and comorbidity steadily increased, and self-rated health decreased according to the number and severity of symptoms. Somatic symptom burden, health concerns, and comorbidity independently predicted self-rated health, with no interaction effect between the latter two.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data support an FSD concept with two severity grades according to persistent and troublesome symptoms in one versus more organ systems. The delimitation of subtypes with psychobehavioral characteristics and/or with somatic comorbidity seems useful, while still allowing the demarcation of a group of participants with high symptom burden but without those additional characteristics.

Coping strategies among individuals with multiple physical symptoms: A general population-based cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

Coping has been suggested as a perpetuating factor for physical symptoms. The aim of this study was to examine the use of the coping strategies approach, resignation, and diversion in individuals with multiple physical symptoms according to the construct of Bodily Distress Syndrome (BDS).

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was part of the nationwide web-based survey Danish Symptom Cohort (DaSC). In total, 100,000 individuals were invited to participate, and individuals eligible for the present study were respondents aged 20-64 years without a current or recent pregnancy. Multiple physical symptoms were identified using the BDS checklist, and coping was assessed by the Brief Approach/Avoidance Coping Questionnaire. Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics and multinomial and logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 35,810 respondents were included in the study, of which 8512 (23.8%) fulfilled the criteria for having multiple physical symptoms. This group of respondents had lower coping scores on approach and higher coping scores on resignation and diversion compared with the non-BDS group. The regression analyses showed that high scores on approach were associated with a lower probability of having multiple symptoms (adjusted OR 0.92, 95% CI: 0.91-0.92), whereas high scores on diversion and resignation were associated with a higher probability of having multiple symptoms (adjusted OR 1.10; 95% CI: 1.09-1.11 and adjusted OR 1.19; 95% CI: 1.18-1.20, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The study supports the hypothesis that experiencing multiple physical symptoms is associated with certain coping strategies. This is relevant knowledge for health care professionals who will be treating this patient group.

Significant Improvement of Somatic Symptom Disorder With Brief Psychoeducational Intervention by PMHNP in Primary Care

OBJECTIVE

Patients with somatic symptom disorders (SSD) are prevalent in primary care, urgent care, and emergency rooms and present with reduced quality of life, increased disability, and suicidality . Criteria for SSD include (1) somatic symptoms that cause distress and disrupt life; (2) concurrent physical illness with thoughts and feelings that are disproportionate to the seriousness of the illness; and (3) distress which is persistent and causes suffering. The frequency of SSD in the general population is 5% to 7%; however, in primary care, it is 5% to 35% . Because patients present with anxiety, depression, and/or pain, providers are flummoxed when diagnostic findings do not match symptom intensity. The purpose of this project was to provide an intervention for patients with SSD and measure its effectiveness on their somatic symptoms.

METHOD

This study provided a single-session, 30-minute psychoeducational intervention for patients to explain brain pathways for pain and the body's response to stress, including scientific benefits of exercise and healthy diet. Patients were asked questions using the motivational interviewing technique OARS (open-ended question, affirmation, reflection, summary) and were encouraged to talk about their concerns. The study used a pre- and post-intervention visual analogue scale and a self-reported Patient Health Questionnaire-15 both before and 3 weeks post-intervention.

RESULTS

Measurements showed significant symptom improvement immediately after the intervention with sustained improvement 3 weeks post-intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

This intervention demonstrates an effective treatment for this insidious illness, which plagues up to 35% of patients in primary care.

Evaluation of the International Classification of Diseases-11 chronic pain classification: study protocol for an ecological implementation field study in low-, middle-, and high-income countries

Introduction

The purpose of the present ecological implementation field study is to evaluate the new classification of chronic pain as implemented in the 11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) with regard to clinical utility and interrater reliability. To evaluate the classification in a variety of settings, the study will be implemented in different low-, middle-, and high-income countries.

Methods

The study will be conducted in 2 phases. Participating pain clinics of the first phase are located in India, Cuba, and New Zealand. Two or more clinicians per study center will use the ICD-11 classification of chronic pain to diagnose 75 to 100 consecutive new chronic pain patients per center. A structured classification algorithm will guide the diagnostic process. Interrater reliability will be analyzed for the first 20 consecutive new patients per center. Before the coding, a training workshop will introduce the clinicians to the new classification. The main outcome parameter of the ecological implementation field study is clinical utility. More specifically, this entails clinical utility ratings, interrater reliability, as well as the exhaustiveness of the classification and the mutual exclusiveness of the new chronic pain categories. Differences between countries with different cultural backgrounds and income levels will be analyzed.

Perspective

The ecological implementation field study presented here will be implemented in several countries with different income levels. This increases the generalizability of the results and allows initial insight into the global applicability of the new chronic pain classification. A positive evaluation can facilitate the implementation of the classification.

Functional somatic disorders: discussion paper for a new common classification for research and clinical use

BACKGROUND

Functional somatic symptoms and disorders are common and complex phenomena involving both bodily and brain processes. They pose major challenges across medical specialties. These disorders are common and have significant impacts on patients' quality of life and healthcare costs.

MAIN BODY

We outline five problems pointing to the need for a new classification: (1) developments in understanding aetiological mechanisms; (2) the current division of disorders according to the treating specialist; (3) failure of current classifications to cover the variety of disorders and their severity (for example, patients with symptoms from multiple organs systems); (4) the need to find acceptable categories and labels for patients that promote therapeutic partnership; and (5) the need to develop clinical services and research for people with severe disorders. We propose 'functional somatic disorders' (FSD) as an umbrella term for various conditions characterised by persistent and troublesome physical symptoms. FSDs are diagnosed clinically, on the basis of characteristic symptom patterns. As with all diagnoses, a diagnosis of FSD should be made after considering other possible somatic and mental differential diagnoses. We propose that FSD should occupy a neutral space within disease classifications, favouring neither somatic disease aetiology, nor mental disorder. FSD should be subclassified as (a) multisystem, (b) single system, or (c) single symptom. While additional specifiers may be added to take account of psychological features or co-occurring diseases, neither of these is sufficient or necessary to make the diagnosis. We recommend that FSD criteria are written so as to harmonise with existing syndrome diagnoses. Where currently defined syndromes fall within the FSD spectrum - and also within organ system-specific chapters of a classification - they should be afforded dual parentage (for example, irritable bowel syndrome can belong to both gastrointestinal disorders and FSD).

CONCLUSION

We propose a new classification, 'functional somatic disorder', which is neither purely somatic nor purely mental, but occupies a neutral space between these two historical poles. This classification reflects both emerging aetiological evidence of the complex interactions between brain and body and the need to resolve the historical split between somatic and mental disorders.

The unifying diagnostic construct of bodily distress syndrome (BDS) was confirmed in the general population

OBJECTIVES

Bodily distress syndrome (BDS) has been shown to encompass a range of functional somatic syndromes (FSS) such as irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), fibromyalgia (FM), and chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) in clinical samples. This study aimed to explore symptom clusters and test classification of individuals with illness similar to the BDS criteria in a general population sample.

METHODS

A stratified subsample of 1590 individuals from the DanFunD part two cohort was included. Symptoms were assessed with the Research Interview for Functional somatic Disorders, performed by trained physicians. In 44 symptoms pooled from criteria of IBS, FM, CFS, and BDS, symptom clusters were explored with explorative factor analysis. Confirmation of symptom clusters of BDS in the previously described 25- and 30-item BDS checklists was performed with confirmatory factor analysis. Classification of individuals into illness groups was investigated with latent class analysis.

RESULTS

Four symptom clusters (cardiopulmonary, gastrointestinal, musculoskeletal, general symptoms/fatigue) corresponding to the BDS subtypes and their corresponding FSS were identified and confirmed. A three-class model including 25 BDS items had the best fit for dividing participants into classes of illness: One class with low probability, one class with medium probability, and one class with high probability of having ≥4 symptoms in all symptom clusters.

CONCLUSION

The BDS concept was confirmed in the general population and constitutes a promising approach for improved FSS classification. It is highly clinical relevant being the only diagnostic construct defining the complex multi-organ type.

The best treatment option(s) for adult and elderly patients with chronic primary musculoskeletal pain: a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Chronic primary musculoskeletal pain (CPMP) is one subcategory of the new classification of chronic primary pain for the upcoming ICD-11, defined as chronic pain in the muscles, bones, joints, or tendons that persists or recurs for more than 3 months and is associated with significant emotional distress or functional disability. An array of pharmacological, psychological, physical, complementary, and rehabilitative interventions is available for CPMP, for which previous research has demonstrated varying effect sizes with regard to effectiveness in pain reduction and other main outcomes. This highlights the need for the synthesis of all available evidence. The proposed network meta-analysis will compare all available interventions for CPMP to determine the best treatment option(s) with a focus on efficacy and safety of interventions.

METHODS

We are interested in comparing interventions of the following types: psychological, pharmacological, physical, complementary, and rehabilitative interventions. We will include all randomized controlled trials that compare one intervention with another, or with a control group, in the treatment of CPMP. Primary efficacy outcomes will be pain intensity, emotional distress, and functional disability. Safety outcomes extracted will include proportion of patients with treatment-emergent adverse events, unwanted events, or drop-out rates due to side effects. Published and unpublished trials will be sought through the search of all relevant databases and trial registries. At least two independent reviewers of the team will select the references and extract data independently. We will assess the risk of bias of each individual study using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool. We will conduct a network meta-analysis to synthesize all evidence for each outcome. We will fit our model primarily within a Bayesian framework.

DISCUSSION

CPMP is a disabling condition for which several interventions exist. To our knowledge, this is the first network meta-analysis to systematically compare all available evidence. This is required by national health institutions to inform their decisions about the best available treatment option(s) with regard to efficacy and safety outcomes.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42018096114.

Prevalence of functional somatic syndromes and bodily distress syndrome in the Danish population: the DanFunD study

Aims: Little is known about the prevalence and characteristics of functional somatic syndromes (FSS) such as irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), fibromyalgia (FM), chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), whiplash associated disorders (WAD), multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS), and bodily distress syndrome (BDS) in the general population when they are investigated simultaneously. Method: This cross-sectional study is based on the Danish Study of Functional Disorders (DanFunD) cohort consisting of 9656 adults from the general population. FSS and BDS were identified by questionnaires and characterized by age, sex, vocational training, physical health and comorbidity with physical and psychiatric disease. Results: In total, 16.3% (95% CI: 15.6–17.1) of the participants fulfilled the criteria for at least one FSS, ranging from 1.7% for WAD to 8.6% for CFS, and 16.1% (95% CI: 15.4–16.9) fulfilled the criteria for BDS. Cases had a high risk of poor self-perceived health, limitations in daily activities, and a high psychiatric comorbidity, all increasing with the number of syndromes in each individual. However, the associations differed across the various FSS. Mutual overlaps of IBS, FM and CFS were greater than could be expected by chance. Conclusions: FSS and BDS are prevalent in the adult Danish population, and cases have high risk of poor self-perceived health, limitation in daily activities, and psychiatric comorbidity. These associations were particularly strong for cases with multiple FSS and multi-organ BDS.

Dimensional analysis of depressive, anxious and somatic symptoms presented by primary care patients and their relationship with ICD-11 PHC proposed diagnoses

BACKGROUND

A study conducted as part of the development of the Eleventh International Classification of Mental Disorders for Primary Health Care (ICD-11 PHC) provided an opportunity to test the relationships among depressive, anxious and somatic symptoms in PHC.

METHOD

Primary care physicians participating in the ICD-11 PHC field studies in five countries selected patients who presented with somatic symptoms not explained by known physical pathology by applying a 29-item screening on somatic complaints that were under study for bodily stress disorder. Patients were interviewed using the Clinical Interview Schedule-Revised and assessed using two five-item scales that measure depressive and anxious symptoms. Structural models of anxious-depressive symptoms and somatic complaints were tested using a bi-factor approach.

RESULTS

A total of 797 patients completed the study procedures. Two bi-factor models fit the data well: Model 1 had all symptoms loaded on a general factor, along with one of three specific depression, anxiety and somatic factors [x2 (627) = 741.016, p < 0.0011, RMSEA = 0.015, CFI = 0.911, TLI = 0.9]. Model 2 had a general factor and two specific anxious depression and somatic factors [x2 (627) = 663.065, p = 0.1543, RMSEA = 0.008, CFI = 0.954, TLI = 0.948].

CONCLUSIONS

These data along with those of previous studies suggest that depressive, anxious and somatic symptoms are largely different presentations of a common latent phenomenon. This study provides support for the ICD-11 PHC conceptualization of mood disturbance, especially anxious depression, as central among patients who present multiple somatic symptoms.

Cost of Acute and Follow-Up Care in Patients With Pre-Existing Psychiatric Diagnoses Undergoing Radiation Therapy

PURPOSE

The impact of psychiatric comorbidities on the cost of cancer care in radiation oncology practices is not well studied. We assessed the acute and 24-month follow-up costs for patients with and without pre-existing psychiatric comorbidities undergoing radiation therapy.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Patients with cancer undergoing radiation therapy at our institution from 2009 to 2014 were denoted as having pre-existing psychiatric conditions (Psych group) if they had associated billing codes for any of the 422 International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision psychiatric conditions during the 12 months before their cancer diagnosis. The Elixhauser comorbidity index was calculated, excluding psychiatric categories. Medicare reimbursement was assigned to professional services, and Medicare departmental cost-to-charge ratios were applied to service line hospital charges and adjusted for inflation to create 2017 standardized costs. Acute (0-6 month) and follow-up (6-24 month) costs were subcategorized into clinic, emergency department, hospital inpatient, and outpatient costs.

RESULTS

Among 1275 patients, 126 (9.9%) had at least 1 pre-existing psychiatric diagnosis. On univariate analysis, both acute and long-term costs were higher in the Psych group. The largest significant differences in costs were follow-up hospital inpatient costs ($5861 higher; 95% confidence interval [CI], $687-$11,035; P = .002), follow-up hospital outpatient costs ($2086 higher; 95% CI, -$142 to $4,314; P = .040), and follow-up emergency department costs ($396 higher; 95% CI, $149-$643; P < .001). Age, race, sex, and treatment modalities were comparable, but the Psych group patients had more median comorbidities (2 vs 1) and had more respiratory cancer diagnoses than the nonpsychiatric group (31% vs 17%). On multivariate analysis adjusted for age, sex, cancer diagnosis, and comorbidities, global follow-up costs remained 150% higher in the Psych group (P < .001). Acute costs were similar after adjustment (P = .63).

CONCLUSIONS

Psychiatric comorbidities independently predict elevated healthcare costs in patients treated for cancer. Radiation oncology payment models should consider adjustments to account for psychiatric comorbidities because addressing these may mitigate cost differential.

Diagnostic consequences of a new category of anxious depression and a reduced duration requirement for anxiety symptoms in the ICD-11 PHC

BACKGROUND

A new diagnosis of anxious depression (AD), characterized by both depressive and anxious symptoms at case level, has been proposed for the classification of mental disorders for primary care for ICD-11 (ICD-11 PHC). The ICD-11 PHC proposes a duration requirement for anxiety symptoms of 2 weeks, in line with the requirement for depressive symptoms. This study examined diagnostic assignment under ICD-11 PHC as compared to the previous classification, the ICD-10 PHC, and the relationship of anxiety duration to disability and suicidal ideation.

METHODS

Primary care physicians in five countries referred patients based on either perceived psychological distress or distressing somatic symptoms to a research assistant who administered a computer-guided diagnostic interview. Complete data were obtained for 2279 participants.

RESULTS

Under ICD-11 PHC 47.7% participants received a diagnosis of AD and had greater disability than other diagnostic groups. Under ICD-10 PHC, in addition to meeting requirements for depressive episode, most of these patients met requirements for either generalized anxiety disorder (41.5%) or mixed anxiety and depressive disorder (45.4%). One third of individuals diagnosed with AD had anxiety durations between 2 weeks and 3 months and presented as much disability and suicidal ideation as individuals with longer anxiety durations.

LIMITATIONS

The study was not designed to establish prevalence of these conditions.

CONCLUSION

The proposed ICD-11 PHC encourages early identification and management of significant anxiety symptoms in primary care, particularly when these co-occur with depression. This study provides support for the clinical relevance of these symptoms and the importance of early identification.

Associations between depression, anxiety and medication adherence among patients with arterial hypertension: Comparison between persons exposed and non-exposed to radiation from the Semipalatinsk Nuclear Test Site

In this study, we investigated the association between depression, anxiety and medication adherence in patients with arterial hypertension living in East Kazakhstan region. The sample size included 795 patients, of whom 403 patients were exposed to radiation at the Semipalatinsk Nuclear Test Site from 1949 to 1989, while 395 patients were unexposed to radiation due to their very remote residence from the Site at the same period. Both exposed and unexposed patients showed no significant differences concerning body mass index, smoking habit, the presence of hypercholesterolemia, and hypertension grade. Patients with arterial hypertension previously exposed to radiation had significantly higher rates of low medication adherence, subclinical and clinical depression, situational anxiety of moderate and severe grade, and personal anxiety of moderate grade. A logistic regression analysis allowed us to identify the presence of significant positive association between medication adherence and anxiety in exposed patients (OR = 4041 (95%CI:1709-9556) p = 0.001) and marginal association (OR = 2998 (95%CI:1008-8915) p = 0.048) between the same parameters in unexposed patients. It might prove to be useful to introduce psychological and medical counseling with an emphasis on strengthening of medication adherence and to inform the local population about radiation effects and dosimetry data.

Studying ICD-11 Primary Health Care bodily stress syndrome in Brazil: do many functional disorders represent just one syndrome?

Objective:

Disorders characterized by “distressing unexplained somatic symptoms” are challenging. In the ICD-11 Primary Health Care (PHC) Guidelines for Diagnosis and Management of Mental Disorders (ICD-11 PHC), a new category, bodily stress syndrome (BSS), was included to diagnose patients presenting unexplained somatic symptoms. The present study investigated the association of BSS with anxiety, depression, and four subgroups of physical symptoms in a Brazilian primary health care (PHC) sample.

Methodology:

As part of the international ICD-11 PHC study, 338 patients were evaluated by their primary care physicians, followed by testing with Clinical Interview Schedule (CIS-R) and World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule, Version 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0). BSS was diagnosed in the presence of at least three somatic symptoms associated with incapacity. The association between anxiety, depression, and four subgroups of physical symptoms with being a BSS case was analyzed.

Results:

The number of somatic symptoms was high in the overall sample of 338 patients (mean = 8.4), but even higher in the 131 BSS patients (10.2; p < 0.001). Most BSS patients (57.3%) had at least three symptoms from two, three, or four subgroups, and these were associated with anxiety and depression in 80.9% of these patients. The symptom subgroup most strongly associated with “being a BSS” case was the non-specific group (OR = 6.51; 95%CI 1.65-24.34), followed by musculoskeletal (OR = 2,31; 95%CI 1.19-4.72).

Conclusion:

Somatic symptoms were frequent in a sample of PHC patients in Brazil. In the present sample, one third were BSS cases and met the criteria for at least two symptom subgroups, supporting the hypothesis that different functional symptoms are related to each other.

Management of Functional Somatic Syndromes and Bodily Distress

Functional somatic syndromes (FSS), like irritable bowel syndrome or fibromyalgia and other symptoms reflecting bodily distress, are common in practically all areas of medicine worldwide. Diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to these symptoms and syndromes vary substantially across and within medical specialties from biomedicine to psychiatry. Patients may become frustrated with the lack of effective treatment, doctors may experience these disorders as difficult to treat, and this type of health problem forms an important component of the global burden of disease. This review intends to develop a unifying perspective on the understanding and management of FSS and bodily distress. Firstly, we present the clinical problem and review current concepts for classification. Secondly, we propose an integrated etiological model which encompasses a wide range of biopsychosocial vulnerability and triggering factors and considers consecutive aggravating and maintaining factors. Thirdly, we systematically scrutinize the current evidence base in terms of an umbrella review of systematic reviews from 2007 to 2017 and give recommendations for treatment for all levels of care, concentrating on developments over the last 10 years. We conclude that activating, patient-involving, and centrally acting therapies appear to be more effective than passive ones that primarily act on peripheral physiology, and we recommend stepped care approaches that translate a truly biopsychosocial approach into actual management of the patient.

A European Research Agenda for Somatic Symptom Disorders, Bodily Distress Disorders, and Functional Disorders: Results of an Estimate-Talk-Estimate Delphi Expert Study

Background: Somatic Symptom Disorders (SSD), Bodily Distress Disorders (BDD) and functional disorders (FD) are associated with high medical and societal costs and pose a substantial challenge to the population and health policy of Europe. To meet this challenge, a specific research agenda is needed as one of the cornerstones of sustainable mental health research and health policy for SSD, BDD, and FD in Europe. Aim: To identify the main challenges and research priorities concerning SSD, BDD, and FD from a European perspective. Methods: Delphi study conducted from July 2016 until October 2017 in 3 rounds with 3 workshop meetings and 3 online surveys, involving 75 experts and 21 European countries. EURONET-SOMA and the European Association of Psychosomatic Medicine (EAPM) hosted the meetings. Results: Eight research priorities were identified: (1) Assessment of diagnostic profiles relevant to course and treatment outcome. (2) Development and evaluation of new, effective interventions. (3) Validation studies on questionnaires or semi-structured interviews that assess chronic medical conditions in this context. (4) Research into patients preferences for diagnosis and treatment. (5) Development of new methodologic designs to identify and explore mediators and moderators of clinical course and treatment outcomes (6). Translational research exploring how psychological and somatic symptoms develop from somatic conditions and biological and behavioral pathogenic factors. (7) Development of new, effective interventions to personalize treatment. (8) Implementation studies of treatment interventions in different settings, such as primary care, occupational care, general hospital and specialty mental health settings. The general public and policymakers will benefit from the development of new, effective, personalized interventions for SSD, BDD, and FD, that will be enhanced by translational research, as well as from the outcomes of research into patient involvement, GP-patient communication, consultation-liaison models and implementation. Conclusion: Funding for this research agenda, targeting these challenges in coordinated research networks such as EURONET-SOMA and EAPM, and systematically allocating resources by policymakers to this critical area in mental and physical well-being is urgently needed to improve efficacy and impact for diagnosis and treatment of SSD, BDD, and FD across Europe.

Three Approaches to Understanding and Classifying Mental Disorder: ICD-11, DSM-5, and the National Institute of Mental Health’s Research Domain Criteria (RDoC)

The diagnosis of mental disorder initially appears relatively straightforward: Patients present with symptoms or visible signs of illness; health professionals make diagnoses based primarily on these symptoms and signs; and they prescribe medication, psychotherapy, or both, accordingly. However, despite a dramatic expansion of knowledge about mental disorders during the past half century, understanding of their components and processes remains rudimentary. We provide histories and descriptions of three systems with different purposes relevant to understanding and classifying mental disorder. Two major diagnostic manuals—the International Classification of Diseases and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders—provide classification systems relevant to public health, clinical diagnosis, service provision, and specific research applications, the former internationally and the latter primarily for the United States. In contrast, the National Institute of Mental Health’s Research Domain Criteria provides a framework that emphasizes integration of basic behavioral and neuroscience research to deepen the understanding of mental disorder. We identify four key issues that present challenges to understanding and classifying mental disorder: etiology, including the multiple causality of mental disorder; whether the relevant phenomena are discrete categories or dimensions; thresholds, which set the boundaries between disorder and nondisorder; and comorbidity, the fact that individuals with mental illness often meet diagnostic requirements for multiple conditions. We discuss how the three systems’ approaches to these key issues correspond or diverge as a result of their different histories, purposes, and constituencies. Although the systems have varying degrees of overlap and distinguishing features, they share the goal of reducing the burden of suffering due to mental disorder.

Primary care physicians' use of the proposed classification of common mental disorders for ICD-11

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization is revising the classification of common mental disorders in primary care for ICD-11. Major changes from the ICD-10 primary care version have been proposed for: (i) mood and anxiety disorders; and (ii) presentations of multiple somatic symptoms (bodily stress syndrome). This three-part field study explored the implementation of the revised classification by primary care physicians (PCPs) in five countries.

METHODS

Participating PCPs in Brazil, China, Mexico, Pakistan and Spain were asked to use the revised classification, first in patients that they suspected might be psychologically distressed (Part 1), and second in patients with multiple somatic symptoms causing distress or disability not wholly attributable to a known physical pathology, or with high levels of health anxiety (Part 2). Patients referred to Part 1 or Part 2 underwent a structured diagnostic interview. Part 3 consisted of feedback from PCPs regarding the classification.

RESULTS

In Part 1, anxious depression was the most common disorder among referred patients. PCPs assigned the highest severity ratings to anxious depression, and the next highest to current depression; current anxiety was rated as least severe. Considerable overlap was found between bodily stress syndrome (BSS) and health anxiety (HA). The psychiatric interview recorded higher rates of mood and anxiety disorders diagnoses among patients with BSS than did PCPs. PCPs' satisfaction with the revised classification was high.

CONCLUSIONS

Results generally supported the inclusion of the new categories of anxious depression, BSS and HA for ICD-11 PHC and suggested that PCPs could implement these categories satisfactorily.

Diagnostic barriers for somatic symptom disorders in primary care: study protocol for a mixed methods study in Germany

INTRODUCTION

Somatoform or somatic symptom disorders ((S)SD) are common and have a negative impact on the patients' health-related quality of life, healthcare use and costs. In primary care, which is central to the management of (S)SD, diagnosis and treatment tend to be delayed. There is a significant lack of evidence regarding the barriers in the diagnostic process of (S)SD in primary care and how interventions should be tailored to address them. The aim of this study is to analyse the diagnostic process in primary care that results in the diagnosis or non-diagnosis of a (S)SD.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This mixed methods study will investigate the topic with qualitative methods, subsequently proceeding to a quantitative phase where the initial results will be validated and/or generalised. First, focus groups will explore meanings and patterns, inconsistencies and conflicts in general practitioners' (GPs) thoughts and behaviours when diagnosing (S)SD. Second, the results of these focus groups will be used to develop interview guidelines for subsequent face-to-face interviews. Patients and their treating GPs will be interviewed separately on how they experience the history of illness, the diagnostic process and treatment. Third, based on the results of the first two study parts, a questionnaire will be derived and a nationwide survey among German GPs will be conducted, quantifying the barriers and difficulties identified before.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee of the Hamburg Medical Association, Germany (approval number PV4763). The results of this study will be disseminated through conference presentation and publications in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

The study is registered in the German Clinical Trial Register (DRKS), DRKS-ID DRKS00009736.