The recognition and management of somatization. What is needed in primary care training

Management of Somatization in COVID-19: A Narrative Review

Somatization refers to the condition in which psychological distress is shown in the form of somatic symptoms such as persistent headache, nausea, gastrointestinal discomfort, etc. Various predisposing factors, including familial such as high expressed emotion, poor parental care, genetic, biological, and demographic which includes age and gender, cognitive such as learning disabilities, psychiatric such as depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, social, etc., play an essential role in saturation of the disease. During the time of the COVID-19 pandemic, psychological distress increased in the patients infected with the coronavirus due to some the factors such as social distancing from loved ones, lack of physical exercise, loss of income, loneliness due to quarantine, etc. Therefore, management and treatment of the disorder became essential, especially in coronavirus-infected patients, as it may lead to an increase in complications of the disease. Many studies have been conducted to identify the proper way to manage the condition. Treatments include pharmacological therapy and psychosocial interventions. Pharmacological therapy includes using various antidepressants, hypnotics, and sedatives such as benzodiazepines. For the treatment, mirtazapine is a secure and reliable antidepressant. Another drug, trizolobenzodiazepine adinazolam, was also very useful in treating patients. In some randomized experiments, alprazolam significantly outperformed amitryptiline in reducing the symptoms. Psychosocial interventions include sessions such as cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), mindfulness-based cognitive therapy, relaxation training, meditation, and psychological interventions such as enhancing multidimensional social help, modifying cognitive assessment, directing positive coping, and inspiring positive emotions.

Impact of an educational workshop on psychiatrists' attitude towards psychosomatic medicine

BACKGROUND

Although psychosomatic medicine is not recognised as a medical specialisation globally, it has proven useful for treating many disorders in Germany. This paper reports on the impact of an educational workshop as a tool for raising awareness about psychosomatic medicine among international psychiatrists.

METHODS

Psychiatrists from eight different countries were educated on psychosomatic medicine and psychotherapy during a 90-min workshop using a video, a slide presentation and an innovative teaching format called 'speed coaching'. Learning outcomes were assessed by analysing questionnaires completed by the participants before and after the workshop.

RESULTS

Half of the participants who initially rejected the notion that psychosomatic medicine should be a specialisation on its own changed their minds in favour for it to be a separate discipline (p = 0.125). Awareness about which diseases and patients psychosomatic doctors deal with was increased. The intent for treatment of patients with eating disorders by a psychosomatic physician quadrupled among the participants (p = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

A brief educational intervention can influence psychiatrists' decisions to opt for approaches by doctors specialized in psychosomatics for certain disorders. Further studies may explore why psychiatrists agree or disagree that psychosomatic medicine should be a separate specialisation on its own.

Narratives of Somatizing and Non somatizing Patients in a Primary Care Setting

Somatizing patients, who comprise approximately 20 percent of the primary care population, often present physicians with recurrent but confusing combinations of symptoms without organic explanations. Illness narratives presented during initial medical encounters with primary care physicians were examined qualitatively to determine if the narrative structure, chronological development of symptoms and temporal frame differed between somatizing and non-somatizing patients. Following a structured interview to identify somatization tendency and co-morbidities of depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, 116 patients' encounters with primary care physicians were video-recorded and transcribed. Somatizers demonstrated a narrative structure that was similar to that of non-somatizing patients, but they used a thematic rather than a chronological development of symptoms and they did not convey a clear time frame. Somatizing patients with a co-morbid psychological condition focused on concrete physical sensations, were unable to provide contextual history or chronological organization, and did not develop a temporal frame. The narratives of somatizing and non-somatizing patients differed sufficiently to warrant further research for use as a clinical aid in the diagnosis of somatization.

A medical record review for functional somatic symptoms in children

OBJECTIVE

The objectives of this study were to develop and test a systematic medical record review for functional somatic symptoms (FSSs) in paediatric patients and to estimate the inter-rater reliability of paediatricians' recognition of FSSs and their associated impairments while using this method.

METHODS

We developed the Medical Record Review for Functional Somatic Symptoms in Children (MRFC) for retrospective medical record review. Described symptoms were categorised as probably, definitely, or not FSSs. FSS-associated impairment was also determined. Three paediatricians performed the MRFC on the medical records of 54 children with a diagnosed, well-defined physical disease and 59 with 'symptom' diagnoses. The inter-rater reliabilities of the recognition and associated impairment of FSSs were tested on 20 of these records.

RESULTS

The MRFC allowed identification of subgroups of children with multisymptomatic FSSs, long-term FSSs, and/or impairing FSSs. The FSS inter-rater reliability was good (combined kappa=0.69) but only fair as far as associated impairment was concerned (combined kappa=0.29).

CONCLUSIONS

In the hands of skilled paediatricians, the MRFC is a reliable method for identifying paediatric patients with diverse types of FSSs for clinical research. However, additional information is needed for reliable judgement of impairment. The method may also prove useful in clinical practice.

Assessment of a pilot course on the management of somatization disorder for family doctors

Somatization disorder (SD) patients are difficult to treat and produce negative feelings in health professionals. Smith et al.'s guidelines have demonstrated cost-effectiveness in the treatment of these patients, but family doctors consider it difficult to put these into practice in the long term. The objective of this paper is to design and assess a pilot course, based on Smith's norms, to train general practitioners for the everyday management of SD patients in primary care. We have designed a 20-h practical course, using role-playing and video recording with standardized patients, and focusing on micro-skills recommended by the literature on the subject. Assessment of the efficacy of the course is made by evaluation of baseline and post course video recordings by researchers unaware of the order of the interviews. The comparison of baseline and post course assessments demonstrated a significant improvement in several key skills (giving a name to the illness, explaining the psychological and biological basis of the disease, and emphasizing stress reduction) but no change on others (explaining that SD is a well-known disorder, empowering the patient, not blaming the patient for his or her illness, and instilling hope). Finally, other skills such as assessing the patient's opinion of the illness, recognizing the reality of symptoms and informing that there is no life risk, were correctly done from the beginning and, therefore, showed no change. We found that training may facilitate the development of certain skills. However, some doctors' abilities might also require the use of techniques such as Balint groups to modify negative emotions, such as anger and fear, toward these patients.

Medically unexplained symptoms in an urban general medicine practice

The authors investigated the prevalence of multiple medically unexplained symptoms (MMUS) as identified by primary care physicians (PCPs) in a systematic sample of 172 patients. Patients were from a university-affiliated urban primary care practice serving a low-income population. Patients with a history of MMUS were older (mean: 57.2 vs. 53.0 years), more likely to be female (90.5% vs. 72.3%), and less likely to be married or living with a partner (14.4% vs. 36.2%) than those without MMUS. Patients with MMUS had over twice the rate of any current psychiatric disorder, almost two-and-a-half times the rate of any current anxiety disorder, and greater functional impairment. These data suggest that patients with MMUS are as common in urban primary care clinics as in more affluent clinics and reinforce the need for PCPs to screen these patients for common and treatable psychiatric conditions.

Psychosocial care by general practitioners--where are the problems? Results of a demonstration project on quality management in psychosocial primary care

OBJECTIVE

Since 1987, psychosocial services have been a part of the primary care setting in Germany. In the framework of an eight-center national demonstration program, problems in the diagnosis and therapy of psychosocial problems and psychosomatic disorders were assessed. Methods to improve quality were also implemented.

METHOD

General practitioners (n = 191) from six regions participated in the study. One thousand three hundred and forty-one treatment episodes of patients with predominantly psychosocial symptoms were documented. Differences between psychosocial strain, treatment, and outcome were determined by analyses of variance.

RESULTS

Anxiety (62%), depression (51%), and marital/family conflicts (44%) were the most frequent symptoms. Psychosocial treatment was offered more often to those patients who had the highest level of anxiety and depression. Patients with pain and without a psychological attribution to their illnesses were offered less psychosocial treatment and suffered worse results. Partners and family members were rarely integrated into therapy. The procedures employed to improve outcome were quality circles, family-oriented case conferences, consultation services, and collaborative groups.

CONCLUSIONS

These initial results are promising. A process of internal quality management has been initiated. Some of the physicians still resist documenting the data. Patients with somatic symptoms without psychological attribution may need special psychosocial interventions to improve their outcomes.

The prescribing of psychotropic drugs by primary care physicians: an international collaborative study

Psychotropic drugs play a major role in primary care management of mental disorders. This study expands the existing data on prescribing practices using data from a 15-center, primary care epidemiologic survey. Questions to be addressed include the following: Which clinical and nonclinical factors are related to the prescribing of psychotropic drugs by primary care physicians? How do prescribing patterns vary across primary care centers? At each center, primary care patients were screened using the General Health Questionnaire, and a stratified random sample completed a standardized diagnostic assessment. For each patient completing the diagnostic assessment, the treating primary care physician provided data on clinical diagnosis and medications prescribed. Study results indicated that 11.5% of all practice attenders, 51.7% of cases who received a diagnosis of mental disorders by a physician, and 27.6% of cases who received a diagnosis using the Composite International Diagnostic Interview were treated with psychotropic medication because of their psychologic problems. Anxiolytics, hypnotics, and antidepressants each accounted for approximately 20% of all prescriptions. Prescription rates increased with the prominence of psychologic complaints, severity of mental disorder, severity of social disability, female gender, age older than 40 years, lower education, unemployment, and marital separation. Rates and type of drugs also varied among specific mental disorders; 19.3% of patients with brief recurrent depression but 55.0% with agoraphobia got any psychotropic drug. Antidepressant drugs were prescribed in 7.7% of anxiety disorders compared with 31.9% of depressive disorders. There were large differences between international centers. When comparing client-type centers with clinic-type centers, overall prescription rates were similar (51.2 vs. 52.9%), but significant differences were observed with respect to psychotropic polypharmacy (12.6% client, 6.3% clinic), tranquilizer medication (24.2 client, 32.9% clinic), and antidepressant medication (17.3 client, 8.9% clinic). Psychotropic drugs have an important role in the treatment of mental disorders by general practitioners. Prescription is associated with a number of clinical but also nonclinical factors that must be recognized when guidelines for international use are to be published. Recognition of mental disorders and selection of specific drug classes are important areas in which medical practice needs improvement.

Management of somatisers in primary care: are family doctors motivated?

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this paper is to assess the attitudes of Spanish general practitioners towards somatisers and the degree of involvement that family doctors are ready to adopt in the care of these patients.

METHOD

A postal questionnaire on attitudes was sent to a representative sample (n = 135) of general practitioners from two health districts of the region of Aragon. Seventy (51.8%) of them returned usable questionnaires.

RESULTS

Most of the general practitioners were interested in the treatment of somatisers and considered that they should be treated at primary care level. However, when specific treatment tasks were proposed, they only accepted to act as a filter to specialised care and to care for patients with chronic functional syndromes. Additionally, they refuse to detect presenting somatisers, to prescribe psychotropic drugs or offer any psychological approach, and to avoid reinforcing abnormal illness behaviour in these patients and their families. These findings can be explained because the main emotions somatisers produce in doctors are frustration and anger.

CONCLUSIONS

Family doctors need a lot more help, education and support in the management of somatisers, and psychiatrists need to provide it. Any management program for the treatment of somatisers in primary care should include methods to modify general practitioners' attitudes towards these patients.

Health services research on mental health in primary care

OBJECTIVE

The article seeks to provide an international perspective on the facilitating role of health services research in the treatment of psychiatric disorders in primary care. It builds on Goldberg and Huxley's model describing pathways to mental care for the psychiatrically ill in the community.

METHOD

Seventy studies were selected for review by Medline search, sixteen studies by contacting prominent researchers in the field. All studies are discussed more or less extensively.

RESULTS

Case identification strategies including screening tools and diagnostic modules have been developed. Other strategies include educational training programs and psychiatric consultation services designed to facilitate psychopharmacological and other types of treatment of psychiatric disorders in primary care. Several models for the linkage of primary care and specialty mental health providers are discussed, and a primary care psychiatry programme is examined.

CONCLUSION

Better psychiatric training of general practitioners (GPs), on-site consultation, and better communication between mental health professionals and GPs can improve the recognition, management, and referral of psychiatrically ill primary care patients. The further development of guidelines focusing on anxiety disorders, somatization, subthreshold disorders, and effectiveness in primary care is recommended.

A symptom checklist to screen for somatoform disorders in primary care

Current DSM-IV somatoform diagnoses may inadequately capture many somatizing patients in primary care. By using data from two studies (1,000 and 258 patients, respectively), the authors determined 1) the optimal threshold on a checklist of 15 physical symptoms to screen for a recently proposed somatoform diagnosis, multisomatoform disorder (MSD), and 2) the concordance between MSD and somatization disorder. The optimal threshold for pursuing a diagnosis of MSD was seven or more physical symptoms. The majority (88%) of the patients who met criteria for MSD had either full or abridged somatization disorder. MSD was intermediate between abridged and full somatization disorder in terms of its association with functional impairment, psychiatric comorbidity, family dysfunction, and health care utilization and charges.