Psychological characteristics of young adults with temporomandibular disorders, somatization and combined conditions: A multidimensional evaluation

Five-factor personality traits and functional somatic disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Functional Somatic Disorders (FSD) is an umbrella term for various conditions characterized by persistent and troublesome physical symptoms, that are not better explained by other psychiatric or somatic conditions. Personality traits may play a crucial role in FSD, but the link is not fully understood. This study presents a systematic review and meta-analysis examines the relationship between the Five-Factor Model (FFM) of personality traits and FSD.

METHODS

The review was based on the PRISMA statement, and drew data from systematic searches in PsycInfo, PubMed, and Embase. To be eligible for inclusion, studies had to include eligible FSD groups and control groups and to assess FFM traits. Data were analyzed using random effects models. Sub-group and sensitivity analyses as well as meta-regression were used to explore the heterogeneity and robustness of findings.

RESULTS

In total 6841 records were screened and 52 included. FSD cases scored higher on neuroticism (k = 46, Hedge's g = 0.72, [95 % CI, 0.61: 0.83]) and lower on extraversion (k = 31, g = -0.41, [-0.55:-0.28]) and agreeableness (k = 15, g = -0.22, [-0.36:-0.09]) than healthy/unspecified controls. FSD cases scored higher on neuroticism (k = 9, g = 0.26 [0.08:0.44]) and agreeableness (k = 4, g = 0.43 [0.28:0.59]) than somatic controls, but did not differ on extraversion (k = 6, g = -0.17 [-0.45:0.11]). No significant differences were found for conscientiousness and openness. For psychiatric controls, meta-analysis was only possible for neuroticism (k = 3,= -0.61, [-1.98:0.77]). Findings displayed significant heterogeneity but no publication bias.

CONCLUSIONS

This review reveals significant associations between FFM traits and FSD, providing insight into the etiology, classification, and management of FSD.

Exploring the Relationship Between Somatisation, Facial Pain and Psychological Distress in East Asian Temporomandibular Disorder Patients

OBJECTIVES

The relationship of somatisation with facial pain duration/intensity, pain-related interference/disability and psychological distress was investigated in East Asian temporomandibular disorder (TMD) patients. Correlations between somatisation, facial pain and psychological characteristics were also explored alongside the demographic/physical factors associated with moderate-to-severe depression and anxiety.

METHODS

Anonymised data were acquired from records of consecutive 'first-time' patients seeking TMD care at a tertiary oral medicine clinic. Axis I physical TMD diagnoses were established utilising the diagnostic criteria for TMDs (DC/TMD) protocol and patients with TMD pain were stratified into those with pain-related (PT) and combined (CT) conditions. Axis II measures administered encompassed the Patient Health Questionnaire-15 (PHQ-15), Graded Chronic Pain Scale (GCPS), Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and General Anxiety Disorder Scale-7 (GAD-7). Individuals with PT and CT were further categorised into those without (Pain - Som/Comb - Som) and with somatisation (Pain + Som/Comb + Som). Statistical evaluations were performed with nonparametric and logistic regression analyses (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

The final sample comprised 473 patients (mean age 36.2 ± 14.8 years; 68.9% women), of which 52.0% had concomitant somatisation. Significant differences in pain duration (Comb + Som > Pain - Som), pain-related interference/disability (Comb + Som > Comb - Som) and depression/anxiety (Pain + Som, Comb + Som > Pain - Som, Comb - Som) were discerned. Depression/anxiety was moderately correlated with somatisation (rs = 0.64/0.52) but not facial pain characteristics. Multivariate modelling revealed that somatisation was significantly associated with the prospects of moderate-to-severe depression (OR 1.35) and anxiety (OR 1.24).

CONCLUSION

Somatisation exhibited a strong association with psychological distress when contrasted with facial pain in East Asian TMD patients.

Measurement Properties of the Patient Health Questionnaire-15 and Somatic Symptom Scale-8: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Importance

The subjective experience of somatic symptoms is a key concern throughout the health care system. Valid and clinically useful instruments are needed.

Objective

To evaluate the measurement properties of 2 widespread patient-reported outcomes: the Patient Health Questionnaire-15 (PHQ-15) and Somatic Symptom Scale-8 (SSS-8).

Data Sources

Medline, PsycINFO, and Web of Science were last searched February 1, 2024.

Study Selection

English-language studies reporting estimates pertaining to factor analysis, taxometric analysis, internal consistency, construct validity, mean scores in relevant groups, cutoffs, areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs), minimal clinically important difference, test-retest reliability, or sensitivity to change.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Search hits were reviewed by independent raters. Cronbach α, Pearson r, means, and between-group effect sizes indicative of sensitivity to change were pooled in random-effects meta-analysis. Study quality was assessed using 3 instruments. Reporting followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 reporting guideline.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Comprehensive overview of evidence pertaining to the measurement properties of the PHQ-15 and SSS-8.

Results

A total of 305 studies with 361 243 participants were included. Most concerned routine care (178 studies) and the general population (27 studies). In factor analyses, both scales reflected a combination of domain-specific factors (cardiopulmonary, fatigue, gastrointestinal, pain) and a general symptom burden factor. The pooled PHQ-15 α was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.80-0.82), but with low item-total correlations for items concerning menstrual problems, fainting spells, and sexual problems (item-total correlations <0.40), and the SSS-8 α was 0.80 (0.77-0.83). Pooled correlations with other measures of somatic symptom burden were 0.71 (95% CI, 0.64-0.78) for the PHQ-15 and 0.82 (95% CI, 0.72-0.92) for the SSS-8. Reported AUROCs for identification of somatoform disorders ranged from 0.63 (95% CI, 0.50-0.76) to 0.79 (95% CI, 0.73-0.85) for the PHQ-15 and from 0.71 (95% CI, 0.66-0.77) to 0.73 (95% CI, 0.69-0.76) for the SSS-8. The minimal clinically important difference on both scales was 3 points. Test-retest reliability could not be pooled and was inconsistent for the PHQ-15 (PHQ-15: r = 0.65-0.93; ICC, 0.87; SSS-8: r = 0.996, ICC = 0.89). The PHQ-15 showed tentative sensitivity to change (g = 0.32; 95% CI, 0.08-0.56), but data for the SSS-8 were lacking.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, findings supported use of the PHQ-15 and SSS-8 for the assessment of symptom burden, but users should be aware of the complex, multifactorial structures of these scales. More evidence is needed concerning longitudinal measurement properties.

Comorbidities between temporomandibular disorders and somatization in young adults: exploring links with personality, emotional, and sleep disturbances

OBJECTIVE

The comorbidities between temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) and somatization and their associations with personality traits, emotional disorders, and sleep disturbances were investigated.

STUDY DESIGN

Adults aged 18 to 24 years completed an electronic survey encompassing TMD symptoms (5Ts), Patient Health Questionnaire-15, Big Five Personality Inventory-10, Depression Anxiety Stress Scales-21, and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index. Data were assessed using non-parametric tests/correlation analysis and logistic regression analysis (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

The sample comprised 365 participants, of whom 22.2% and 19.5% were 5Ts-negative without and with somatization, respectively, and 18.1% and 40.3% were 5Ts-positive without and with somatization, respectively. Significant differences in neuroticism, distress, depression, anxiety, stress, and sleep quality were observed between 5Ts-negative participants with somatization and 5Ts-positive participants with somatization compared with 5Ts-negative participants without somatization and 5Ts-positive participants without somatization. Distress, anxiety, stress, and sleep were moderately correlated with somatic but not TMD symptoms (rs = 0.45-0.52).

CONCLUSIONS

Irrespective of whether they had TMDs, participants with somatization exhibited heightened levels of neuroticism and emotional and sleep disturbances.