Why DSM-III Was Right to Introduce the Concept of Somatoform Disorders

Recent developments on psychological factors in medically unexplained symptoms and somatoform disorders

Somatic symptoms which are not fully explained by a medical condition (medically unexplained symptoms) have a high relevance for the public health. They are very common both in the general population and in patients in health care, and may develop into chronic impairing conditions such as somatoform disorders. In recent years, the relevance of specific negative psychological factors for the diagnosis and the stability of somatoform disorders and for the impairment by medically unexplained symptoms gained more and more attention. This resulted-among others- in core changes in the diagnostic classification criteria of somatoform disorders. Against this background, the present "Perspective" will outline recent developments and findings in the area of medically unexplained somatic symptoms and somatoform disorders. Moreover, it will lay a special focus on evidence on specific negative psychological factors that may influence the course of unexplained somatic symptoms and disorders and the impairment caused by these symptoms.

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.

Reference values for the Body Image Concern Inventory (BICI), the Whitely Index (WI), and the Checklist Individual Strength (CIS-20R): The Leiden Routine Outcome Monitoring Study

BACKGROUND

The Body Image Concern Inventory (BICI), the Whitely Index (WI), and the Checklist Individual Strength (CIS-20R) are three questionnaires often incorporated in routine outcome monitoring (ROM). Respectively, they assess symptom severity in patients with body dysmorphic disorder, hypochondriasis, and chronic fatigue syndrome. We aimed to generate reference values for a healthy population and for a population of patients fulfilling diagnostic criteria for at least one of BDD, hypochondriasis, and CFS, treated in specialized mental health care.

METHODS

The healthy ROM reference-group (n=648) was recruited through general practitioners. These subjects were matched for age and sex with the ROM patient-group (n=823). To define limits (i.e., cut-off-values) for one-sided reference intervals (5th percentile [P5] for ROM patient-group and 95th percentile [P95] for ROM reference-group) the outermost 5% of observations were used. Discriminative powers were evaluated by receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analyses

RESULTS

Cut-off-values (P95 ROM reference-group) were 55 for the BICI, 6 for the WI, and 92 for the CIS-20R. These values differed for men and women, being mostly higher for women. The discriminative power of all three somatoform questionnaires was very high.

LIMITATIONS

Substantial non-response and limited generalizability.

CONCLUSIONS

For the BICI, WI, and CIS-20R a comprehensive set of reference values was obtained. The reference values may support clinical decisions regarding adjusting or terminating therapy, and possible referral.

Symptom clusters at midlife: a four-country comparison of checklist and qualitative responses

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to examine the frequency and clustering of somatic symptoms as reported by women aged 45 to 55 years in four countries, to compare women's responses to open-ended questions with those derived from structured checklists, and to assess the extent to which bodily symptoms grouped with emotional complaints.

METHODS

The Decisions at Menopause Study recruited 1,193 women from the general population in Beirut, Lebanon; Rabat, Morocco; Madrid, Spain; and central Massachusetts. Women participated in semistructured interviews on health, menopause, and bodily changes at midlife. The women's responses to symptom checklists and their statements in response to open-ended questions were analyzed through factor and textual analyses.

RESULTS

There was considerable consistency between the frequencies of quantitative and qualitative responses, and analyses of qualitative data illustrate the extent to which women associate somatic and emotional complaints. As shown in their responses to the open-ended questions, the women in Massachusetts and Spain did not often cluster somatic with emotional symptoms. In Morocco, dizziness, fatigue, and headaches were clustered with emotional symptoms. Women in Lebanon explicitly associated shortness of breath, chest pain, palpitations, dizziness, fatigue, gastrointestinal complaints, headaches, and, to a lesser extent, joint pain and numbness with emotional symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

The number of volunteered symptom responses was small because the respondents were relatively healthy; however, the extent and pattern of association between somatic and emotional symptoms varied across sites. Certain somatic symptoms may be more likely to communicate psychosocial distress in particular cultures. These results have implications for patterns of healthcare utilization.

Current debates over nosology of somatoform disorders

There is a wide debate among the researchers and clinicians over the diagnostic categories subsumed under the rubric of somatoform disorders (SDs). Recent proposals vary from radical views that call for removing this category altogether to the conservative views that suggests cosmetic changes in the diagnostic criteria of SDs. We have the reviewed the relevant literature through PUBMED search supplemented with manual search on current concepts of SD.

Somatoform disorders and causal attributions in patients with suspected allergies: Do somatic causal attributions matter?

OBJECTIVE

Somatic causal illness attributions are being considered as potential positive criteria for somatoform disorders (SFDs) in DSM-V. The aim of this study was to investigate whether patients diagnosed with SFDs tend towards a predominantly somatic attribution style.

METHODS

We compared the causal illness attributions of 48 SFD and 149 non-somatoform disorder patients, in a sample of patients presenting for an allergy diagnostic work-up, and those of 47 controls hospitalised for allergen-specific venom immunotherapy. The SFD diagnosis was established by means of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV. Both spontaneous and prompted causal illness attributions were recorded through interview and by means of the causal dimension of the Revised Illness Perception Questionnaire (IPQ-R), respectively. Patients' spontaneous and prompted responses were assigned to a psychosocial, somatic, or mixed attribution style.

RESULTS

Both in the free-response task and in their responses to the IPQ-R, SFD patients were no more likely than their nonsomatoform counterparts to focus on somatic explanations for their symptoms. They were just as likely to make psychosocial or mixed causal attributions. However, patients with SFDs were significantly more likely to find fault with medical care in the past.

CONCLUSION

Our data do not support the use of somatic causal illness attributions as positive criteria for SFDs. They confirm the dynamic and multidimensional nature of causal illness attributions. Clinical implications of these findings are discussed.

Advances in understanding illness anxiety

Illness anxiety, also known in its more severe form as hypochondriasis, is a debilitating and chronic condition in which normal bodily symptoms are misinterpreted as signs of serious medical illness. Patients suffer with the fear that they are ill despite reassurance to the contrary and often overuse medical services in the process. This article critically evaluates the recent literature on illness anxiety and related, medically unexplained symptoms, highlighting new and interesting findings in the areas of prevalence, classification/diagnosis, management, and evidence-based treatment and new frontiers in understanding illness anxiety, such as brain imaging, neuroimmunology, and cyberchondria.

[Somatoform disorders. Clinical evidence, etiology, pathogenesis, and therapy]

Patients presenting with bodily symptoms and complaints that are not explained by organic pathology or well-known pathophysiological mechanisms comprise a major challenge to any medical care system. From a perspective of psychiatric classification, such medically unexplained somatic symptoms are diagnosed as depressive and anxiety disorders on the one hand or somatoform disorders on the other. In clinical physical medicine a quite different diagnostic approach is taken to conceptualize functional somatic syndromes. Concepts of somatoform disorders are outlined, critical issues regarding existing diagnostic systems are discussed, and possible alternative approaches for upcoming versions of DSM-V and ICD-11 are mentioned. The main somatoform disorders are described in their clinical characteristics. Etiopathogenetically, somatoform disorders may best be considered within a multifactorial model. Some pragmatic guidelines for multimodal treatment of somatoform disorders are outlined.

Validity of current somatoform disorder diagnoses: perspectives for classification in DSM-V and ICD-11

BACKGROUND

The impending revisions of DSM-IV and ICD-10 provide an excellent opportunity to improve the diagnostic accuracy of the current somatoform disorder classification. To prepare for these revisions, this study systematically investigates the validity of the current classification of somatoform disorders.

METHODS

We searched Medline, Psycinfo and reference lists to investigate convergent, divergent, criterion and predictive validity of the current somatoform disorder classification.

RESULTS

Substantial associations of somatoform disorders with functional impairment and elevated health care costs give evidence for the clinical and societal importance of somatoform disorders and for the convergent validity of the current operationalization. The specificity of the current somatoform disorder classification, i.e. their divergent validity, is demonstrated by the fact that functional somatic syndromes and their consequences are only partially explained by association with anxiety and depression. However, the imprecision of the diagnostic criteria, which are not based on positive criteria but on the exclusion of organic disease, largely limits the criterion validity of the current classification systems. Finally, studies investigating the predictive potential of somatoform disorders are lacking, and to date predictive validity has to be considered as low.

CONCLUSIONS

The insufficient criterion and predictive validity of the present somatoform classification underlines the need to revise the diagnostic criteria. However, an abolishment of the whole category of somatoform disorders would ignore the substantial convergent and divergent validity of the current classification and would exclude patients with somatoform symptoms from the current health care system. A careful revision of the current somatoform disorder diagnoses, based on positive criteria of psychological, biological and social features, has the potential to substantially improve the reproducibility and clinical utility of the existing classification system.

Current somatoform disorders in Norway: prevalence, risk factors and comorbidity with anxiety, depression and musculoskeletal disorders

BACKGROUND

The future existence of somatoform disorders (SDs) has recently been debated. The objectives of this study were to investigate the prevalence of current SDs (defined as the presence of multisomatoform disorder [MSD] or somatoform disorders not otherwise specified [SDnos], without psychosocial impairment) and severe current SDs (MSD or SDnos with psychosocial impairment) in Norway. Differences in markers of severe current SDs, anxiety/depression and self-reported musculoskeletal disorders were explored. In addition, psychological distress and utilization of healthcare in subclasses (defined according to comorbidity with anxiety, depression and musculoskeletal disorders) of severe current SDs were examined.

METHODS

We interviewed 1,247 respondents using the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) in the Oslo-Lofoten general population survey in 2000-2001. Six-month prevalence rates (%) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for current SDs were investigated by gender and age. Risk factors of disorders, psychological distress, healthcare utilization and use of medication were explored using logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

The overall prevalence rate for severe current SDs was 10.2%. When psychosocial impairment was excluded as a criterion, the rate increased to 24.6%. Anxiety was strongly correlated with severe current SDs. Comorbidity of severe current SDs with anxiety/depression was 45%, and with musculoskeletal disorders, 43%. Analysis of healthcare utilization and use of medication showed that the presence of a comorbid psychiatric condition was more important than the presence of somatoform disorders alone.

CONCLUSION

Somatoform symptoms alone (with no psychiatric comorbidity) should not be considered a psychiatric disorder.

Revising the Classification of Somatoform Disorders: Key Questions and Preliminary Recommendations

As the DSM-V process unfolds, Somatoform Disorders are a diagnostic category for which major revisions seem warranted. The Conceptual Issues in Somatoform and Similar Disorders (CISSD) project recently convened three workshops, involving 24 experts. The CISSD identified key questions related to stakeholders; terminology; appropriate axis (I versus III); medically unexplained criteria; status of functional somatic syndromes; and symptom counts, grouping, lifetime recall, and checklists. Preliminary recommendations include substantial revision of the category of Somatization Disorder, elimination of Undifferentiated Somatoform Disorder and Pain Disorder, terminology changes, and potential shifting of certain disorders to different DSM categories or axes.

Prevalence of mental disorders based on general population surveys

OBJECTIVE

In the last two decades, a multitude of investigations into the frequency of mental disorders in the population have emerged, making it difficult to keep track of recent findings and tasks. Building on a historical review, the present study provides a comprehensive overview of knowledge about the prevalence of mental disorders.

METHOD

The review is based on current national surveys with comparable methodology. Study selection, based on a consecutive literature search through August 2005, led to the inclusion of Australian, German, Dutch and US-American (NCS; NCS-R) surveys of mental disorders in the general population.

RESULTS

A considerable proportion of the population is found to have a mental disorder. The most frequent disorders within the preceding 12 months are mood disorders (6.6-11.9%) and anxiety disorders (5.6-18.1%). Substance disorders (3.8-11.3%) and somatoform disorders (11.0%) are also very frequent. The prevalence rates presented in each survey are dependent on the specific disorders included and the classification system underlying them. Important risk factors are being female, being unmarried, being unemployed and having a low social status.

CONCLUSIONS

Knowledge about mental disorders in the general population can contribute to bringing about considerable improvement in the treatment of mental disorders. In addition to available knowledge, however, there is a continued need to address existing challenges from both a methodological and content-related perspective, e.g. the lack of or inadequate inclusion of specific disorders, the lack of prevalence rates of mental disorders in childhood and adolescence, and the as yet only rare inclusion of personality disorders.

Psychological Factors Affecting Medical Condition: A New Proposal for DSM-V

The DSM category of "psychological factors affecting medical condition" had virtually no impact on clinical practice. However, several clinically relevant psychosomatic syndromes have been described in the literature: disease phobia, persistent somatization, conversion symptoms, illness denial, demoralization, and irritable mood. These syndromes, in addition to the DSM definition of hypochondriasis, can yield clinical specification in the category of "psychological factors affecting medical condition" and eliminate the need for the highly criticized DSM classification of somatoform disorders. This new classification is supported by a growing body of research evidence and is in line with psychosomatic medicine as a recognized subspecialty.

Mental disorders in patients with obesity in comparison with healthy probands

OBJECTIVE

Findings concerning the association of obesity and mental disorders are inconsistent. The present epidemiological study investigates adjusted 4-week, 12-month, and lifetime prevalence rates of mental disorders in obese individuals compared with physically healthy probands and overweight individuals. Correlates of the associations are examined.

METHODS

Prevalence rates were calculated from two large epidemiological surveys from both the general population of Germany and inpatient centers. The surveys investigated subjects with obesity (n=910) and overweight (n=1550), as well as physically healthy probands (n=495). The prevalence rates were based on the Munich-composite international diagnostic interview, a standardized interview for the assessment of mental disorders. Correlates of mental disorders in obese individuals were assessed using self-report questionnaires and medical examinations.

RESULTS

The adjusted odds ratios (OR) of obese inpatients and obese patients from the general population were significantly elevated in comparison with healthy probands for the 4-week (OR: 2.2; 2.3), 12-month (OR: 1.8; 2.7) and lifetime (OR: 1.4; 2.0) periods. Prevalence rates of overweight individuals were below those of obese individuals. Mood, anxiety and somatoform disorders were most frequent. In particular, sex, marital status and comorbid musculoskeletal diseases proved to be correlates of an increased risk for mental disorders in obese individuals. The presence of comorbid mental disorders was associated with significantly increased health care use and lower quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a strong relationship between obesity and mental disorders. A future task is to improve care of mental disorders in patients with obesity.

Conceptual issues in undifferentiated somatoform disorder and chronic fatigue syndrome

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the conceptual problems in distinguishing between undifferentiated somatoform disorder and chronic fatigue syndrome, for both may present with fatigue as the main symptom.

RECENT FINDINGS

The differences and/or similarities between undifferentiated somatoform disorder and chronic fatigue syndrome have not been studied, conceptually or empirically. The literature fails to present discriminant validity of chronic fatigue syndrome in relation to undifferentiated somatoform disorder. A critical feature is implied in the definition of undifferentiated somatoform disorder but absent from the definitions of chronic fatigue syndrome: some patients experience their fatigue as being exclusively physical and not as mental, which is prima facie peculiar, for fatigue is necessarily a mental experience. One is not able to experience fatigue without a mind (or a brain). This experience is characterized as a 'mindless' fatigue, underpinned by pathological reductionist thinking. By not recognizing this critical feature, diagnostic endeavours may perpetuate the problem as a function of the patient's difficulty.

SUMMARY

Proponents of chronic fatigue syndrome should distinguish chronic fatigue syndrome from undifferentiated somatoform disorder, if chronic fatigue syndrome is a distinct entity at all. Further, the 'mindless' quality is a critical feature that needs consideration in refining the concept of undifferentiated somatoform disorder.

Why reassurance fails in patients with unexplained symptoms--an experimental investigation of remembered probabilities

BACKGROUND

Providing reassurance is one of physicians' most frequently used verbal interventions. However, medical reassurance can fail or even have negative effects. This is frequently the case in patients with medically unexplained symptoms. It is hypothesized that these patients are more likely than patients from other groups to incorrectly recall the likelihoods of medical explanations provided by doctors.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

Thirty-three patients with medically unexplained symptoms, 22 patients with major depression, and 30 healthy controls listened to an audiotaped medical report, as well as to two control reports. After listening to the reports, participants were asked to rate what the doctor thinks the likelihood is that the complaints are caused by a specific medical condition. Although the doctor rejected most of the medical explanations for the symptoms in his verbal report, the patients with medically unexplained complaints remembered a higher likelihood for medical explanations for their symptoms. No differences were found between patients in the other groups, and for the control conditions. When asked to imagine that the reports were applicable to themselves, patients with multiple medical complaints reported more concerns about their health state than individuals in the other groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians should be aware that patients with medically unexplained symptoms recall the likelihood of medical causes for their complaints incorrectly. Therefore, physicians should verify correct understanding by using check-back questions and asking for summaries, to improve the effect of reassurance.

Somatoform Disorders and DSM-V: Conceptual and Political Issues in the Debate

This article furthers the debate on the future of somatoform disorders by critically reviewing the relevant terminology and validity for the separate grouping and classification of these disorders. It is suggested that political pressures to change certain terms should be resisted, and that such changes should be made only if the alternatives have clear advantages.

Somatoform disorders in neurological practice

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Patients with medically unexplained symptoms continue to intrigue, fascinate and frustrate clinicians. They are common in general medicine and often present with apparent neurological disorder. This review aims to provide insight into the recent literature that has sought to clarify epidemiology, diagnostic issues, aetiologic understanding and treatment of patients with psychogenic disorders who usually first present to neurologists.

RECENT FINDINGS

Somatoform disorders are common in neurological practice. A number of papers have addressed issues of epidemiology and identified that medically unexplained symptoms in neurological populations are higher than originally thought. A number of recent review papers have served to summarize areas of considerable information (e.g. treatments) and areas of rapid growth in knowledge (e.g. neuroimaging). Studies investigating the role of psychological factors are well represented and clarify our psychopathological understanding of somatoform disorders in patients presenting to neurologists. Treatment studies are few and continue to be limited by population sizes and study designs.

SUMMARY

Somatoform disorders are common in neurological populations. Comorbidity related to somatoform disorders with known organic neurological conditions requires further study. On account of the limitations of treatment studies, evidence-based clinical management of these patients is awaited.

Idiopathic physical symptoms: a common manifestation of psychiatric disorders in primary care

Worldwide, patients with common mental disorders, such as depression and anxiety, have a tendency to present first to primary care exhibiting idiopathic physical symptoms. Typically, these symptoms consist of pain and other physical complaints that remain medically unexplained. While in the past, traditional psychopathology emphasized the relevance of somatic presentations for disorders, such as depression, in the last few decades, the "somatic component" has been neglected in the assessment and treatment of psychiatric patients. Medical specialties have come up with a variety of "fashionable" labels to characterize these patients and the new psychiatric nomenclatures, such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, attempt to classify these patients into a separate "somatoform disorders" category. These efforts fall short, and revisionists are asking altogether for the elimination of "somatoform disorders" from future nomenclatures. This review emphasizes the importance of idiopathic physical symptoms to the clinical phenomenology of many psychiatric disorders, offers suggestions to the diagnostic conundrum, and provides some hints for the proper assessment and management of patients with these common syndromes.

Towards better understanding and management of somatoform disorders

Much research has recently been conducted on somatoform disorders demonstrating their clinical importance, associated health-service burden and economic cost. These conditions are often comorbid with other mental and physical disorders and particularly prevalent in primary care and general medical settings. Although culture-specific manifestations and variations of somatization occur--it is now accepted that medically unexplained somatic symptoms are a universal phenomenon. The management of somatoform disorders is generally a complex and lengthy process; however, a number of recent studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of short-term treatments such as cognitive behaviour therapy and educational interventions. Despite advances in their understanding and treatment, debate still surrounds the conceptualization and categorization of somatoform disorders, with a number of experts proposing a complete re-evaluation and reassignment of this diagnostic classification category. The following paper represents a review of recently published literature on frequency, characteristics, conceptualization, impact and management of somatoform disorders.

Depression, pain, and somatoform disorders

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The frequent co-occurrence of depression and somatic symptoms poses a continuing challenge to clinicians, researchers and experts involved in drawing up classifications. In this review we present recently published literature on aspects of epidemiology, classification and treatment in this important overlap area.

RECENT FINDINGS

From the multitude of papers published annually on the co-occurrence of different pain conditions and depression, temporomandibular dysfunction stands out this year by sheer quantity; it can be seen as a model case of the necessity for differentiated high-quality assessments on the biological as well as the psychosocial level. There is a general move to separate utility of diagnostic classifications from their validity, and this strengthens classificatory approaches that help to view the regular overlap of depression, pain and other somatic symptoms as the rule rather than the exception. The incorporation of cognitive variables like causal attributions should help to distinguish clinically relevant subtypes among overlap cases. The classificatory future of the category of 'somatoform disorders' is somewhat in doubt, but reforms seem to be more productive than abolishment. Psychopharmacology provides rather intense recent coverage of the overlap field, with newer dual serotonergic-noradrenergic reuptake inhibitors offering some promise.

SUMMARY

Treating the overlap of depression, pain and other somatic symptoms as the rule rather than the exception is necessary for adequate aetiological research as well as for diagnosis and treatment, with one-dimensional classificatory and treatment approaches almost certainly being insufficient.