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

Making Sense of "Somatization": A Systematic Review of its Relationship to Pediatric Pain

OBJECTIVES

Pain and other physical symptoms commonly co-occur in childhood. There is debate about the relevance of somatization in understanding pain. The present review critically appraised and synthesized the extant literature on the relationship between pediatric pain and somatization.

METHODS

A systematic review (PROSPERO registration #95956) was conducted in Medline, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and CINAHL using search terms related to pain and somatization in children and adolescents. A total of 156 articles were eligible for inclusion in the review. For studies that measured somatization using a symptom questionnaire, descriptions of "somatization" were extracted. Data regarding the relationship between pain and somatization were extracted for studies measuring somatization using a diagnostic category (e.g., Somatic Symptom and Related Disorders [SSRDs]).

RESULTS

While many studies using somatic symptom questionnaires described somatization as having a psychological component, this was not always captured in measurement tools. Pain was reported as a common symptom in patients with an SSRD diagnosis, though rates varied depending on the specific diagnosis and pain location. Rates of SSRD diagnoses among pain patients were less frequent than rates of pain amongst SSRD patients.

CONCLUSIONS

SSRDs and pain commonly co-occur, though rates differ depending on diagnosis and pain location. Understanding the relationship between pain and somatization is complicated by the discrepancy between how somatization is defined and measured in questionnaire studies. A comprehensive and measurable definition of somatization is needed so researchers can better identify the shared and unique contributions of pain and somatization in pediatric populations.

Conversion disorder: A systematic review of current terminology

OBJECTIVE

It has been argued that the label given to unexplained neurological symptoms is an important contributor to their often poor acceptance, and there has been recent debate on proposals to change the name from conversion disorder. There have been multiple studies of layperson and clinician preference and this article aimed to review these.

DESIGN

Multiple databases were searched using terms including "conversion disorder" and "terminology", and relative preferences for the terms extracted.

RESULTS

Seven articles were found which looked at clinician or layperson preferences for terminology for unexplained neurological symptoms. Most neurologists favoured terms such as "functional" and "psychogenic", while laypeople were comfortable with "functional" but viewed "psychogenic" as more offensive; "non-epileptic/organic" was relatively popular with both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

"Functional" is a term that is relatively popular with both clinicians and the public. It also meets more of the other criteria proposed for an acceptable label than other popular terms - however the views of neither psychiatrists nor actual patients with the disorder were considered.

Do the various categories of somatoform disorders differ from each other in symptom profile and psychological correlates

BACKGROUND

In routine clinical practice, the subcategories of various somatoform disorders are rarely used by the primary care physicians and there is lack of data to suggest any difference in the clinical manifestations of these subcategories.

AIM

To compare the symptom profile, anxiety, depression, alexithymia, somato-sensory amplification and hypochondriasis of patients with persistent somatoform pain disorder with other subtypes of somatoform disorder.

METHOD

A total of 119 patients diagnosed with somatoform disorders according to the International Classification of Diseases-10th Revision (ICD-10) were evaluated for prevalence of somatic symptoms, anxiety, depression, alexithymia, hypochondriacal worry and somato-sensory amplification.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found in the prevalence of various somatic complaints between those with persistent somatoform pain disorder group and those diagnosed with other somatoform disorders. Co-morbid anxiety and depression were seen in two-thirds of the patients, but again there was no difference in the prevalence of the same between the two groups. Similarly, no significant differences were found on alexithymia, hypochondriasis and somato-sensory amplification scales between the persistent somatoform pain disorder group and the group with other somatoform disorders.

CONCLUSION

There are no significant differences between the various subcategories of somatoform disorders with regard to the prevalence of somatic symptoms, anxiety or depression and psychological correlates of alexithymia, hypochondriasis and somato-sensory amplification.

Brain Dysfunctions, Psychopathologies, and Body Image Distortions

The major features in eating disorders are a preoccupation with food and its consumption and body dissatisfaction. Diagnostic manuals provide clusters of criteria according to which affected individuals can be categorized into one or other group of eating disorder. Yet, when considering the high proportion of comorbidities and ignoring the content of the symptoms (food, body), the major features seem to yield obsessional-compulsive, addictive, and impulsive qualities. In the present article, we review studies from the neuroscientific literature (mainly lesion studies) on eating disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, impulse control disorder, and addiction to investigate the possibility of a wider phenotype that can be related to a common brain network. The literature localizes this network to the right frontal lobe and its connectivities. This network, when dysfunctional, might result in a behavior that favors the preoccupation with particular thoughts, behaviors, anxieties, and uncontrollable urges that are accompanied by little scope for ongoing behavioral adjustments (e.g., impulse control). We reason that this network may turn out to be equally involved in understudied mental conditions of dysfunctional body processing such as muscle dysmorphia, body dysmorphic disorder (including esthetic surgery), and xelomelia. We finally consider previous notions of a wider phenotype approach to current diagnostic practice (using DSM), such as the possibility of a model with a reduced number of diagnostic categories and primary and secondary factors, and to etiological models of mental health conditions.

From psychogenic movement disorder to functional movement disorder: it's time to change the name

Successive attempts at rebranding may be behind at least some of the proliferation of terms we have at our disposal when describing patients with what are now most often referred to as "psychogenic," "conversion," or "somatoform" symptoms. The most popular term in the movement disorder literature, "psychogenic," provides the aetiology of the disorder within the name, indicating that the symptoms are "born of the mind." Here we argue that it is logical to stop using a term that defines the disorder with regard to a poorly defined aetiology that is not supported by current evidence, and, instead, to use a broad term-functional-not as a "polite eponym" but as a term that is freer from such assumptions and does not reinforce dualistic thinking. The main argument for change is not political or even practical, but scientific.

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.

Familial risk factors for the development of somatoform symptoms and disorders in children and adolescents: a systematic review

The aim of this study was to examine whether familial risk factors for the development of somatoform symptoms and somatoform disorders in children and adolescents can be deduced from studies which investigated the intergenerational transmission of functional abdominal pain and somatoform disorders. A systematic review of articles published in English and German since 1990 was performed. Twenty-three relevant studies were found. The following putative familial risk factors for the development of somatoform symptoms and somatoform disorders were identified: somatization of parents, organic disease of a significant other, psychopathology of close family members, dysfunctional family climate, traumatic experiences in childhood and insecure attachment. Most of the putative familial risk factors are associated with many other psychiatric child disorders and are therefore mostly nonspecific. Further longitudinal studies, in which comorbidity and other putative risk factors are taken into account, are needed to identify specific familial risk factors for the development of somatoform symptoms and somatoform disorders.

Somatoform disorders: 30 years of debate about criteria! What about children and adolescents?

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the suitability of the complex somatic symptom disorder, proposed by the DSM-V Somatic Symptom Disorders Workgroup, in classifying children and adolescents who suffer severely from medically unexplained symptoms.

METHODS

The existing knowledge about somatoform disorders (SDs) in children and adolescents was delineated by means of a comprehensive search in the psychological, psychiatric, and pediatric literature. It was analyzed to assess whether children and adolescents suffer from SDs according to DSM-IV-TR (prevalence, developmental course, comorbidity, risk factors, and impact on daily functioning). Subsequently, each criterion of the complex somatic symptom disorder was outlined and discussed with respect to its suitability in classifying children and adolescents. The suitability of the DSM-IV-TR criteria of SDs and that of the criteria of the complex somatic symptom disorder were compared.

RESULTS

Current data of sufficient quality are limited but indicate that the DSM-IV-TR criteria are inappropriate for classifying most children and adolescents suffering from somatoform symptoms. The criteria for complex somatic symptom disorder are more appropriate. Nevertheless, it is recommended to include two additional parameters: "parental excessive concern and preoccupation with the child's symptoms" and "high parental health anxieties."

CONCLUSIONS

The criteria for complex somatic symptom disorder are more appropriate for children and adolescents than the current DSM-IV-TR criteria; they should be better adapted to the special situation of children and adolescents.

[Determinants of quality of life in patients with somatoform disorders with pain as main symptom - the case for differentiating subgroups]

OBJECTIVES

What impact do the degree of somatization and the presence of a comorbid psychological disorder have on health-related quality of life in patients with pain-dominated somatoform disorders?

METHODS

282 consecutive patients (57.6 %) from a total population of N=490 patients fulfilling the criteria of somatoform pain disorders were included in the study following a thorough interdisciplinary diagnostic process at a German university hospital. Structured interviews (SKIDI and SKID-II) to assess comorbid psychological disorders as well as a structured biographical interview to assess chronification factors were conducted. We employed the Screening for Somatoform Disorders form (SOMS) to discover the extent and distribution of somatic symptoms and the SF-36 to determine the health-related quality of life.

RESULTS

The patients exhibited a multiplicity of further somatic complaints apart from pain. 69 % had a comorbid psychological disorder. The health-related physical and psychological quality of life was clearly impaired in patients with "small", "substantial" and "pronounced" somatization. Regression analysis explained 48 % of the variance of the body-related and 35 % of the variance of the psychological quality of life: Besides the extent of somatization, older age, duration of pain-associated hospitalizations and the subjective amount of occupational impairment proved to be important. With regard to the psychological (but not the somatic) health-related quality of life, the presence of a current comorbid psychological disorder was also relevant.

CONCLUSION

Patients with pain-dominated somatoform disorders are substantially impaired in their quality of life. Because 31 % of the patients with such disorders have no additional comorbid psychic disorder and the existence of a comorbid psychic disorder impacts only the psychological domain of their health-related quality of life, the results appear to strongly support maintaining the diagnostic category of somatoform disorders in ICD-11 and DSM-V. They also support the grading of the severity of the somatization similar to the grading of depressive disorders.

[Hypochondriasis between health and psychosis]

Considering the lack of clarity in the conceptualisation of hypochondriasis, it is not surprising that the concept is quite heterogeneous and that there are dilemmas in terms of what is encompassed by hypochondriasis and where its boundaries are. Therefore, the aim of this review paper was to contribute towards a more coherent view on hypochondriasis, which would also allow its more adequate classification. The essential features of hypochondriasis were identified as an overvalued idea about the presence of disease, fear that the person has already become seriously ill, reassurance-seeking and other forms of health checking, and disturbances in the perception of bodily sensations and symptoms. These four aspects of hypochondriasis can be assessed dimensionally to ascertain to what extent they characterise each patient. Suggestions have been made to delineate more precisely hypochondriasis from health anxiety, anxiety disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorder, other somatoform disorders, personality disorders, depression, and delusional disorder with disease-related delusions. In the absence of better alternatives, hypochondriasis should continue to be classified among the somatoform disorders. In order to improve communication between clinicians and reduce conceptual heterogeneity, the term "hypochondriasis" should be used to refer only to primary hypochondriasis. The pressure to abandon this term should be resisted until an adequate substitution for it has been found.

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.

Cognitive-affective neuroscience of somatization disorder and functional somatic syndromes: reconceptualizing the triad of depression-anxiety-somatic symptoms

Somatization disorder is a somatoform disorder that overlaps with a number of functional somatic syndromes and has high comorbidity with major depression and anxiety disorders. Proposals have been made for revising the category of somatoform disorders, for simplifying the criteria for somatization disorder, and for emphasizing the unitary nature of the functional somatic syndromes in future classifications. A review of the cognitive-affective neuroscience of somatization disorder and related conditions suggests that overlapping psychobiological mechanisms mediate depression, anxiety, and somatization symptoms. Particular genes and environments may contribute to determining whether symptoms are predominantly depressive, anxious, or somatic, and there are perhaps also overlaps and distinctions in the distal evolutionary mechanisms that produce these symptoms.

Update on consultation-liaison psychiatry (psychosomatic medicine)

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Current issues in consultation-liaison psychiatry, which is now labeled psychosomatic medicine as a formal subspecialty by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, are discussed.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is continued interest in how to best manage depression and anxiety in a primary-care setting. Collaborative care that utilizes a psychiatrist within the treatment center, as well as case management by a nurse, have been reviewed and meta-analyses suggest it is an efficient and effective approach. The diagnostic issues within psychosomatic medicine are also an area of concern as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5 edition, is in the planning stages. How to improve both the reliability and validity of somatoform disorders will be a major challenge. Organ transplantation is a clinical challenge for patients, donors and healthcare providers. Issues in assessment and management continue to evolve. Ethical questions also arise due to the shortage of available organs.

SUMMARY

Psychosomatic medicine continues to manage patients in medical settings that cut across a continuum from primary-care to complex medical and surgical centers. The clinical problems containing a medical-psychiatric interface offer a clinical challenge but also an area for new knowledge and better interventions.

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.

Are somatoform disorders 'mental disorders'? A contribution to the current debate

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

During the last 2 years, a debate has started over whether the somatoform symptoms/medically unexplained symptoms are wrongly placed under the category of mental disorders (section F in International classification of diseases-10 and in Diagnostic and statistical manual for mental disorders-IV).

RECENT FINDINGS

Most experts on medically unexplained symptoms agree that there is a substantial need for revision of the diagnoses of somatoform disorders. While some authors suggest moving the somatoform disorders from axis I to axis III, others suggest improving the classification of these syndromes on axis I, such as by using empirically derived criteria and by introducing psychological descriptors which justify the categorization as a mental disorder. In contrast to the situation when the last version of Diagnostic and statistical manual for mental disorders was published, new empirical data has shown some psychological and behavioural characteristics of patients with somatoform symptoms. These and other empirically founded approaches can be landmarks for the revision of this section in Diagnostic and statistical manual for mental disorders-V and International classification of diseases-11.

SUMMARY

The classification of somatoform disorders as 'mental disorders' could be justified if empirically founded psychological and behavioural characteristics are included into the classification process. Attention focusing, symptom catastrophizing, and symptom expectation are outlined as possible examples of involved psychological processes.

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.