Emerging themes in the revision of the classification of somatoform disorders

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.

Accuracy of diagnostic judgments using ICD-11 vs. ICD-10 diagnostic guidelines for obsessive-compulsive and related disorders

BACKGROUND

We report results of an internet-based field study evaluating the diagnostic guidelines for the newly introduced ICD-11 grouping of obsessive-compulsive and related disorders (OCRD). We examined accuracy of clinicians' diagnostic judgments applying draft ICD-11 as compared to the ICD-10 diagnostic guidelines to standardized case vignettes.

METHODS

1,717 mental health professionals who are members of the World Health Organization's Global Clinical Practice Network completed the study in Chinese, English, French, Japanese, Russian or Spanish. Participants were randomly assigned to apply ICD-11 or ICD-10 guidelines to one of nine pairs of case vignettes.

RESULTS

Participants using ICD-11 outperformed those using ICD-10 in correctly identifying newly introduced OCRD, although results were mixed for differentiating OCRD from disorders in other groupings largely due to clinicians having difficulty differentiating challenging presentations of OCD. Clinicians had difficulty applying a three-level insight qualifier, although the 'poor to absent' level assisted with differentiating OCRD from psychotic disorders. Brief training on the rationale for an OCRD grouping did not improve diagnostic accuracy suggesting sufficient detail of the proposed guidelines.

LIMITATIONS

Standardized case vignettes were manipulated to include specific characteristics; the degree of accuracy of clinicians' diagnostic judgments about these vignettes may not generalize to application in routine clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, use of the ICD-11 guidelines resulted in more accurate diagnosis of case vignettes compared to the ICD-10 guidelines, particularly in differentiating OCRD presentations from one another. Specific areas in which the ICD-11 guidelines did not perform as intended provided the basis for further revisions to the guidelines.

General practitioners' views on the diagnostic innovations in DSM-5 somatic symptom disorder - A focus group study

BACKGROUND

The innovations concerning the new diagnosis somatic symptom disorder (SSD) in the DSM-5 include the introduction of psychological diagnostic criteria and the elimination of the need to exclude all potential somatic causes of the symptoms. Thus far, it is unknown how general practitioners (GPs) evaluate the innovations conceptually and regarding their applicability in primary care.

METHOD

We performed six focus groups with GPs. A semi-structured interview-guideline included a presentation of the innovations of SSD and questions about the innovations and their potential (dis-)advantages from the GPs' points of view. The material was analyzed using structuring qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 41 GPs participated (mean (sd) age = 51 (8.5) years, female = 17, male = 24). The GPs assessed that the diagnostic innovations could help them to focus on symptom-related concerns and anxiety as core aspects of the patients' complaints. However, the meaning of the term excessive in the psychological diagnostic criteria (i.e., excessive worries, anxiety, time and energy) was ambiguous for the GPs. The GPs appreciated that a mental disorder can be assigned in addition to a severe physical disease. The GPs found it unlikely that diagnostic workup of somatic symptoms would be cut short if the diagnostic criteria of SSD were fulfilled in a given patient.

CONCLUSION

Altogether, for the GPs, the advantages of the new diagnostic criteria for SSD outweighed the disadvantages. In particular, the newly included psychological criteria were seen as an important advancement in comparison to the previous need of merely excluding a physical disease.

Validity and sensitivity to change of the Somatic Symptom Disorder-B Criteria Scale (SSD-12) in a clinical population

OBJECTIVE

The SSD-12 is a brief self-report questionnaire to measure the psychological criteria of DSM-5 Somatic Symptom Disorder. This study examines its psychometric properties in a German inpatient sample from a psychosomatic rehabilitation setting, and provides evidence to its sensitivity to change.

METHOD

Patients completed the SSD-12 and the Health49-subscale on somatoform complaints before and after receiving inpatient treatment. Therapists evaluated the psychological improvement of their patients at the end of treatment. Effect sizes (ES) and standardized response means (SRM) of pre- and post-SSD-12 mean changes were calculated for subgroups of patients who did or did not improve.

RESULTS

SSD-12 scores at discharge were significantly lower compared to scores at admission for subgroups of patients who improved according to clinicians (t=2976, df=103, p=.004), and for patients who improved according to self-report (t=5.059, df=159, p<.001). Effect sizes of change in SSD-12 scores in the improved subgroups were ES=-0.19 and ES=-0.30, and standardized response means were SRM=-0.29 and SRM=-0.40, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The SSD-12 shows sound psychometric properties and is useful and time-efficient for monitoring psychological burden associated with bothersome somatic symptoms. Its sensitivity to change over time could be documented.

Why Bioethics Should Be Concerned With Medically Unexplained Symptoms

Biomedical diagnostic science is a great deal less successful than we've been willing to acknowledge in bioethics, and this fact has far-reaching ethical implications. In this article I consider the surprising prevalence of medically unexplained symptoms, and the term's ambiguous meaning. Then I frame central questions that remain answered in this context with respect to informed consent, autonomy, and truth-telling. Finally, I show that while considerable attention in this area is given to making sure not to provide biological care to patients without a need, comparatively little is given to the competing, ethically central task of making sure never to obstruct access to biological care for those with diagnostically confusing biological conditions. I suggest this problem arises from confusion about the philosophical value of vagueness when it comes to the line between biological and psychosocial needs.

"Medically unexplained" symptoms and symptom disorders in primary care: prognosis-based recognition and classification

BACKGROUND

Many patients consult their GP because they experience bodily symptoms. In a substantial proportion of cases, the clinical picture does not meet the existing diagnostic criteria for diseases or disorders. This may be because symptoms are recent and evolving or because symptoms are persistent but, either by their character or the negative results of clinical investigation cannot be attributed to disease: so-called "medically unexplained symptoms" (MUS). MUS are inconsistently recognised, diagnosed and managed in primary care. The specialist classification systems for MUS pose several problems in a primary care setting. The systems generally require great certainty about presence or absence of physical disease, they tend to be mind-body dualistic, and they view symptoms from a narrow specialty determined perspective. We need a new classification of MUS in primary care; a classification that better supports clinical decision-making, creates clearer communication and provides scientific underpinning of research to ensure effective interventions.

DISCUSSION

We propose a classification of symptoms that places greater emphasis on prognostic factors. Prognosis-based classification aims to categorise the patient's risk of ongoing symptoms, complications, increased healthcare use or disability because of the symptoms. Current evidence suggests several factors which may be used: symptom characteristics such as: number, multi-system pattern, frequency, severity. Other factors are: concurrent mental disorders, psychological features and demographic data. We discuss how these characteristics may be used to classify symptoms into three groups: self-limiting symptoms, recurrent and persistent symptoms, and symptom disorders. The middle group is especially relevant in primary care; as these patients generally have reduced quality of life but often go unrecognised and are at risk of iatrogenic harm. The presented characteristics do not contain immediately obvious cut-points, and the assessment of prognosis depends on a combination of several factors.

CONCLUSION

Three criteria (multiple symptoms, multiple systems, multiple times) may support the classification into good, intermediate and poor prognosis when dealing with symptoms in primary care. The proposed new classification specifically targets the patient population in primary care and may provide a rational framework for decision-making in clinical practice and for epidemiologic and clinical research of symptoms.

Assessing older adults in civil litigation cases

With the population aging, the legal and mental health systems need to be prepared for cases that involve older adults beyond the customary matters of guardianship and competency. Assessing older adults with the current tests raises concerns because these measures may not be adequately normed for this age group. Malingering, factitious disorders, and somatoform disorders are discussed due to health-related issues of normal aging. These topics complicate the assessment procedure and need consideration because they may affect the claimant's performance or symptom presentation. Although claims of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are common in civil litigation cases, it can be additionally complex in older adults. The evaluator needs to weigh not only factors related to the normal biological process of aging but also those that are attendant with the litigation.

The classification of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders in the ICD-11

BACKGROUND

To present the rationale for the new Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders (OCRD) grouping in the Mental and Behavioural Disorders chapter of the Eleventh Revision of the World Health Organization's International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-11), including the conceptualization and essential features of disorders in this grouping.

METHODS

Review of the recommendations of the ICD-11 Working Group on the Classification for OCRD. These sought to maximize clinical utility, global applicability, and scientific validity.

RESULTS

The rationale for the grouping is based on common clinical features of included disorders including repetitive unwanted thoughts and associated behaviours, and is supported by emerging evidence from imaging, neurochemical, and genetic studies. The proposed grouping includes obsessive-compulsive disorder, body dysmorphic disorder, hypochondriasis, olfactory reference disorder, and hoarding disorder. Body-focused repetitive behaviour disorders, including trichotillomania and excoriation disorder are also included. Tourette disorder, a neurological disorder in ICD-11, and personality disorder with anankastic features, a personality disorder in ICD-11, are recommended for cross-referencing.

LIMITATIONS

Alternative nosological conceptualizations have been described in the literature and have some merit and empirical basis. Further work is needed to determine whether the proposed ICD-11 OCRD grouping and diagnostic guidelines are mostly likely to achieve the goals of maximizing clinical utility and global applicability.

CONCLUSION

It is anticipated that creation of an OCRD grouping will contribute to accurate identification and appropriate treatment of affected patients as well as research efforts aimed at improving our understanding of the prevalence, assessment, and management of its constituent disorders.

Classification of somatic syndromes in ICD-11

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

As a part of the its current revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), the WHO is proposing major changes to the somatoform section of the chapter on Mental and Behavioral Disorders. This article reviews the basis for these changes and presents the highlights of the new category being proposed.

RECENT FINDINGS

As currently classified in ICD-10, somatoform disorders have major problems that limit their clinical utility. Among these are the negative criterion specifications for the diagnosis of the disorders, the rarity of the prototype categories, and the imprecise boundaries between them. To respond to these problems, a new category of Bodily Distress Disorder (BDD) is proposed to replace the current categories. The proposed category is defined by a simplified set of criterion specifications that are based on the presence of positive psycho-behavioral features.

SUMMARY

The new category, still in proposal stage, offers the prospect of responding to the need for a reliable diagnosis of clinically significant somatic preoccupations that are common in the community as well as in routine clinical practice. It is expected that improved diagnosis should aid the correct identification of these conditions and enhance the ability of clinicians to provide effective treatment.

Chronic Pain, Psychopathology, and DSM-5 Somatic Symptom Disorder

Unlike acute pain that warns us of injury or disease, chronic or persistent pain serves no adaptive purpose. Though there is no agreed on definition of chronic pain, it is commonly referred to as pain that is without biological value, lasting longer than the typical healing time, not responsive to treatments based on specific remedies, and of a duration greater than 6 months. Chronic pain that is severe and intractable has detrimental consequences, including psychological distress, job loss, social isolation, and, not surprisingly, it is highly comorbid with depression and anxiety. Historically, pain without an apparent anatomical or neurophysiological origin was labelled as psychopathological. This approach is damaging to the patient and provider alike. It pollutes the therapeutic relationship by introducing an element of mutual distrust as well as implicit, if not explicit, blame. It is demoralizing to the patient who feels at fault, disbelieved, and alone. Moreover, many medically unexplained pains are now understood to involve an interplay between peripheral and central neurophysiological mechanisms that have gone awry. The new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, somatic symptom disorder overpsychologizes people with chronic pain; it has low sensitivity and specificity, and it contributes to misdiagnosis, as well as unnecessary stigma. Adjustment disorder remains the most appropriate, accurate, and acceptable diagnosis for people who are overly concerned about their pain.

Somatic symptom disorder: an important change in DSM

This paper describes the rationale for the new diagnosis of somatic symptom disorder (SSD) within DSM5. SSD represents a consolidation of a number of previously listed diagnoses. It deemphasizes the centrality of medically unexplained symptoms and defines the disorder on the basis of persistent somatic symptoms associated with disproportionate thoughts, feelings, and behaviors related to these symptoms. Data are presented concerning reliability, validity, and prevalence of SSD, as well as tasks for future research, education, and clinical practice.