Multiple medically unexplained physical symptoms and health care utilization: outcome of psychological intervention and patient-related predictors of change

Predictors of Treatment Success of Psychotherapy in Functional Disorders: A Systematic Review of the Literature

OBJECTIVE

Functional disorders (FDs) benefit from psychotherapy. However, the determinants predicting their efficacy remain largely unexplored.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted. PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane collaboration and grey literature were screened from inception to November 2024. Randomized controlled trials on predictors of success of psychotherapy for FDs (e.g., somatoform disorders, irritable bowel syndrome [IBS], chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis [CFS/ME], fibromyalgia [FM]) in adults (i.e., ≥ 18 years of age) were included. The review yielded 24 eligible studies and included 3382 participants. A standardized quality assessment via ROB-2 Tool was performed. PRISMA guidelines were followed.

RESULTS

Most studies applied CBT-based interventions (n = 19), mainly face-to-face, with some internet-based (n = 5), while fewer used emotional-based (n = 4), mindfulness-based (n = 3), psychodynamic (n = 1) or operant behavioural therapy (n = 1). The primary factors identified as predictive of treatment success in FM and somatization were the intensity of experienced pain. Moreover, the presence of mental disorders, i.e., depression and anxiety disorders, emerged as predictors for a range of disorders including FM, IBS, somatization disorder, hypochondriasis, medically unexplained symptoms and dissociative seizures. Symptom severity was recognized as a predictor across various FDs with findings indicated that severe severity could predict treatment outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The body of research concerning predictors of treatment success in the context of FDs can help clinicians identifying appropriate psychotherapy trajectories.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Not applicable. PROSPERO no. CRD42022379791; OSF (https://osf.io/8q7z9).

Predicting optimal treatment outcomes using the Personalized Advantage Index for patients with persistent somatic symptoms

Because individual patients with persistent somatic symptoms (PSS) respond differently to treatments, a better understanding of the factors that predict therapy outcomes are of high importance. Aggregating a wide selection of information into the treatment-decision process is a challenge for clinicians. Using the Personalized Advantage Index (PAI) this study aims to deal with this. Methods: Data from a multicentre RCT comparing CBT (N = 128) versus CBT enriched with emotion regulation training (ENCERT) (N = 126) for patients diagnosed with somatic symptom disorder were used to identify based on two machine learning approaches predictors of therapy outcomes. The identified predictors were used to calculate the PAI. Results: Five treatment unspecific predictors (pre-treatment somatic symptom severity, depression, symptom disability, health-related quality of life, age) and five treatment specific moderators (global functioning, early childhood traumatic events, gender, health anxiety, emotion regulation skills) were identified. Individuals assigned to their PAI-indicated optimal treatment had significantly lower somatic symptom severity at the end of therapy compared to those randomised to their non-optimal condition. Conclusion: Allowing patients to choose a personalised treatment seems to be meaningful. This could help to improve outcomes for PSS and reduce its high costs to the health care system.

Behavioural modification interventions for medically unexplained symptoms in primary care: systematic reviews and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

The term 'medically unexplained symptoms' is used to cover a wide range of persistent bodily complaints for which adequate examination and appropriate investigations do not reveal sufficiently explanatory structural or other specified pathologies. A wide range of interventions may be delivered to patients presenting with medically unexplained symptoms in primary care. Many of these therapies aim to change the behaviours of the individual who may have worsening symptoms.

OBJECTIVES

An evidence synthesis to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of behavioural modification interventions for medically unexplained symptoms delivered in primary care settings was undertaken. Barriers to and facilitators of the effectiveness and acceptability of these interventions from the perspective of patients and service providers were evaluated through qualitative review and realist synthesis.

DATA SOURCES

Full search strategies were developed to identify relevant literature. Eleven electronic sources were searched. Eligibility criteria - for the review of clinical effectiveness, randomised controlled trials were sought. For the qualitative review, UK studies of any design were included. For the cost-effectiveness review, papers were restricted to UK studies reporting outcomes as quality-adjusted life-year gains. Clinical searches were conducted in November 2015 and December 2015, qualitative searches were conducted in July 2016 and economic searches were conducted in August 2016. The databases searched included MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO and EMBASE. Updated searches were conducted in February 2019 and March 2019.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult participants meeting the criteria for medically unexplained symptoms, including somatoform disorders, chronic unexplained pain and functional somatic syndromes.

INTERVENTIONS

Behavioural interventions were categorised into types. These included psychotherapies, exercise-based interventions, multimodal therapies (consisting of more than one intervention type), relaxation/stretching/social support/emotional support, guided self-help and general practitioner interventions, such as reattribution. Evidence synthesis: a network meta-analysis was conducted to allow a simultaneous comparison of all evaluated interventions in a single coherent analysis. Separate network meta-analyses were performed at three time points: end of treatment, short-term follow-up (< 6 months since the end of treatment) and long-term follow-up (≥ 6 months after the end of treatment). Outcomes included physical and psychological symptoms, physical functioning and impact of the illness on daily activities. Economic evaluation: within-trial estimates of cost-effectiveness were generated for the subset of studies where utility values (or quality-adjusted life-years) were reported or where these could be estimated by mapping from Short Form questionnaire-36 items or Short Form questionnaire-12 items outcomes.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine studies involving 9077 patients were included in the clinical effectiveness review. There was a large degree of heterogeneity both between and within intervention types, and the networks were sparse across all outcomes. At the end of treatment, behavioural interventions showed some beneficial effects when compared with usual care, in particular for improvement of specific physical symptoms [(1) pain: high-intensity cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBTHI) standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.54 [95% credible interval (CrI) 0.28 to 0.84], multimodal SMD 0.52 (95% CrI 0.19 to 0.89); and (2) fatigue: low-intensity cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBTLI) SMD 0.72 (95% CrI 0.27 to 1.21), relaxation/stretching/social support/emotional support SMD 0.87 (95% CrI 0.20 to 1.55), graded activity SMD 0.51 (95% CrI 0.14 to 0.93), multimodal SMD 0.52 (95% CrI 0.14 to 0.92)] and psychological outcomes [(1) anxiety CBTHI SMD 0.52 (95% CrI 0.06 to 0.96); (2) depression CBTHI SMD 0.80 (95% CrI 0.26 to 1.38); and (3) emotional distress other psychotherapy SMD 0.58 (95% CrI 0.05 to 1.13), relaxation/stretching/social support/emotional support SMD 0.66 (95% CrI 0.18 to 1.28) and sport/exercise SMD 0.49 (95% CrI 0.03 to 1.01)]. At short-term follow-up, behavioural interventions showed some beneficial effects for specific physical symptoms [(1) pain: CBTHI SMD 0.73 (95% CrI 0.10 to 1.39); (2) fatigue: CBTLI SMD 0.62 (95% CrI 0.11 to 1.14), relaxation/stretching/social support/emotional support SMD 0.51 (95% CrI 0.06 to 1.00)] and psychological outcomes [(1) anxiety: CBTHI SMD 0.74 (95% CrI 0.14 to 1.34); (2) depression: CBTHI SMD 0.93 (95% CrI 0.37 to 1.52); and (3) emotional distress: relaxation/stretching/social support/emotional support SMD 0.82 (95% CrI 0.02 to 1.65), multimodal SMD 0.43 (95% CrI 0.04 to 0.91)]. For physical functioning, only multimodal therapy showed beneficial effects: end-of-treatment SMD 0.33 (95% CrI 0.09 to 0.59); and short-term follow-up SMD 0.78 (95% CrI 0.23 to 1.40). For impact on daily activities, CBTHI was the only behavioural intervention to show beneficial effects [end-of-treatment SMD 1.30 (95% CrI 0.59 to 2.00); and short-term follow-up SMD 2.25 (95% CrI 1.34 to 3.16)]. Few effects remained at long-term follow-up. General practitioner interventions showed no significant beneficial effects for any outcome. No intervention group showed conclusive beneficial effects for measures of symptom load (somatisation). A large degree of heterogeneity was found across individual studies in the assessment of cost-effectiveness. Several studies suggested that the interventions produce fewer quality-adjusted life-years than usual care. For those interventions that generated quality-adjusted life-year gains, the mid-point incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) ranged from £1397 to £129,267, but, where the mid-point ICER fell below £30,000, the exploratory assessment of uncertainty suggested that it may be above £30,000.

LIMITATIONS

Sparse networks meant that it was not possible to conduct a metaregression to explain between-study differences in effects. Results were not consistent within intervention type, and there were considerable differences in characteristics between studies of the same type. There were moderate to high levels of statistical heterogeneity. Separate analyses were conducted for three time points and, therefore, analyses are not repeated-measures analyses and do not account for correlations between time points.

CONCLUSIONS

Behavioural interventions showed some beneficial effects for specific medically unexplained symptoms, but no one behavioural intervention was effective across all medically unexplained symptoms. There was little evidence that these interventions are effective for measures of symptom load (somatisation). General practitioner-led interventions were not shown to be effective. Considerable heterogeneity in interventions, populations and sparse networks mean that results should be interpreted with caution. The relationship between patient and service provider is perceived to play a key role in facilitating a successful intervention. Future research should focus on testing the therapeutic effects of the general practitioner-patient relationship within trials of behavioural interventions, and explaining the observed between-study differences in effects within the same intervention type (e.g. with more detailed reporting of defined mechanisms of the interventions under study).

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015025520.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 46. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Psychosocial interventions for conversion and dissociative disorders in adults

BACKGROUND

Conversion and dissociative disorders are conditions where people experience unusual neurological symptoms or changes in awareness or identity. However, symptoms and clinical signs cannot be explained by a neurological disease or other medical condition. Instead, a psychological stressor or trauma is often present. The symptoms are real and can cause significant distress or problems with functioning in everyday life for the people experiencing them.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of psychosocial interventions of conversion and dissociative disorders in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted database searches between 16 July and 16 August 2019. We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and eight other databases, together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials that compared psychosocial interventions for conversion and dissociative disorders with standard care, wait list or other interventions (pharmaceutical, somatic or psychosocial).  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We selected, quality assessed and extracted data from the identified studies. Two review authors independently performed all tasks. We used standard Cochrane methodology. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) and standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI. We assessed and downgraded the evidence according to the GRADE system for risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness, inconsistency and publication bias.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 studies (16 with parallel-group designs and one with a cross-over design), with 894 participants aged 18 to 80 years (female:male ratio 3:1).  The data were separated into 12 comparisons based on the different interventions and comparators. Studies were pooled into the same comparison when identical interventions and comparisons were evaluated. The certainty of the evidence was downgraded as a consequence of potential risk of bias, as many of the studies had unclear or inadequate allocation concealment. Further downgrading was performed due to imprecision, few participants and inconsistency. There were 12 comparisons for the primary outcome of reduction in physical signs. Inpatient paradoxical intention therapy compared with outpatient diazepam: inpatient paradoxical intention therapy did not reduce conversive symptoms compared with outpatient diazepam at the end of treatment (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.28; 1 study, 30 participants; P = 0.12; very low-quality evidence). Inpatient treatment programme plus hypnosis compared with inpatient treatment programme: inpatient treatment programme plus hypnosis did not reduce severity of impairment compared with inpatient treatment programme at the end of treatment (MD -0.49 (negative value better), 95% CI -1.28 to 0.30; 1 study, 45 participants; P = 0.23; very low-quality evidence). Outpatient hypnosis compared with wait list: outpatient hypnosis might reduce severity of impairment compared with wait list at the end of treatment (MD 2.10 (higher value better), 95% CI 1.34 to 2.86; 1 study, 49 participants; P < 0.00001; low-quality evidence). Behavioural therapy plus routine clinical care compared with routine clinical care: behavioural therapy plus routine clinical care might reduce the number of weekly seizures compared with routine clinical care alone at the end of treatment (MD -21.40 (negative value better), 95% CI -27.88 to -14.92; 1 study, 18 participants; P < 0.00001; very low-quality evidence). Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) compared with standard medical care: CBT did not reduce monthly seizure frequency compared to standard medical care at end of treatment (RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.39 to 6.19; 1 study, 16 participants; P = 0.53; very low-quality evidence). CBT did not reduce physical signs compared to standard medical care at the end of treatment (MD -4.75 (negative value better), 95% CI -18.73 to 9.23; 1 study, 61 participants; P = 0.51; low-quality evidence). CBT did not reduce seizure freedom compared to standard medical care at end of treatment (RR 2.33, 95% CI 0.30 to 17.88; 1 trial, 16 participants; P = 0.41; very low-quality evidence). Psychoeducational follow-up programmes compared with treatment as usual (TAU): no study measured reduction in physical signs at end of treatment. Specialised CBT-based physiotherapy inpatient programme compared with wait list: no study measured reduction in physical signs at end of treatment. Specialised CBT-based physiotherapy outpatient intervention compared with TAU: no study measured reduction in physical signs at end of treatment. Brief psychotherapeutic intervention (psychodynamic interpersonal treatment approach) compared with standard care: brief psychotherapeutic interventions did not reduce conversion symptoms compared to standard care at end of treatment (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.00; 1 study, 19 participants; P = 0.14; very low-quality evidence). CBT plus adjunctive physical activity (APA) compared with CBT alone: CBT plus APA did not reduce overall physical impacts compared to CBT alone at end of treatment (MD 5.60 (negative value better), 95% CI -15.48 to 26.68; 1 study, 21 participants; P = 0.60; very low-quality evidence). Hypnosis compared to diazepam: hypnosis did not reduce symptoms compared to diazepam at end of treatment (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.24; 1 study, 40 participants; P = 0.22; very low-quality evidence). Outpatient motivational interviewing (MI) and mindfulness-based psychotherapy compared with psychotherapy alone: psychotherapy preceded by MI might decrease seizure frequency compared with psychotherapy alone at end of treatment (MD 41.40 (negative value better), 95% CI 4.92 to 77.88; 1 study, 54 participants; P = 0.03; very low-quality evidence). The effect on the secondary outcomes was reported in 16/17  studies. None of the studies reported results on adverse effects. In the studies reporting on level of functioning and quality of life at end of treatment the effects ranged from small to no effect.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results of the meta-analysis and reporting of single studies suggest there is lack of evidence regarding the effects of any psychosocial intervention on conversion and dissociative disorders in adults. It is not possible to draw any conclusions about potential benefits or harms from the included studies.

Confirmatory factor analysis of the causal illness attribution scale in Chinese patients with multiple somatic symptoms

Causal illness attributions influence how individuals cope with somatic symptoms and illnesses. Dimensions of causal symptom attributions have been examined in Western cultures with the subscale 'causes' of the revised Illness Perception Questionnaire (IPQ-R). Some previous studies have identified a stronger somatic attribution style in Asian patients. In this study it was examined if the factorial structure of causal attributions identified in Western populations can be identified in a large Chinese sample of patients presenting with somatic symptoms. We recruited 665 patients aged at least 18 who were visiting the hospital for reasons of treatment from departments of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), neurology (Biomedicine), and psychosomatic medicine in six hospitals across China. All subjects completed the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ) and the causes subscale of the IPQ-R. We split the data-set by chance in two parts. On the first subsample, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to check the fit of the originally proposed 4-factor structure and an exploratory factor analysis (EFA). The factor structure indentified in the EFA was rechecked with a CFA in the second subsample. The originally proposed 4-factor-model of the IPQ-R subscale causes showed no adequate fit in the first subsample. The EFA revealed two factors, psychological attributions and risk factors. The CFA in the second sample showed mediocre fit indices (RMSEA = .098, CFI = .923). For the Chinese sample we propose a two-factor structure for IPQ-R causes scale. As in other studies, we identified the relatively stable factor psychological attributions, indicating no fundamental differences in illness attributions between Western and Chinese samples.

[Psychotherapeutic approaches for patients with somatoform disorders]

Patients with somatoform symptoms are considered to be difficult to treat. Clinical studies on treatment of this condition are underrepresented compared to other mental and psychosomatic disorders. Cognitive-behavioral treatment for patients with somatoform symptoms was found to have a significant effect; additionally, some evidence of recently published findings supports psychodynamic therapy. This report provides information on how to effectively deal with those patients. Furthermore it describes transtherapeutic targets and explains three therapeutic phases: establishing a therapeutic relationship, developing a model of the disorder and establishing coping strategies. As a last point a cognitive-behavioral treatment study, a psychodynamically-oriented study, a group intervention study and a new approach, a combination of cognitive-behavioral therapy and emotion regulation training, are presented.

Counselling for mental health and psychosocial problems in primary care

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of mental health and psychosocial problems in primary care is high. Counselling is a potential treatment for these patients, but there is a lack of consensus over the effectiveness of this treatment in primary care.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of counselling for patients with mental health and psychosocial problems in primary care.

SEARCH STRATEGY

To update the review, the following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis (CCDAN) trials registers (to December 2010), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (to May 2011).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of counselling for mental health and psychosocial problems in primary care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted using a standardised data extraction sheet by two reviewers. Trials were rated for quality by two reviewers using Cochrane risk of bias criteria, to assess the extent to which their design and conduct were likely to have prevented systematic error. Continuous measures of outcome were combined using standardised mean differences. An overall effect size was calculated for each outcome with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Continuous data from different measuring instruments were transformed into a standard effect size by dividing mean values by standard deviations. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken to test the robustness of the results. Economic analyses were summarised in narrative form. There was no assessment of adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine trials were included in the review, involving 1384 randomised participants. Studies varied in risk of bias, although two studies were identified as being at high risk of selection bias because of problems with concealment of allocation. All studies were from primary care in the United Kingdom and thus comparability was high. The analysis found significantly greater clinical effectiveness in the counselling group compared with usual care in terms of mental health outcomes in the short-term (standardised mean difference -0.28, 95% CI -0.43 to -0.13, n = 772, 6 trials) but not in the long-term (standardised mean difference -0.09, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.10, n = 475, 4 trials), nor on measures of social function (standardised mean difference -0.09, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.11, n = 386, 3 trials). Levels of satisfaction with counselling were high. There was some evidence that the overall costs of counselling and usual care were similar. There were limited comparisons between counselling and other psychological therapies, medication, or other psychosocial interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Counselling is associated with significantly greater clinical effectiveness in short-term mental health outcomes compared to usual care, but provides no additional advantages in the long-term. Participants were satisfied with counselling. Although some types of health care utilisation may be reduced, counselling does not seem to reduce overall healthcare costs. The generalisability of these findings to settings outside the United Kingdom is unclear.

On-site mental health workers delivering psychological therapy and psychosocial interventions to patients in primary care: effects on the professional practice of primary care providers

BACKGROUND

Mental health problems are common in primary care and mental health workers (MHWs) are increasingly working in this setting delivering psychological therapy and psychosocial interventions to patients. In addition to treating patients directly, the introduction of on-site MHWs represents an organisational change that may lead to changes in the clinical behaviour of primary care providers (PCPs).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of on-site MHWs delivering psychological therapy and psychosocial interventions in primary care on the clinical behaviour of primary care providers (PCPs).

SEARCH STRATEGY

The following sources were searched in 1998: the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CounselLit, NPCRDC skill-mix in primary care bibliography, and reference lists of articles. Additional searches were conducted in February 2007 using the following sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials, controlled before and after studies, and interrupted time series analyses of MHWs working alongside PCPs in primary care settings. The outcomes included objective measures of PCP behaviours such as consultation rates, prescribing, and referral.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-two studies were included in the review. There was evidence that MHWs caused significant reductions in PCP consultations (standardised mean difference -0.17, 95% CI -0.30 to -0.05), psychotropic prescribing (relative risk 0.67, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.79), prescribing costs (standardised mean difference -0.22, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.07), and rates of mental health referral (relative risk 0.13, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.20) for the patients they were seeing. In controlled before and after studies, the addition of MHWs to a practice did not affect prescribing behaviour towards the wider practice population and there was no consistent pattern to the impact on referrals in the wider patient population.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review provides some evidence that MHWs working in primary care to deliver psychological therapy and psychosocial interventions cause a significant reduction in PCP behaviours such as consultations, prescribing, and referrals to specialist care. However, the changes are modest in magnitude, inconsistent, do not generalise to the wider patient population, and their clinical or economic significance is unclear.

Successful GP intervention with frequent attenders in primary care: randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Frequent attenders to GP clinics can place an unnecessary burden on primary care. Interventions to reduce frequent attendance have had mixed results.

AIM

To assess the effectiveness of a GP intervention to reduce frequent-attender consultations.

DESIGN OF STUDY

Randomised controlled trial with frequent attenders divided into an intervention group and two control groups (one control group was seen by GPs also providing care to patients undergoing the intervention).

SETTING

A health centre in southern Spain.

METHOD

Six GPs and 209 randomly-selected frequent attenders participated. Three GPs were randomly allocated to perform the new intervention: of the 137 frequent attenders registered with these three GPs, 66 were randomly allocated to receive the intervention (IG) and 71 to a usual care control group (CG2). The other three GPs offered usual care to the other 72 frequent attenders (CG1). The main outcome measure was the total number of consultations 1 year post-intervention. Baseline measurements were recorded of sociodemographic characteristics, provider-user interface, chronic illnesses, and psychosocial variables. GPs allocated to the new intervention received 15 hours' training which incorporated biopsychosocial, organisational, and relational approaches. After 1 year of follow-up frequent attenders were contacted. An intention-to-treat analysis was used.

RESULTS

A multilevel model was built with three factors: time, patient, and doctor. After adjusting for covariates, the mean number of visits at 1 year in IG was 13.10 (95% confidence interval [CI]=11.39 to 14.94); in the CG1 group was 19.37 (95% CI=17.31 to 21.55); and in the CG2 group this was 16.72 (95% CI=4.84 to 18.72).

CONCLUSION

The new intervention with GPs resulted in a significant and relevant reduction in frequent-attender consultations. Although further trials are needed, this intervention is recommended to GPs interested in reducing consultations by their frequent attenders.