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

Psychological risk factors of somatic symptom disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cross-sectional and longitudinal studies

OBJECTIVE

Current diagnostic concepts of somatic symptom disorder (SSD) in DSM-5 and bodily distress disorder (BDD) in ICD-11 require certain psychological criteria, but researchers have called for further specification. Therefore, in a first step, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to summarize the current evidence on psychological factors associated with SSD/BDD and/or disorder-relevant clinical outcomes such as symptom severity and impairment.

METHODS

Psychological factors were systematically searched using Pubmed, Cochrane Library and Psycinfo via EBSCO. Studies providing original data in English or German, after 2009 were included. Cross-sectional, cohort and case-control studies investigating at least one psychological factor in individuals with SSD/BDD in the context of disorder-relevant outcomes were included.

RESULTS

Forty-three eligible studies (n = 3760 patients) in SSD (none in BDD) provided data on at least one psychological factor, 37 in case-control format, 10 cross-sectional and 5 longitudinal. Meta-analyses of the case-control studies found patients with SSD to be more impaired by depression (SMD = 1.80), anxiety (SMD = 1.55), health anxiety (SMD = 1.31) and alexithymia (SMD = 1.39), compared to healthy controls. Longitudinal results are scarce, mixed, and require refining, individual studies suggest self-concept of bodily weakness, anxiety and depression to be predictive for persistent SSD and physical functioning.

CONCLUSION

This review provides a detailed overview of the current evidence of psychological factors in relation to SSD/BDD. Future studies on SSD and BDD should include under-studied psychological factors, such as negative affect, fear avoidance, or emotion regulation. More longitudinal studies are needed to assess the predictive value of these factors.

How symptoms of simple acute infections affect the SSS-8 and SSD-12 as screening instruments for somatic symptom disorder in the primary care setting

Objective

Somatic symptom disorder (SSD) is one of the most common reasons for consultations in primary care, in addition to simple acute infections. Questionnaire-based screening instruments to identify patients at high risk of SSD are thus of great clinical relevance. Although screening instruments are frequently used, it is currently unclear to what extent they are influenced by the concurrent presence of simple acute infections. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate how symptoms of simple acute infections affect the two established questionnaires as screening instruments for somatic symptom disorder in the primary care setting.

Methods

In our cross-sectional, multicenter design, a total of 1,000 patients in primary care practices were screened using the two most established SSD screening questionnaires, the 8-item Somatic Symptom Scale (SSS-8) and the 12-item Somatic Symptom Disorder-B Criteria Scale (SSD-12), followed by clinical assessment by the primary care physician.

Results

A total of 140 patients with a simple acute infection (acute infection group, AIG) and 219 patients with chronic somatic symptoms (somatic symptom group, SSG) were included. The patients in the SSG showed higher total SSS-8 and SSD-12 scores than the patients in the AIG; however, the SSS-8 was more susceptible to changes triggered by symptoms of a simple acute infection than the SSD-12.

Conclusion

These results suggest that the SSD-12 is less susceptible to symptoms of a simple acute infection. Its total score and corresponding cutoff value provide a more specific and thus less susceptible screening tool for identifying SSD in primary care.

Estimated frequency of somatic symptom disorder in general practice: cross-sectional survey with general practitioners

BACKGROUND

Somatic symptom disorder (SSD) is the successor diagnosis of somatoform disorder in the 5th Edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). Relevance and frequency of SSD and its clinical symptoms in general practice are still unknown. We estimate frequencies of patients fulfilling the diagnostic criteria of SSD in general practice.

METHODS

Mailed and online survey with general practitioners (GP) in Germany using a cross-sectional representative sample from registries of statutory health insurance physicians. GPs estimated percentages of their patients who show the clinical symptoms of SSD according to DSM-5; that is, one or more burdensome somatic symptoms (A criterion), excessive symptom- or illness-related concern, anxiety, or behaviour (B criterion), and persistence of the symptoms over at least 6 months (C criterion). Statistical analysis used means and confidence intervals of estimated patient proportions showing SSD symptoms. Frequency of full-blown SSD was based on the products of these proportions calculated for each GP.

RESULTS

Responses from 1728 GPs were obtained. GPs saw the clinical symptoms of SSD fulfilled (A and B criteria) in 21.5% (95% CI: 20.6 to 22.3) of their patients. They further estimated that in 24.3% (95% CI: 23.3 to 25.2) of patients, symptoms would persist, yielding a total of 7.7% (95% CI: 7.1 to 8.4) of patients to have a full-blown SSD.

CONCLUSIONS

We estimate a frequency of 7.7% of patients in general practice to fulfil the diagnostic criteria of SSD. This number may figure as a reference for the yet to be uncovered prevalence of SSD and it indicates a high clinical relevance of the clinical symptoms of SSD in general practice.

REGISTRATION

German Clinical Trials Register (Deutschen Register Klinischer Studien, DRKS).

DRKS-ID

DRKS00012942. The date the study was registered: October 2nd 2017. The date the first participant was enrolled: February 9th 2018.

Somatic symptom disorder: a scoping review on the empirical evidence of a new diagnosis

BACKGROUND

In 2013, the diagnosis of somatic symptom disorder (SSD) was introduced into the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). This review aims to comprehensively synthesize contemporary evidence related to SSD.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted using PubMed, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library. The main inclusion criteria were SSD and publication in the English language between 01/2009 and 05/2020. Systematic search terms also included subheadings for the DSM-5 text sections; i.e., diagnostic features, prevalence, development and course, risk and prognostic factors, culture, gender, suicide risk, functional consequences, differential diagnosis, and comorbidity.

RESULTS

Eight hundred and eighty-two articles were identified, of which 59 full texts were included for analysis. Empirical evidence supports the reliability, validity, and clinical utility of SSD diagnostic criteria, but the further specification of the psychological SSD B-criteria criteria seems necessary. General population studies using self-report questionnaires reported mean frequencies for SSD of 12.9% [95% confidence interval (CI) 12.5-13.3%], while prevalence studies based on criterion standard interviews are lacking. SSD was associated with increased functional impairment, decreased quality of life, and high comorbidity with anxiety and depressive disorders. Relevant research gaps remain regarding developmental aspects, risk and prognostic factors, suicide risk as well as culture- and gender-associated issues.

CONCLUSIONS

Strengths of the SSD diagnosis are its good reliability, validity, and clinical utility, which substantially improved on its predecessors. SSD characterizes a specific patient population that is significantly impaired both physically and psychologically. However, substantial research gaps exist, e.g., regarding SSD prevalence assessed with criterion standard diagnostic interviews.

Factor Structure of the Russian Version of the Somatic Symptom Scale-8 (SSS-8)

The Somatic Symptom Scale-8 (SSS-8) is one of the most common and psychometrically sound instruments for self-reporting somatization and eight specific somatic symptoms [7]. Objective. This study was aimed to adapt and examine the factor structure of the Russian SSS-8. Methods. A total sample of 167 care home residents completed the Russian version of the SSS-8 and questionnaire covering socio-demographic information. Results. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses showed that the adapted scale demonstrated a single-factor structure evaluating the somatization total score via medically unexplained symptoms (stomach or bowel problems; back pain; pain in arms, legs, or joints; headaches; chest pain or shortness of breath; dizziness; feeling tired or having low energy; trouble sleeping). The Cronbach’s α coefficient for the SSS-8 total score was 0,76, indicating the good internal consistency. Conclusions. The Russian version of the SSS-8 is a reliable and valid measure assessing somatic symptoms in care home residents.

Patients With Somatoform Disorders Are Prone To Expensive and Potentially Harmful Medical Procedures

BACKGROUND

Patients with functional somatic syndromes (FSS) might be prone to potentially harmful medical investigations in ambulatory care. The primary aim was to investigate whether patients with FSS are more likely to undergo diagnostic examinations such as radiography, computed tomography (CT), magnetic reso - nance imaging (MRI), and outpatient surgical procedures. The secondary aim was to evaluate the extent to which coordination of care by primary care physicians reduces healthcare utilization.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study using longitudinal regression analysis of routine data. FSS patients were weighted in the regression model to allow a representative comparison with the Bavarian population. The observation period was from 5 years before until 10 years after the diagnosis of FSS.

RESULTS

The cohort comprised 43 676 patients with FSS and a control group of 50 003 patients without a diagnosis of FSS. The FSS patients exhibited continuously increased healthcare utilization over the 15-year period. The relative risk (RR) for FSS patients was up to 1.48 (95% confidence interval [1.46; 1.50]) for radiography, 2.01 [1.94; 2.08] for CT, 1.91 [1.87; 1.96] for MRI, and 1.30 [1.27; 1.34] for outpatient surgery. Compared with patients whose treatment was coordinated by their primary care physician, patients with no such coordination showed higher service utilization. The ambulatory care costs were up to 1.37 [1.36; 1.38] times greater.

CONCLUSION

Patients with FSS more frequently undergo potentially harmful and costly diagnostic testing and outpatient surgery. Coordination of care by the primary care physician is associated with lower healthcare utilization.

Diagnostic and treatment barriers to persistent somatic symptoms in primary care - representative survey with physicians

Background

Many patients consult their primary care physician with persistent somatic symptoms such as pain or sickness. Quite often these consultations and further diagnostic measures yield no medical explanation for the symptoms – patients and physicians are left in uncertainty. In fact, diagnostic and treatment barriers in primary care hinder timely health-care provision for patients suffering from persistent somatic symptoms (PSS). The significance of individual barriers is still unknown. We compare and quantify these barriers from the perspective of primary care physicians and identify subpopulations of primary care physicians who experience particular barriers as most severe.

Methods

We mailed a questionnaire to primary care physicians (PCP) in Germany and asked them which barriers they consider most important. We invited a random sample of 12,004 primary care physicians in eight federal states in Germany. Physicians provided anonymous mailed or online responses. We also mailed a postcard to announce the survey and a mail reminder. Main measures were Likert rating scales of items relating to barriers in the diagnosis and treatment of PSS in primary care. Information on demography and medical practice were also collected.

Results

We analyzed 1719 data sets from 1829 respondents. PCPs showed strongest agreement with statements regarding (1.) their lack of knowledge about treatment guidelines, (2.) their perceptions that patients with PSS would expect symptom relief, (3.) their concern to overlook physical disease in these patients, and (4.) their usage of psychotropic drugs with these patients. More experienced PCPs were better able to cope with the possibility of overlooking physical disease than those less experienced.

Conclusions

The PCPs in our survey answered that the obligation to rule out severe physical disease and the demand to relieve patients from symptoms belong to the most severe barriers for adequate treatment and diagnosis. Moreover, many physicians admitted to not knowing the appropriate treatment guidelines for these patients. Based on our results, raising awareness of guidelines and improving knowledge about the management of persistent somatic symptoms appear to be promising approaches for overcoming the barriers to diagnosis and treatment of persistent somatic symptoms in primary care.

Trial registration

German Clinical Trials Register (Deutschen Register Klinischer Studien, DRKS)

https://www.drks.de/drks_web/setLocale_EN.do

The date the study was registered: October 2^nd 2017

The date the first participant was enrolled: February 9^th 2018

DRKS-ID: DRKS00012942

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12875-021-01397-w.

Briquet syndrome revisited: implications for functional neurological disorder

With the creation of the Somatic Symptom and Related Disorders category of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition in 2013, the functional neurological (symptom) disorder diagnostic criteria underwent transformative changes. These included an emphasis on ‘rule-in’ physical examination signs/semiological features guiding diagnosis and the removal of a required proximal psychological stressor to be linked to symptoms. In addition, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition somatization disorder, somatoform pain disorder and undifferentiated somatoform disorder conditions were eliminated and collapsed into the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition somatic symptom disorder diagnosis. With somatic symptom disorder, emphasis was placed on a cognitive-behavioural (psychological) formulation as the basis for diagnosis in individuals reporting distressing bodily symptoms such as pain and/or fatigue; the need for bodily symptoms to be ‘medically unexplained’ was removed, and the overall utility of this diagnostic criteria remains debated. A consequence of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition restructuring is that the diagnosis of somatization disorder that encompassed individuals with functional neurological (sensorimotor) symptoms and prominent other bodily symptoms, including pain, was eliminated. This change negatively impacts clinical and research efforts because many patients with functional neurological disorder experience pain, supporting that the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition would benefit from an integrated diagnosis at this intersection. We seek to revisit this with modifications, particularly since pain (and a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition somatization disorder comorbidity, more specifically) is associated with poor clinical prognosis in functional neurological disorder. As a first step, we systematically reviewed the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition somatization disorder literature to detail epidemiologic, healthcare utilization, demographic, diagnostic, medical and psychiatric comorbidity, psychosocial, neurobiological and treatment data. Thereafter, we propose a preliminary revision to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition allowing for the specifier functional neurological disorder ‘with prominent pain’. To meet this criterion, core functional neurological symptoms (e.g. limb weakness, gait difficulties, seizures, non-dermatomal sensory loss and/or blindness) would have ‘rule-in’ signs and pain (>6 months) impairing social and/or occupational functioning would also be present. Two optional secondary specifiers assist in characterizing individuals with cognitive-behavioural (psychological) features recognized to amplify or perpetuate pain and documenting if there is a pain-related comorbidity. The specifier of ‘with prominent pain’ is etiologically neutral, while secondary specifiers provide additional clarification. We advocate for a similar approach to contextualize fatigue and mixed somatic symptoms in functional neurological disorder. While this preliminary proposal requires prospective data and additional discussion, these revisions offer the potential benefit to readily identify important functional neurological disorder subgroups—resulting in diagnostic, treatment and pathophysiology implications.