Group therapy for somatization disorders in primary care: maintenance of treatment goals of short cognitive-behavioural treatment one-and-a-half-year follow-up

Mechanisms of change in multicomponent group-based treatment for patients suffering from medically unexplained physical symptoms

Understanding psychological mechanisms of change is essential to advance treatments for patients suffering from medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS). This study aimed to test the role of selected change mechanisms (incl. interoceptive awareness, emotional regulation skills, symptom acceptance, relational needs satisfaction, clarification of meaning, working alliance, and group cohesion) in the modification of patients' somatic symptom intensity and well-being.

N = 290 patients suffering from MUPS participated in a multi-component group-based treatment at seven clinical sites. Data were collected weekly. Multi-level modeling was used to test cross-lagged relationships between the hypothesized mechanisms and outcomes in terms of Granger causality (with lags of 1, 2, and 3 weeks).

None of the mechanisms predicted a time-lagged change in outcomes in the expected direction. In fact, there was a consistent pattern of negative time-lagged relationships (i.e., an increase in a mechanism predicted worsening of the outcome). Findings consistent with the hypothesized role of the mechanisms were found only in concurrent relationships between mechanisms and outcomes.

This study did not support time-lagged relationships under the condition of weekly measurement and many methodological factors remain to be considered (e.g., a finer time resolution).

Outcomes of a 6-week Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Chronic Pain Group for veterans seen in primary care

Primary Care Mental Health Integration (PC-MHI) visits are mandated to be brief, limited in number, and delivered in the primary care practice area. Current evidence-based protocols for Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Chronic Pain (CBT-CP) do not meet these PC-MHI requirements, however, and thus PC-MHI providers are often left with the daunting task of modifying these protocols for the primary care setting. The aims of the current study were to examine effectiveness for a brief CBT-CP Group (6, 50-min sessions) for patients seen in primary care with various chronic pain conditions and to assess whether opioid medication use was associated with treatment outcomes. The current study represents a single-arm treatment study in which outcomes were evaluated by comparing self-reported symptom levels at the beginning of treatment (Session 1) to the end of treatment (Session 6). Dependent variables included pain symptoms, physical function lower/upper body, family disability, emotional functioning, sleep problems, satisfactions with outcomes/care, pain-related anxiety, generalized anxiety, pain catastrophizing, and depressed mood. Seventy-seven participants were enrolled and completed the treatment group. They were 56.81 ± 13.11 years old, 61% male, 51.9% taking opioids, with 39% reporting multiple pain diagnoses. Results showed that participation in the Brief CBT-CP Group resulted in statistically significantly improvement across all dependent variables (except emotional functioning). Results also showed that there were no significant treatment-related differences between patients taking opioids compared with patients who were not on opioids. The current protocol for Brief CBT-CP is effective in a real-world setting and aligns with the PC-MHI model of care.

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.

Non-pharmacological interventions for somatoform disorders and medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS) in adults

BACKGROUND

Medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS) are physical symptoms for which no adequate medical explanation can be found after proper examination. The presence of MUPS is the key feature of conditions known as 'somatoform disorders'. Various psychological and physical therapies have been developed to treat somatoform disorders and MUPS. Although there are several reviews on non-pharmacological interventions for somatoform disorders and MUPS, a complete overview of the whole spectrum is missing.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of non-pharmacological interventions for somatoform disorders (specifically somatisation disorder, undifferentiated somatoform disorder, somatoform disorders unspecified, somatoform autonomic dysfunction, pain disorder, and alternative somatoform diagnoses proposed in the literature) and MUPS in adults, in comparison with treatment as usual, waiting list controls, attention placebo, psychological placebo, enhanced or structured care, and other psychological or physical therapies.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group's Specialised Register (CCDANCTR) to November 2013. This register includes relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO. We ran an additional search on the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and a cited reference search on the Web of Science. We also searched grey literature, conference proceedings, international trial registers, and relevant systematic reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs and cluster randomised controlled trials which involved adults primarily diagnosed with a somatoform disorder or an alternative diagnostic concept of MUPS, who were assigned to a non-pharmacological intervention compared with usual care, waiting list controls, attention or psychological placebo, enhanced care, or another psychological or physical therapy intervention, alone or in combination.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Four review authors, working in pairs, conducted data extraction and assessment of risk of bias. We resolved disagreements through discussion or consultation with another review author. We pooled data from studies addressing the same comparison using standardised mean differences (SMD) or risk ratios (RR) and a random-effects model. Primary outcomes were severity of somatic symptoms and acceptability of treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 21 studies with 2658 randomised participants. All studies assessed the effectiveness of some form of psychological therapy. We found no studies that included physical therapy.Fourteen studies evaluated forms of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT); the remainder evaluated behaviour therapies, third-wave CBT (mindfulness), psychodynamic therapies, and integrative therapy. Fifteen included studies compared the studied psychological therapy with usual care or a waiting list. Five studies compared the intervention to enhanced or structured care. Only one study compared cognitive behavioural therapy with behaviour therapy.Across the 21 studies, the mean number of sessions ranged from one to 13, over a period of one day to nine months. Duration of follow-up varied between two weeks and 24 months. Participants were recruited from various healthcare settings and the open population. Duration of symptoms, reported by nine studies, was at least several years, suggesting most participants had chronic symptoms at baseline.Due to the nature of the intervention, lack of blinding of participants, therapists, and outcome assessors resulted in a high risk of bias on these items for most studies. Eleven studies (52% of studies) reported a loss to follow-up of more than 20%. For other items, most studies were at low risk of bias. Adverse events were seldom reported.For all studies comparing some form of psychological therapy with usual care or a waiting list that could be included in the meta-analysis, the psychological therapy resulted in less severe symptoms at end of treatment (SMD -0.34; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.53 to -0.16; 10 studies, 1081 analysed participants). This effect was considered small to medium; heterogeneity was moderate and overall quality of the evidence was low. Compared with usual care, psychological therapies resulted in a 7% higher proportion of drop-outs during treatment (RR acceptability 0.93; 95% CI 0.88 to 0.99; 14 studies, 1644 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Removing one outlier study reduced the difference to 5%. Results for the subgroup of studies comparing CBT with usual care were similar to those in the whole group.Five studies (624 analysed participants) assessed symptom severity comparing some psychological therapy with enhanced care, and found no clear evidence of a difference at end of treatment (pooled SMD -0.19; 95% CI -0.43 to 0.04; considerable heterogeneity; low-quality evidence). Five studies (679 participants) showed that psychological therapies were somewhat less acceptable in terms of drop-outs than enhanced care (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.00; moderate-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

When all psychological therapies included this review were combined they were superior to usual care or waiting list in terms of reduction of symptom severity, but effect sizes were small. As a single treatment, only CBT has been adequately studied to allow tentative conclusions for practice to be drawn. Compared with usual care or waiting list conditions, CBT reduced somatic symptoms, with a small effect and substantial differences in effects between CBT studies. The effects were durable within and after one year of follow-up. Compared with enhanced or structured care, psychological therapies generally were not more effective for most of the outcomes. Compared with enhanced care, CBT was not more effective. The overall quality of evidence contributing to this review was rated low to moderate.The intervention groups reported no major harms. However, as most studies did not describe adverse events as an explicit outcome measure, this result has to be interpreted with caution.An important issue was that all studies in this review included participants who were willing to receive psychological treatment. In daily practice, there is also a substantial proportion of participants not willing to accept psychological treatments for somatoform disorders or MUPS. It is unclear how large this group is and how this influences the relevance of CBT in clinical practice.The number of studies investigating various treatment modalities (other than CBT) needs to be increased; this is especially relevant for studies concerning physical therapies. Future studies should include participants from a variety of age groups; they should also make efforts to blind outcome assessors and to conduct follow-up assessments until at least one year after the end of treatment.

Psychological and behavioural treatments for adults with non-epileptic attack disorder

BACKGROUND

Psychogenic non-epileptic seizures, also known as non-epileptic attack disorder (NEAD), have the outward appearance of epilepsy in the absence of physiological or electroencephalographic correlates. Non-epileptic seizures can occur in isolation or in combination with epileptic seizures. The development and maintenance of non-epileptic seizures has been well documented and there is a growing literature on the treatment of non-epileptic seizures which includes non-psychological (including anti-anxiety and antidepressant pharmacological treatment) and psychological therapies (including cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), hypnotherapy and paradoxical therapy). Various treatment methodologies have been tried with variable success. The purpose of this Cochrane review was to establish the evidence base for the treatment of non-epileptic seizures with behavioural and psychological therapies only.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether behavioural or psychological treatments for non-epileptic seizures or NEAD result in a reduction in the frequency of seizures or improvement in quality of life, or both, and whether any treatment is significantly more effective than others.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialised Register (4 February 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 1) (January 2013), MEDLINE (1946 to 4 February 2013), PsycINFO (4 February 2013) and SCOPUS (4 February 2013). No language restrictions were imposed. We checked the reference lists of retrieved studies for additional reports of relevant studies

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and before and after controlled and non-controlled studies were eligible for inclusion. Studies were required to assess one or more types of behavioural or psychological interventions, or both, for the treatment of non-epileptic seizures. Studies of childhood non-epileptic seizures were excluded from our review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (JM, JP) independently assessed the trials for inclusion and extracted data. Outcomes included reduction in seizure frequency and improvements in quality of life.

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve studies, with a total of 343 participants, met our inclusion criteria (four RCTs and eight before and after non-controlled studies). Of the four RCTs, one examined patients with non-epileptic seizures and three had a mixed diagnosis (pseudoseizures, conversion disorder and somatisation disorder). Most of the non-randomised studies used non-epileptic seizure patients exclusively. Overall, five studies examined the effectiveness of psychotherapy, three examined CBT, two investigated hypnosis, one assessed paradoxical intention and one had a mixed intervention design. We classified two included studies as low risk of bias, one as unclear and nine as high risk of bias. Meta-analysis could not be undertaken due to the heterogeneity of design and interventions. Most included studies reported improved outcomes for the intervention under investigation. One RCT investigating the effectiveness of CBT in this patient group found a significant reduction in seizure frequency compared to controls (P < 0.001).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is little reliable evidence to support the use of any treatment, including CBT, in the treatment of non-epileptic seizures. Further randomised controlled trials of CBT and other interventions are needed.

Enhanced care by generalists for functional somatic symptoms and disorders in primary care

BACKGROUND

Patients with medically unexplained or functional somatic symptoms are common in primary care. Previous reviews have reported benefit from specialised interventions such as cognitive behavioural therapy and consultation letters, but there is a need for treatment models which can be applied within the primary care setting. Primary care studies of enhanced care, which includes techniques of reattribution or cognitive behavioural therapy, or both, have shown changes in healthcare professionals' attitudes and behaviour. However, studies of patient outcome have shown variable results and the value of enhanced care on patient outcome remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to assess the clinical effectiveness of enhanced care interventions for adults with functional somatic symptoms in primary care. The intervention should be delivered by professionals providing first contact care and be compared to treatment as usual. The review focused on patient outcomes only.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group Specialised Register (CCDANCTR-Studies and CCDANCTR-References) (all years to August 2012), together with Ovid searches (to September 2012) on MEDLINE (1950 - ), EMBASE (1980 - ) and PsycINFO (1806 - ). Earlier searches of the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE), CINAHL, PSYNDEX, SIGLE, and LILACS were conducted in April 2010, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in October 2009. No language restrictions were applied. Electronic searches were supplemented by handsearches of relevant conference proceedings (2004 to 2012), reference lists (2011) and contact with authors of included studies and experts in the field (2011).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We limited our literature search to randomised controlled trials (RCTs), primary care, and adults with functional somatic symptoms. Subsequently we selected studies including all of the following: 1) a trial arm with treatment as usual; 2) an intervention using a structured treatment model which draws on explanations for symptoms in broad bio-psycho-social terms or encourages patients to develop additional strategies for dealing with their physical symptoms, or both; 3) delivery of the intervention by primary care professionals providing first contact care; and 4) assessment of patient outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened identified study abstracts. Disagreements about trial selections were resolved by a third review author. Data from selected publications were independently extracted and risk of bias assessed by two of three authors, avoiding investigators reviewing their own studies. We contacted authors from included studies to obtain missing information. We used continuous outcomes converted to standardised mean differences (SMDs) and based analyses on changes from baseline to follow-up, adjusted for clustering.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven studies from the literature search, but only six provided sufficient data for analyses. Included studies were European, cluster RCTs with adult participants seeing their usual doctor (in total 233 general practitioners and 1787 participants). Methodological quality was only moderate as studies had no blinding of healthcare professionals and several studies had a risk of recruitment and attrition bias. Studies were heterogeneous with regard to selection of patient populations and intensity of interventions. Outcomes relating to physical or general health (physical symptoms, quality of life) showed substantial heterogeneity between studies (I(2) > 70%) and post hoc analysis suggested that benefit was confined to more intensive interventions; thus we did not calculate a pooled effect. Outcomes relating to mental health showed less heterogeneity and we conducted meta-analyses, which found non-significant overall effect sizes with SMDs for changes at 6 to 24 months follow-up: mental health (3 studies) SMD -0.04 (95% CI -0.18 to 0.10), illness worry (3 studies) SMD 0.09 (95% CI -0.04 to 0.22), depression (4 studies) SMD 0.07 (95% CI -0.05 to 0.20) and anxiety (2 studies) SMD -0.07 (95% CI -0.38 to 0.25). Effects on sick leave could not be estimated. Three studies of patient satisfaction with care all showed positive but non-significant effects, and measures were too heterogeneous to allow meta-analysis. Results on healthcare utilisation were inconclusive. We analysed study discontinuation and found that both short term and long term discontinuation occurred more often in patients allocated to the intervention group, RR of 1.25 (95% CI 1.08 to 1.46) at 12 to 24 months.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence does not answer the question whether enhanced care delivered by front line primary care professionals has an effect or not on the outcome of patients with functional somatic symptoms. Enhanced care may have an effect when delivered per protocol to well-defined groups of patients with functional disorders, but this needs further investigation. Attention should be paid to difficulties including limited consultation time, lack of skills, the need for a degree of diagnostic openness, and patient resistance towards psychosomatic attributions. There is some indication from this and other reviews that more intensive interventions are more successful in changing patient outcomes.

Effectiveness of group versus individual cognitive-behavioral therapy in patients with abridged somatization disorder: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness and feasibility of a cognitive-behavioral program for patients in primary care units who were diagnosed as having abridged somatization disorder.

METHOD

A multicenter, randomized controlled trial was designed. One hundred sixty-eight patients were recruited from 29 primary care units and randomly assigned to one of three arms: treatment as usual (TAU), individual cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), and group CBT. Somatic symptoms were measured using the Screening for Somatoform Disorders and the Severity of Somatic Symptoms scale. The Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale and the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale were used to assess the severity of anxiety and depression.

RESULTS

Individual CBT achieves greater changes in the Screening for Somatoform Disorders posttreatment compared with group CBT (mean [95% confidence interval], 14.17 [11.9-16.3] versus 11.63 [9.4-13.7], p < .001). These improvements were observed at 6 and 12 months (p < .001 and p < .001, respectively). For individual CBT versus TAU, the number-needed-to-treat was 8, whereas for group CBT versus TAU, the number-needed-to-treat was 9. Individual CBT treatment resulted in lower anxiety scores compared with group CBT and TAU (7.33 [5.4-9.2] versus 11.47 [9.4-13.9] versus 13.07 [10.9-15.2], p < .001) posttreatment. Individual CBT and group CBT were associated with sustained benefits at 12-month follow-up compared with TAU (8.6 [6.6-10.6] versus 9.28 [7.2-11.2] versus 16.2 [13.9-18.5], p < .001). Depressive symptoms were lower for individual CBT posttreatment than for TAU (6.96 [5.3-8.6] versus 10.87-12.7], p < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

CBT in individual and group settings results in significant improvements in somatic symptoms among patients with somatoform abridged disorder compared with TAU. Individual CBT results in greater posttreatment improvements at 6-month and 12-month follow-ups.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

current controlled trials identifier ISRCTN69944771.

Specific collaborative group intervention for patients with medically unexplained symptoms in general practice: a cluster randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) are frequent in primary care and substantially impaired in their quality of life (QoL). Specific training of general practitioners (GPs) alone did not demonstrate sustained improvement at later follow-up in current reviews. We evaluated a collaborative group intervention.

METHODS

We conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial. Thirty-five GPs recruited 304 MUS patients (intervention group: 170; control group: 134). All GPs were trained in diagnosis and management of MUS (control condition). Eighteen randomly selected intervention GPs participated in training for a specific collaborative group intervention. They conducted 10 weekly group sessions and 2 booster meetings in their practices, together with a psychosomatic specialist. Six and 12 months after baseline, QoL was assessed with the Short-Form 36. The primary outcome was the physical composite score (PCS), and the secondary outcome was the mental composite score (MCS).

RESULTS

At 12 months, intention-to-treat analyses showed a significant between-group effect for the MCS (p = 0.023) but not for the PCS (p = 0.674). This effect was preceded by a significant reduction of somatic symptom severity (15-item somatic symptom severity scale of the Patient Health Questionnaire, PHQ-15) at 6 months (p = 0.008) that lacked significance at 12 months (p = 0.078). As additional between-group effects at 12 months, per-protocol analyses showed less health anxiety (Whiteley-7; p = 0.038) and less psychosocial distress (PHQ; p = 0.024); GP visits were significantly (p = 0.042) reduced in the intervention group.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to pure GP training, collaborative group intervention achieved a progressive, clinically meaningful improvement in mental but not physical QoL. It could bridge gaps between general practice and mental health care.

Short-term cognitive-behavioral treatment in multicultural primary care of patients with longstanding backache

The efficacy of cognitive-behavioral therapy in multi-cultural primary care patients with longstanding backache is not evaluated. The purpose of this study was to investigate the outcome of a four weekly-treatment given by primary care physicians regarding pain-related worry, depression and severe pain and to determine which social, clinical or gender factors were associated with outcome.The study group consisted of 245 patients in consecutive order from 19 countries, 18 to 45 years, entering rehabilitation program because of longstanding backache. Prevalences of pain-related worry and depression and severe pain was counted and compared before and after. Logistic regression was used to calculate the odds (OR; 95% CI) for persistent pain-related worry and/or persistent depression and severe pain (VAS ≥ 50). The prevalences of pain-related worry and depression were both significantly lower after treatment (pain-related worry 83% before vs. 38% after; depression 43% before vs. 31% after). Also the number of patients scoring ≥ 50 VAS was a little, but significantly, fewer (68% vs. 61%). Use of interpreter doubled the risk of having persistent pain-related worry (OR 2.1; 95% CI 1.1-4.1) but the risk was not significant regarding persistent depression (OR 1.8; 0.6-5.4). The rating of VAS rating ≥ 50 after treatment was twice as high, OR 2.3 (95% CI 1.1-4.6) in the 38-45 year old age group. To conclude, a focus on pain ideas reduced pain-related worry and depression in these patients with various sociocultural backgrounds and longstanding backache.

[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.

Behavioural and psychological management of somatic symptom disorders: an overview

The number of patients who seek help at primary and secondary care for somatic symptoms which cannot be explained by any known medical condition is enormous. It has been proposed to rename 'somatoform disorders' in DSM-IV as 'somatic symptom disorders' in DSM-5. This is supposed to include disorders such as somatization disorder, hypochondriasis, undifferentiated somatoform disorder, pain disorder and factitious disorder. The reason for the renaming and grouping is that all these disorders involve presentation of physical symptoms and/or concern about medical illness. In the literature, there is considerable variation adopted with respect to diagnosis and in the approaches adopted for intervention. However, the common feature of these disorders is the chronicity, social dysfunction, occupational difficulties and the increased healthcare use and high level of dissatisfaction for both the clinician and the patient. A number of behavioural and psychological interventions for somatic symptoms have been carried out at primary, secondary and tertiary care settings and recently there have been more attempts to involve the primary care physicians in the psychological interventions. This review aims at giving an overview of the components of the behavioural and other psychological interventions available for addressing medically unexplained somatic symptoms and to present their efficacy.

His-story or her-story: deconstruction of the concepts of somatization towards a new approach in advanced nursing practice care

PURPOSE

This article will endeavor to present an alternative view of somatoform disorders, assist in understanding the possible underlying comorbid psychiatric symptoms, and identify psychopharmacological options for treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Recognizing symptom clusters is a useful strategy when considering psychotropic options for treatment and management.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The alternative strategies presented and discussed in this article can contribute to a useful and positive experience for both the clinician and the individual suffering from medically unexplained physical symptoms as they promote the care, health, and well-being of the individual rather than a cure, illness, and/or disease state that needs rendering, mending, and/or surgery.

Effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy in primary health care: a review

BACKGROUND

Depression and anxiety are highly prevalent disorders causing substantial impairment in daily life. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) delivered face-to-face or as self-help has shown to be an effective treatment for these disorders. Such treatments may be suitable for delivery in primary health care.

AIM

The aim of the article was to review research on the effectiveness of CBT for depression and anxiety disorders delivered in primary care by primary care therapists.

METHODS

A literature search of quantitative studies of the effectiveness of CBT delivered in primary care was conducted on multiple electronic databases. A total of 17 studies were included in the review.

RESULTS

Eight studies of supported Internet- or computer-based CBT, six of which were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), indicate that this treatment is effective for mild to moderate depression and anxiety. Five studies suggest that this treatment may be more effective than usual care for mild to moderate but not for more severe symptoms. Results of four RCTs of brief therapies using written self-help material suggest that while such interventions are effective, no particular approach outperformed any other, including usual care. Five RCTs of CBT delivered face-to-face show that this treatment can be effective when delivered by therapists highly educated in the mental health field. However, many primary care therapists may find such interventions too time consuming.

CONCLUSIONS

CBT delivered in primary care, especially including computer- or Internet-based self-help programs, is potentially more effective than usual care and could be delivered effectively by primary care therapists.

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.

Cognitive behavioral therapy for somatoform disorders

Patients presenting with somatoform disorders often incur excessive health care charges and fail to respond to standard treatment. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the diagnostic criteria and demographic and clinical characteristics of each somatoform disorder and to examine the research assessing the efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for each disorder. The review shows that CBT has received some empirical support for somatization, hypochondriasis, and body dysmorphic disorder. However, there are few data on the impact of treatment on health care use, especially when the cost of CBT is factored into the equation. Too few methodologically sound studies have been published on the treatment of conversion disorder or of pain disorder to make any conclusions.

The cognitive behavioural model of medically unexplained symptoms: A theoretical and empirical review

The article is a narrative review of the theoretical standing and empirical evidence for the cognitive behavioural model of medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) in general and for chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) in particular. A literature search of Medline and Psychinfo from 1966 to the present day was conducted using MUS and related terms as search terms. All relevant articles were reviewed. The search was then limited in stages, by cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), condition, treatment and type of trial. Evidence was found for genetic, neurological, psychophysiological, immunological, personality, attentional, attributional, affective, behavioural, social and inter-personal factors in the onset and maintenance of MUS. The evidence for the contribution of individual factors, and their autopoietic interaction in MUS (as hypothesised by the cognitive behavioural model) is examined. The evidence from the treatment trials of cognitive behavioural therapy for MUS, CFS and IBS is reviewed as an experimental test of the cognitive behavioural models. We conclude that a broadly conceptualized cognitive behavioural model of MUS suggests a novel and plausible mechanism of symptom generation and has heuristic value. We offer suggestions for further research.

Diagnostic and treatment interventions for hypochondriasis in the neurology setting

Many patients who present to neurology settings with somatic complaints have underlying fear of illness, anxiety, or depression. Hypochondriasis, which is one of the somatoform disorders, contributes to high use of services and frustration on the part of clinicians, because diagnostic and treatment interventions often fail. The challenges for clinicians include how to distinguish true somatic symptoms from those associated with fear or other psychiatric symptoms. Our goal is to provide the clinician with an integrated approach for the triage, assessment (history, screening tools, examination, and diagnostic tests), and treatment of these challenging patients. Recommendations are made regarding psychiatric consultation and comanagement between fields for complex patients.

Effectiveness and cost effectiveness of counselling in primary care

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of mental health and psychosocial problems in primary care is high. This review examines the clinical and cost-effectiveness of psychological therapies provided in primary care by counsellors.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of counselling in primary care by reviewing cost and outcome data in randomised controlled trials for patients with psychological and psychosocial problems considered suitable for counselling.

SEARCH STRATEGY

To update the review, the following electronic databases were searched on 25-10-2005: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycLIT, CINAHL, the Cochrane Controlled Trials register and the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis (CCDAN) trials registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All controlled trials comparing counselling in primary care with other treatments for patients with psychological and psychosocial problems considered suitable for counselling. Trials completed before the end of June 2005 were included in the review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted using a standardised data extraction sheet. Trials were rated for quality using CCDAN 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.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight trials were included in the review. The analysis found significantly greater clinical effectiveness in the counselling group compared with usual care in the short-term (standardised mean difference -0.28, 95% CI -0.43 to -0.13, n = 772, 6 trials) but not the long-term (standardised mean difference -0.09, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.10, n = 475, 4 trials). Levels of satisfaction with counselling were high. There was some evidence that the overall costs of counselling and usual care were similar.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Counselling is associated with modest improvement in short-term outcome compared to usual care, but provides no additional advantages in the long-term. Patients are satisfied with counselling. Although some types of health care utilisation may be reduced, counselling does not seem to reduce overall healthcare costs.

[Evaluation of the effectiveness of psychosomatic in-patient treatment on the basis of subjective and objective criteria]

OBJECTIVES

The effectiveness of psychosomatic in-patient treatment was evaluated using patients' subjective health ratings and objective data provided by health insurance companies. Associations between subjective and objective criteria were investigated.

METHODS

318 patients participated in the study. They completed questionnaires on physical complaints, moods and everyday functioning upon hospital admission, at discharge and at one-year follow-up. Insurance companies provided data for 140 of these patients (44 %). Sick leave and the utilization of in-patient treatment were assessed for a period of two years before and two years after psychosomatic treatment.

RESULTS

As expected, subjective health status improved. The utilization of in-patient treatment decreased in both years after treatment compared to the year before. Sick leave increased in the first year after treatment but decreased significantly below the base level in the second year after treatment. Self-efficacy expectations and being employed were found to be predictors for long-term reduction in the length of in-patient treatment. Subjective and objective criteria were only slightly correlated.

CONCLUSIONS

Sick leave and utilization of in-patient treatment were found to increase considerably in the year before psychosomatic treatment. Therefore, pre-post differences over the entire period were only marginal. The change in subjective criteria was more immediate, while changes in some objective parameters were delayed. Both subjective and objective criteria should be included in outcome studies.

The potentially somatizing effect of clinical consultation

Many patients who present physical symptoms that their doctors cannot explain by physical disease have persisting symptoms and impairment. An influential view has been that such symptoms are the somatization of emotional distress, but there has also been concern that medical practice contributes to shaping these presentations. Analysis of patients' accounts indicate that they approach these consultations with a sense of being the expert on the nature and reality of their symptoms and, in primary care at least, they seek convincing explanations, engagement, and support. They often describe doctors as doubting that their symptoms are real and as not taking their symptoms seriously. Observational research has demonstrated that patients presenting idiopathic symptoms in primary care generally provide cues to their need for explanation or to psychosocial difficulties. Their doctors tend to provide simple reassurance rather than detailed explanations, and often disregard psychosocial cues. Patients seem to intensify their presentation in consequence, elaborating and extending their accounts of their symptoms, perhaps in the effort to engage their doctors and demonstrate the reality of their symptoms. When doctors propose physical investigation and treatment in response to such escalating presentation, they thereby inadvertently somatize patients' psychological presentation. Consultations, therefore, have elements of contest, whereby patients seek engagement from doctors who seek to disengage. Although provision of a medical label, such as a functional diagnosis, can legitimize patients' complaints and avoid contest, this is at the risk of indicating that medicine can take responsibility for managing the symptoms. More collaborative relationships rely on doctors recognizing patients' authority in knowing about their symptoms, and providing tangible explanations that make sense to the patient and allow them to tolerate or manage the symptoms. Researchers need to study how doctors can best achieve these aims within routine consultations.

[Somatization -- conversion -- dissociation: strategies for behavior therapy]

Modern cognitive behavioral approaches for the treatment of patients with medically unexplained somatic symptoms have been developed on the basis of the classification systems DSM-IV and ICD-10. These systems define somatoform disorders as a homogeneous clinical group. Behavior therapy has additionally developed vicious circle models specifying etiological, triggering and maintaining factors. Treatment goals and strategies can be derived directly from these models. The main components are: (1) motivation of patients to accept the psychotherapeutic approach; (2) introduction of alternative explanations of the symptoms on the basis of both biomedical as well as psychosocial mechanisms; (3) evaluation of the new explanations by patient and therapist; (4) reduction of avoidance and inadequate illness behaviour. Health economical aspects are particularly important because patients with somatoform disorders tend to overuse medical services and are thus considered an expensive problem group for the health system.