Anne Toussaint

The challenge of diagnosing non-specific, functional, and somatoform disorders: A systematic review of barriers to diagnosis in primary care

OBJECTIVE Despite their prevalence and impact on patients and the health care system, non-specific, functional, and somatoform disorders are underdiagnosed. This problem is especially problematic in primary care if we are moving towards an integrated care model. The objective of the current study was to identify and aggregate potential barriers to the diagnosis in primary care settings. METHODS Our systematic review methodology followed a pre-published protocol and was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42013002540). We combined qualitative and quantitative data from studies identified in online databases and by hand searching of reference lists. Data were synthesized in a data-driven way using a grounded-theory approach. The level of evidence and assessment of bias for the final included studies was independently conducted. RESULTS Data from n=177 full text publications were independently extracted and combined in a custom database. The final list of included studies was n=42. From these, a total of n=379 barriers were identified comprising 77 barrier-level codes, 16 thematic categories and five over-arching themes, i.e., patient-related, primary-care-practitioner related, doctor-patient interactional, situational, and conceptual and operational barriers. CONCLUSION Given the thematic range of the identified barriers, the diagnostic process of non-specific, functional, and somatoform disorders in primary care is highly complex. Individual or practice-level interventions, as well as public awareness initiatives are needed to help address the diagnostic challenges. A multi-factorial understanding of symptoms with a biopsychosocial parallel diagnostic approach should be encouraged. More direct empirical investigations are also needed.

Core outcome domains for clinical trials on somatic symptom disorder, bodily distress disorder, and functional somatic syndromes: European Network on Somatic Symptom Disorders recommendations

Objective The harmonization of core outcome domains in clinical trials facilitates comparison and pooling of data, and simplifies the preparation and review of research projects and comparison of risks and benefits of treatments. Therefore, we provide recommendations for the core outcome domains that should be considered in clinical trials on the efficacy and effectiveness of interventions for somatic symptom disorder, bodily distress disorder, and functional somatic syndromes. Methods The European Network on Somatic Symptom Disorders group of more than 20 experts in the field met twice in Hamburg to discuss issues of assessment and intervention research in somatic symptom disorder, bodily distress disorder, and functional somatic syndromes. The consensus meetings identified core outcome domains that should be considered in clinical trials evaluating treatments for somatic symptom disorder and associated functional somatic syndromes. Results The following core domains should be considered when defining ascertainment methods in clinical trials: a) classification of somatic symptom disorder/bodily distress disorder, associated functional somatic syndromes, and comorbid mental disorders (using structured clinical interviews), duration of symptoms, medical morbidity, and prior treatments; b) location, intensity, and interference of somatic symptoms; c) associated psychobehavioral features and biological markers; d) illness consequences (quality of life, disability, health care utilization, health care costs; e) global improvement and treatment satisfaction; and f) unwanted negative effects. Conclusions The proposed criteria are intended to improve synergies of clinical trials and to facilitate decision making when comparing different treatment approaches. These recommendations should not result in inflexible guidelines, but increase consistency across investigations in this field.

The Somatic Symptom Disorder - B Criteria Scale (SSD-12): Factorial structure, validity and population-based norms

PURPOSE The Somatic Symptom Disorder - B Criteria Scale (SSD-12) assesses the psychological features of DSM-5 Somatic Symptom Disorder (SSD). The present study investigates the dimensionality and psychometric properties in a general population sample and provides norm values. METHOD Test dimensionality was evaluated via confirmatory factor analysis and nonparametric item response theory. Correlational analyses and logistic regression models based on related measures (SSS 8, PHQ-2, GAD-2, Health Care Utilization) were used to derive predictive validity. Age and gender specific norms were derived via quantile regression. RESULTS The SSD-12 has good item characteristics and excellent reliability (Cronbachs α=0.95). Confirmatory factor analyses revealed a high correlation between the three proposed psychological subscales interpreted as cognitive, affective and behavioral aspects, indicating a general factor model of the SSD-12 in the general population (n=2362, CFI=0.99, TLI=0.998, RMSEA=0.09, 90% CI: 0.09-0.1). SSD-12 total sum-score was significantly associated with somatic symptom burden (r=0.73, p<0.001), general anxiety (r=0.63, p<0.001) and depressive symptoms (r=0.64, p<0.001). Patients with a higher SSD-12 symptom burden reported higher general physical and mental health impairment and a significantly higher health care use. CONCLUSION The SSD-12 is a reliable and valid self-report measure of the psychological characteristics of DSM-5 Somatic Symptom Disorder. The provided norms enable researchers and clinicians to compare SSD-12 scores with reference values of a general population sample.

Comparing the diagnostic concepts of ICD-10 somatoform disorders and DSM-5 somatic symptom disorders in patients from a psychosomatic outpatient clinic

OBJECTIVE The reconceptualization of somatic symptom and related disorders in DSM-5 led to numerous consequences in terms of prevalence and affected patient populations. The present study aimed to investigate frequencies of ICD-10 somatoform disorders and DSM-5 somatic symptom disorders, and how the respective diagnostic groups differ in terms of sociodemographic and psychopathological characteristics. It discusses the usefulness and reliability of the new diagnostic criteria. METHOD Patients from a German psychosomatic outpatient clinic (n = 438) completed self-report questionnaires on depression (PHQ-9), anxiety (GAD-7), symptom burden (PHQ-15), psychological distress (SSD-12), and quality of life (SF-12). ICD-10 diagnoses were provided by treating clinicians, DSM-5 diagnoses were assessed via semi-structured telephone interviews. The prevalence of somatic symptom disorders and their overlap with ICD-10 somatoform disorders was evaluated. Comparisons between patients with either diagnosis were drawn. RESULTS More than half of the sample (n = 239, 54.6%) fulfilled the criteria for a somatic symptom disorder. Compared to patients fulfilling ICD-10 criteria only, patients with a somatic symptom disorder presented higher levels of symptom related distress (p = .045), health related anxiety (p = .004), general anxiety (p = .011), and lower mental health-related quality of life (p = .015), while patients with ICD-10 somatoform disorders reported a lower physical health-related quality of life (p = .031). CONCLUSION DSM-5 criteria included more patients than ICD-10 somatoform disorders in our sample. Patients diagnosed with a somatic symptom disorder appear to be more severely impaired in terms of general and health-related anxiety and psychological distress associated to their somatic symptoms, especially when diagnosed with a severe form of somatic symptom disorder.

A European research network to improve diagnosis, treatment and care for patients with persistent somatic symptoms : Work report of the EURONET-SOMA conference series

Persistent somatic symptoms are common and complex phenomena which pose major challenges to psychosomatics and many other medical specialties across Europe. They are frequent and can affect every organ system [1], individuals of all ages, ethnic groups and socioeconomic strata [2]. Chronic courses of disorders are common [3] and significantly impair quality of life [4,5] and increase health care use [6] as well as health care costs [7]. The different concepts of persistent somatic symptoms across medical specialties, clinical psychology and in psychosomatic medicine itself impede an early diagnosis and treatment initiation. Practitioners in psychosomatic medicine are faced with the new diagnosis of “Somatic Symptom Disorder” in DSM-5 [8] and the suggested “Bodily Distress Disorder” in ICD-11 [9,10] which both no longer exclude the existence of underlying medical conditions. Etiological concepts of persistent somatic symptoms differ substantially between medical specialties. The lack of medical guidelines or specialized treatment options for persistent somatic symptoms in some European countries present additional challenges for practitioners and affected patients [11,12]. Available clinical guidelines (e.g., from Germany or the Netherlands) suggest a stepped-care approach for patients with persistent somatic symptoms [13,14] which often remains unimplemented in favor of medication use actually intended for the treatment of anxiety, depression, and other mental health problems [15]. Given that research efforts on persistent somatic symptoms would largely benefit from a more coordinated and collaborative approach across Europe, we have come to recognize the urgent need to establish a European research network. By bringing researchers from all over Europe to take a seat at the table, we sought to develop a joint research agenda to address the pressing needs for improvement in the recognition, diagnosis, explanation and treatment of patients with persistent somatic symptoms.

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

OBJECTIVE The SSD-12 is a brief self-report questionnaire to measure the psychological criteria of DSM-5 Somatic Symptom Disorder. This study examines its psychometric properties in a German inpatient sample from a psychosomatic rehabilitation setting, and provides evidence to its sensitivity to change. METHOD Patients completed the SSD-12 and the Health49-subscale on somatoform complaints before and after receiving inpatient treatment. Therapists evaluated the psychological improvement of their patients at the end of treatment. Effect sizes (ES) and standardized response means (SRM) of pre- and post-SSD-12 mean changes were calculated for subgroups of patients who did or did not improve. RESULTS SSD-12 scores at discharge were significantly lower compared to scores at admission for subgroups of patients who improved according to clinicians (t=2976, df=103, p=.004), and for patients who improved according to self-report (t=5.059, df=159, p<.001). Effect sizes of change in SSD-12 scores in the improved subgroups were ES=-0.19 and ES=-0.30, and standardized response means were SRM=-0.29 and SRM=-0.40, respectively. CONCLUSION The SSD-12 shows sound psychometric properties and is useful and time-efficient for monitoring psychological burden associated with bothersome somatic symptoms. Its sensitivity to change over time could be documented.

Somatic symptom disorder in the general population: Associations with medical status and health care utilization using the SSD-12

OBJECTIVE Somatic Symptom Disorder (SSD) is characterized by excessive thoughts, feelings, and behaviors associated with physical symptoms. DSM-5 criteria for SSD focus on these psychological features (criterion B) rather than the presence or absence of an identifiable medical disorder. This study examines the role of medical disorder in the assessment of SSD and associations of SSD with health care utilization. METHOD Participants (N = 448, mean age 46.7 ± 16.9 years, 53.8% women) were recruited from the general community and completed the SSD-12 to quantify DSM-5 Criterion B for SSD. Participants also provided demographic and medical background information. RESULTS The SSD-12 total score was elevated in individuals with a major medical disorder (N = 97: cardiovascular disease, cancer, pulmonary disease or other: SSD-12 = 11.6 ± 8.8), and also among those with medical conditions commonly treated in primary care (N = 46: e.g., migraine, asthma: SSD-12 = 8.3 ± 7.1), compared to those free of these disorders (SSD-12 = 5.8 ± 7.0), which remained significant in age- and sex-adjusted models. Normative values are reported. High SSD-12 scores (≥15) were associated with more health care utilization (adjusted OR primary care visits = 3.35, 95%CI = 1.64-6.87). CONCLUSIONS The SSD-12 is a useful tool for the assessment of SSD. Medical comorbidity is associated with higher SSD-12 scores. Future studies are needed to determine whether SSD is more common in medical patients or whether correction of normative values is needed for screening purposes.

Validity of the Somatic Symptom Disorder–B Criteria Scale (SSD-12) in primary care

Aim The Somatic Symptom Disorder-B Criteria Scale (SSD-12) assesses the psychological features of DSM-5 somatic symptom disorder. The purpose of the current study was to investigate the psychometric characteristics and validity of the 12-item instrument to demonstrate its suitability in primary care. Method The study was designed as a cross-sectional survey set in five primary care practices from Munich, Germany (n = 501, 52.0% female, mean age 47 ± 16 years). Item and scale characteristics, as well as measures of reliability and validity, were determined. Results The SSD-12 has good item characteristics and excellent reliability (Cronbachs α = 0.92). Confirmatory factor analyses provided evidence to support a general factor model of the SSD-12 in primary care (comparative fit index > 0.98, Tucker-Lewis index > 0.98, root mean square error of approximation = 0.090, 90% confidence interval: 0.078-0.102). SSD-12 total sum-score was significantly associated with somatic symptom burden (r = 0.48, P < 0.001), general anxiety (r = 0.54, P < 0.001) and depressive symptoms (r = 0.60, P < 0.001). At the group level, SSD-12 scores could differentiate between different patient groups (e.g. with and without chronic illness). Conclusions The SSD-12 appears to be a reliable, valid and time-efficient self-report measure of the psychological characteristics related to the experience of somatic symptoms which is suitable for primary care. Future research should evaluate its responsiveness to treatment and feasibility as a screening tool in different clinical settings.

Comparing the Patient Health Questionnaire – 15 and the Somatic Symptom Scale – 8 as measures of somatic symptom burden

PURPOSE The Patient Health Questionnaire - 15 (PHQ-15) and the Somatic Symptom Scale - 8 (SSS-8) are self-report measures which assess somatic symptom burden. The present study investigates whether the two measures are comparable in terms of their psychometric properties and estimates of symptom burden. METHOD Item characteristics, reliability, symptom severity and construct validity with regard to other relevant psychological, health-related quality of life and disability measures were compared for the PHQ-15m and the SSS-8 in 294 primary care patients who participated in a randomized comparative effectiveness trial targeting pain and mood symptoms. RESULTS The reliabilities of the PHQ-15m and the SSS-8 were α=0.66 and α=0.72, respectively. Both measures were highly correlated (r=0.79). All item characteristics were comparable and both instruments showed the same pattern of correlations with instruments measuring depression, anxiety, pain, quality of life and impairment (r=0.25 to 0.53). A 1-point score increase (worsening of somatic symptoms) on either instrument resulted in a 3.7% to 3.9% increase in the number of disability days reported for the last four weeks. Using the same severity thresholds (5: low, 10: medium, 15: high), both measures identified nearly identical subgroups of patients with regard to health-related quality of life and disability. CONCLUSION The PHQ-15m and the SSS-8 are comparable measures in terms of reliability and validity and severity classifications. These findings are in line with previous results and support the use of the SSS-8 as a valuable and short alternative to the original PHQ-15 in settings with limited assessment time.