Marianne Rosendal

Classification of somatization and functional somatic symptoms in primary care

Objective: A substantial proportion of patients found in primary care complain of physical symptoms not attributable to any known conventionally defined disorder, that is, medically unexplained or functional somatic symptoms. The objective of this paper is to outline the problems with the current classification and propose a classification more suitable for primary health care. Method: We refer to and discuss relevant literature including papers on our own research on the topic in the light of our experiences from major projects on somatizing patients in primary health care. Results: Functional somatic symptoms may impose severe suffering on the patient and are costly for society because of high health-care utilization, lost working years and social expenses. At present, studies on functional somatic symptoms and disorders and their treatment are hampered by lack of a valid and reliable diagnostic classification. The diagnostic categories of somatoform disorders are overlapping. Thus, the present situation is that patients with identical symptoms and clinical pictures may receive different diagnostic labels depending on the focus of interests of the assessing physician. A particular problem in primary care is that the somatoform diagnostic categories only include persistent cases and do not offer the opportunity for classification of the patients with short-symptom duration found in this setting. We present a framework for a new descriptive classification of functional somatic symptoms and unfounded illness worrying, and outline a new classification that covers the whole spectrum of severity seen in clinical practice. Conclusion: A precondition for an appropriate management of patients with functional somatic symptoms is a valid taxonomy common for all medical specialties facilitating cooperative care. Classification systems as outlined in this paper may be a candidate for such a system, but it should be subject to further evaluation in research.

Recent developments in the understanding and management of functional somatic symptoms in primary care.

Purpose of review Medically unexplained or functional somatic symptoms are prevalent in primary care, but general practitioners commonly find them difficult to treat. We focus on the conceptual issues and treatment from a primary care perspective, although the field is difficult to review because of the inconsistency and multiplicity of terminology used by different authors and specialties. Recent findings The training of general practitioners in management techniques has been hampered by an obsolete theoretical framework and outdated diagnostic systems. Epidemiological studies, however, indicate that valid, empirically based diagnostic criteria for functional disorders may be developed. Management studies in primary care have shown disappointing effects on patient outcome, but a lot may be gained by making the training programmes more sophisticated. Recently, stepped care approaches have been introduced but they need scientific evaluation. Summary There is an immediate need for a common language and a theoretical framework of understanding of functional symptoms and disorders across medical specialties, clinically and scientifically. Any names that presuppose a mind–body dualism (such as somatization, medically unexplained) ought to be abolished. The overall ambition for treatment is to offer patients with functional somatic symptoms the same quality of professional healthcare as we offer any other patient.

Somatization, heartsink patients, or functional somatic symptoms? Towards a clinical useful classification in primary health care

Several definitions of somatization exist and try to deal with the fundamental problem that a large group of patients present with physical symptoms for which a conventional pathology cannot be identified. However, the concept remains somewhat confusing. The prevalence of somatization is high in general practice. Nevertheless, patients do not receive proper treatment and risk iatrogenic somatic fixation and harm, the doctor–patient relationship is often negatively affected and the overall healthcare system suffers from high expenditure on unnecessary physical investigations and treatments. During the last decade research has shown that somatization may be treated effectively in specialist care. Little is known about effective treatment in primary care but the Reattribution Model and the Extended Reattribution and Management Model have shown promising results. The development and evaluation of new treatment strategies is, however, hampered by the confusion of definitions and concepts. In this article an overview is presented of the various concepts relevant to the clinical work and research in primary health care. It is important to realize that somatizing patients in primary health care present a broader spectrum of severity than patients seen in a specialist setting. Hence, primary care cannot apply definitions from specialist care directly but needs a definition that also includes the mild cases. We need classifications and agreed definitions applicable in primary health care in order to develop appropriate management strategies, to predict prognosis, and to enable rigorous research concerning the large group of somatizing patients in primary health care.

Diagnoses of Patients with Severe Subjective Health Complaints in Scandinavia: A Cross Sectional Study

Background. A diagnosis is the basis of medical action, the key to various social privileges and national sick leave statistics. The objectives of this study were to investigate which diagnoses general practitioners in Scandinavia give patients with severe subjective health complaints, and what kind of treatments they suggested. Methods. One hundred and twenty-six self-selected general practitioners in Scandinavia diagnosed nine patients, presented as video vignettes, in a cross-sectional study. The main outcome measures were primary, secondary, and tertiary diagnoses. Results. The nine patients got between 13 and 31 different primary diagnoses and a large variety of secondary and tertiary diagnoses. Fifty-eight percent of the general practitioners chose different primary and secondary diagnoses, indicating that they judged the patients to have multimorbid complaints. The most commonly recommended treatment was referral to a psychologist, a mix of psychological and physical treatments, or treatment by the general practitioner. Conclusion. Scandinavian general practitioners give a large variety of symptom diagnoses, mainly psychological and general and unspecified, to patients with severe subjective health complaints. Referral to a psychologist or a mix of psychological or physical treatments was most commonly suggested to treat the patients.

Training General Practitioners in the Treatment of Functional Somatic Symptoms: Effects on Patient Health in a Cluster-Randomised Controlled Trial (the Functional Illness in Primary Care Study)

Background: Patients with medically unexplained or functional somatic symptoms (FSS) are prevalent in primary care. In this pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial we aimed to test the effect of a training programme (The Extended Reattribution and Management model) for general practitioners (GPs) in the treatment of FSS. Methods: 38 participating GPs were randomised to the control group or the training group. The GPs included consecutive 18- to 65-year-old patients presenting during a 3-week period for new health complaints. We assessed a stratified subsample with the psychiatric interview Schedules of Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry. Of 701 patients interviewed, 350 fulfilled the diagnostic criteria for any ICD-10 somatoform disorder (SD) and 111 presented FSS without fulfilling these criteria (sub-threshold SD). Patients completed questionnaires at baseline and after 3, 12 and 24 months. The questionnaires included assessment of health status (36-item Medical Outcomes Study Short Form; SF-36), health anxiety (Whiteley-7) and physical symptoms (Symptom Check List-90, somatization subscale). Results: Patients with SD consulting trained GPs improved more on our primary outcome of physical functioning than patients consulting control GPs at the 3-month follow-up (p = 0.004), but the improvement was not statistically significant at later follow-up. We found no significant differences in improvement between patients with SD and those with sub-threshold SD. Results for other SF-36 subscales, physical symptoms and health anxiety only showed statistically significant differences between the intervention and control groups for patients with SD; patients consulting trained GPs had less improvement in vitality, health anxiety and physical symptoms at 24 months compared with the control group. Conclusions: GP training may accelerate improvement in physical functioning for patients with SD. However, the effect is small and may not be clinically significant.

Psychological and social problems in primary care patients - general practitioners' assessment and classification.

Abstract Objective. To estimate the frequency of psychological and social classification codes employed by general practitioners (GPs) and to explore the extent to which GPs ascribed health problems to biomedical, psychological, or social factors. Design. A cross-sectional survey based on questionnaire data from GPs. Setting. Danish primary care. Subjects. 387 GPs and their face-to-face contacts with 5543 patients. Main outcome measures. GPs registered consecutive patients on registration forms including reason for encounter, diagnostic classification of main problem, and a GP assessment of biomedical, psychological, and social factors’ influence on the contact. Results. The GP-stated reasons for encounter largely overlapped with their classification of the managed problem. Using the International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC-2-R), GPs classified 600 (11%) patients with psychological problems and 30 (0.5%) with social problems. Both codes for problems/complaints and specific disorders were used as the GPs diagnostic classification of the main problem. Two problems (depression and acute stress reaction/adjustment disorder) accounted for 51% of all psychological classifications made. GPs generally emphasized biomedical aspects of the contacts. Psychological aspects were given greater importance in follow-up consultations than in first-episode consultations, whereas social factors were rarely seen as essential to the consultation. Conclusion. Psychological problems are frequently seen and managed in primary care and most are classified within a few diagnostic categories. Social matters are rarely considered or classified.

Sick leave and work disability in primary care patients with recent-onset multiple medically unexplained symptoms and persistent somatoform disorders: a 10-year follow-up of the FIP study.

OBJECTIVE The objective was to explore patient characteristics and 10-year outcome of sick leave and work disability for patients with recent-onset multiple medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) and persistent somatoform disorders (SD). METHOD Consecutive patients consulting their family physician (FP) completed a preconsultation questionnaire on symptoms and mental illness (n=1785). The main problem was categorized by the FP after the consultation, and a stratified subsample was examined using a standardized diagnostic interview (n=701). Patients were grouped into three cohorts: recent onset of multiple MUS (n=84); Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, persistent SD (n=183); and reference group with well-defined physical disease according to FP (n=833). Register data on sick leave and disability pension were obtained. RESULTS At index consultation, disability pension was received by 8.3% (n=7) in the recent-onset multiple MUS group, 19.1% (n=35) in the SD group and 3.5% (n=29) in the reference group. Both the recent-onset multiple MUS group [hazard ratio (HR)=2.28, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.14-4.55] and the SD group (HR=3.26, 95% CI:1.93-5.51) had increased risk of new disability pension awards. Furthermore, the SD group had increased risk of sick leave. CONCLUSIONS Both recent-onset and persistent MUS have significant long-term impact on patient functioning in regard to working life; this calls for early recognition and adequate management of MUS in primary care.

A new questionnaire to identify bodily distress in primary care: The 'BDS checklist'

BACKGROUND Functional symptoms and disorders are common in primary care. Bodily distress syndrome (BDS) is a newly proposed clinical diagnosis for functional disorders. The BDS diagnosis is based on empirical research, and the symptoms stated in the BDS criteria have been translated into a self-report questionnaire called the BDS checklist. The aim of the present study was to investigate the psychometric properties of the checklist and to test the construct of BDS. METHOD The 30-item BDS checklist was completed by 2480 adult primary care patients in a cross-sectional study on contact and disease patterns in Danish general practice. We performed (internal) validation analyses of the collected checklist data. We also performed factor and latent class analyses to identify both BDS symptom groups and BDS patient groups. RESULTS Internal validation analyses revealed acceptable and usable psychometric properties of the BDS checklist. The factor analyses identified the four distinct determining factors for BDS: cardiopulmonary, gastrointestinal, musculoskeletal and general symptoms. Results from factor and multi-trait analyses suggested a shortening of the BDS checklist (from 30 to 25 items). The latent class analyses resulted in three severity levels (no, moderate and severe BDS); the best fit index was found for a threshold of ≥4 symptoms in a symptom group. CONCLUSION The results provide empirical support for the previously described construct of BDS with four symptom groups and three patient groups. The BDS checklist is a self-report instrument that may be used for case finding in both clinical practice and in research.

Improving the Classification of Medically Unexplained Symptoms in Primary Care

Many patients in primary care complain of physical symptoms not attributable to any known conventionally defined disease, i.e. medically unexplained symptoms (MUS). Objectives: This paper aims to present the problems with our current classification of MUS in general practice and propose new criteria for the classification of Medically Unexplained Symptoms in a future edition of the International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC). Methods: Discussion of European classification systems in relation to current evidence about MUS in primary care. Results: At present, clinical care and research are hampered by the lack of a valid and reliable diagnostic classification of MUS. A particular problem in primary care is that the diagnostic category of somatoform disorders only includes persistent cases and therefore offers no opportunity for the classification of many patients with MUS in general practice. We propose new diagnostic criteria for MUS that can easily be integrated in a future edition of the ICPC. The criteria introduce mild to moderate MUS into the chapter of general and unspecified health problems if the patient has at least three MUS during an episode of care, whereas severe conditions are kept in the psychological chapter under the diagnoses applied until now. Conclusion: A diagnosis and classification of MUS is essential for the prediction of prognosis and the choice of appropriate care for these patients in general practice. It remains to be evaluated in epidemiologic research whether the proposed classification criteria fulfil this purpose

Symptoms as the main problem in primary care: A cross-sectional study of frequency and characteristics

Abstract Objective. The aim was to study symptoms managed as the main problem by the general practitioner (GP) and to describe the frequencies and characteristics of presented symptoms when no specific diagnosis could be made. Design. Cross- sectional study. Setting. General practices in the Central Denmark Region. Subjects. In total, 397 GPs included patients with face-to-face contacts during one randomly assigned day in 2008–2009; 7008 patients were included and 5232 presented with a health problem. Main outcome measures. GPs answered a questionnaire after each patient contact. Symptoms and specific diagnoses were subsequently classified using the International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC). Symptom frequency, comorbidity, consultation length, and GP-assessed final outcome and burden of consultations were analysed. Results. The GPs could not establish a specific diagnosis in 36% of patients with health problems. GPs expected that presented symptoms would not result in a future specific diagnosis for half of these patients. Musculoskeletal (lower limb and back) and respiratory (cough) symptoms were most frequent. More GPs had demanding consultations when no specific diagnosis could be made. Higher burden was associated with age, comorbidity, and GP expectancy of persistent symptoms when no diagnosis could be made. Conclusion. Interpretation and management of symptoms is a key task in primary care. As symptoms are highly frequent in general practice, symptoms without a specific diagnosis constitute a challenge to GPs. Nevertheless, symptoms have been given little priority in research. More attention should be directed to evidence-based management of symptoms as a generic phenomenon to ensure improved outcomes in the future.