Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-99c86f546-vl2kb Total loading time: 0.443 Render date: 2021-11-27T10:13:12.561Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Medium- and long-term prognostic validity of competing classification proposals for the former somatoform disorders

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 February 2017

S. Schumacher*
Affiliation:
Division of Clinical Psychological Intervention, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany
W. Rief
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany
K. Klaus
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Biopsychology, University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany
E. Brähler
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Universal Medical Center, Mainz, Germany
R. Mewes
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Biopsychology, University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany
*
*Address for correspondence: S. Schumacher, Ph.D., Division of Clinical Psychological Intervention, Freie Universität Berlin, Habelschwerdter Allee 45, 14195 Berlin, Germany. (Email: sarah.schumacher@fu-berlin.de)

Abstract

Background

DSM-5 introduced a fundamental revision of the category of somatoform disorders, which resulted in the new somatic symptom disorder (SSD) and related disorders. However, prognostic validity of SSD remains unclear, while other classification proposals, such as bodily distress disorder (BDD) or polysymptomatic distress disorder (PSDD), might be promising alternatives for the new ICD-11. Therefore, the comparison of the different approaches concerning long-term prognosis of disorder-relevant factors is of special interest.

Method

In a longitudinal design (baseline, 1-year, and 4-year follow-up), the three proposals (SSD, BDD, PSDD) were compared in an age-representative sample of the German general population (N = 321). To this end, the baseline sample was divided into three independent pairs of groups (with/without SSD, with/without BDD, with/without PSDD). It was tested how well each approach differentiated with regard to medium- and long-term healthcare utilization, number of symptoms, and impairment.

Results

Criteria for BDD distinguished best with regard to future healthcare utilization resulting in a large-sized effect (f = 0.44) for the difference between persons with and without BDD, while SSD and PSDD revealed only medium-sized effects (f = 0.28 and f = 0.32) between subjects with and without diagnosis. The three proposals distinguished equally well with regard to future subjective impairment (between f = 0.39 and f = 0.41) and the number of reported symptoms (between f = 0.77 and f = 0.83).

Conclusion

In accordance with our data regarding prognostic validity, the current draft of the WHO group is based on the BDD proposal. However, existing limitations and weaknesses of the present proposal for the ICD-11 are further discussed.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Al-Windi, A (2005). The influence of complaint symptoms on healthcare utilisation, medicine use, and sickness absence. A comparison between retrospective and prospective utilisation. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 59, 139146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
APA (1980). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – III. American Psychiatric Publishing: Washington, DC.Google Scholar
APA (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – 5. American Psychiatric Publishing: Arlington, VA.Google Scholar
Budtz-Lilly, A, Vestergaard, M, Fink, P, Carlsen, AH, Rosendal, M (2015). The prognosis of bodily distress syndrome: a cohort study in primary care. General Hospital Psychiatry 37, 560566.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, J (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin 112, 155159.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Creed, F, Guthrie, E, Fink, P, Henningsen, P, Rief, W, Sharpe, M, White, P (2010). Is there a better term than ‘medically unexplained symptoms’? Journal of Psychosomatic Research 68, 58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dimsdale, JE, Creed, F, Escobar, J, Sharpe, M, Wulsin, L, Barsky, A, Lee, S, Irwin, MR, Levenson, J (2013). Somatic symptom disorder: an important change in DSM. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 75, 223228.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Escobar, JI, Rubiostipec, M, Canino, G, Karno, M (1989). Somatic symptom index (SSI) – a new and abridged somatization construct – prevalence and epidemiological correlates in 2 large community samples. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 177, 140146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fink, P, Schroder, A (2010). One single diagnosis, bodily distress syndrome, succeeded to capture 10 diagnostic categories of functional somatic syndromes and somatoform disorders. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 68, 415426.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fink, P, Sorensen, L, Engberg, M, Holm, M, Munk-Jorgensen, P (1999). Somatization in primary care. Prevalence, health care utilization, and general practitioner recognition. Psychosomatics 40, 330338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fink, P, Toft, T, Hansen, MS, Ornbol, E, Olesen, F (2007). Symptoms and syndromes of bodily distress: an exploratory study of 978 internal medical, neurological, and primary care patients. Psychosomatic Medicine 69, 3039.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frances, A (2013). The new somatic symptom disorder in DSM-5 risks mislabeling many people as mentally ill. British Medical Journal 346, f1580.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frances, AJ, Nardo, JM (2013). ICD-11 should not repeat the mistakes made by DSM-5. British Journal of Psychiatry 203, 12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gureje, O (2015). Classification of somatic syndromes in ICD-11. Current Opinion in Psychiatry 28, 345349.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hausteiner-Wiehle, C, Henningsen, P (2012). Somatoform disorders: discussion on conceptual and diagnostic issues. Nervenarzt 83, 10971105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hiller, W, Rief, W, Brahler, E (2006). Somatization in the population: from mild bodily misperceptions to disabling symptoms. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 41, 704712.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khan, AA, Khan, A, Harezlak, J, Tu, W, Kroenke, K (2003). Somatic symptoms in primary care: etiology and outcome. Psychosomatics 44, 471478.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klaus, K, Rief, W, Brahler, E, Martin, A, Glaesmer, H, Mewes, R (2013). The distinction between ‘medically unexplained’ and ‘medically explained’ in the context of somatoform disorders. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine 20, 161171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klaus, K, Rief, W, Brahler, E, Martin, A, Glaesmer, H, Mewes, R (2015). Validating psychological classification criteria in the context of somatoform disorders: a one- and four-year follow-up. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 124, 10921101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Körber, S, Frieser, D, Steinbrecher, N, Hiller, W (2011). Classification characteristics of the patient health questionnaire-15 for screening somatoform disorders in a primary care setting. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 71, 142147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroenke, K, Spitzer, RL, Williams, JB (2002). The PHQ-15: validity of a new measure for evaluating the severity of somatic symptoms. Psychosomatic Medicine 64, 258266.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leiknes, KA, Finset, A, Moum, T, Sandanger, I (2006). Methodological issues concerning lifetime medically unexplained and medically explained symptoms of the composite international diagnostic interview: a prospective 11-year follow-up study. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 61, 169179.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lowe, B, Mundt, C, Herzog, W, Brunner, R, Backenstrass, M, Kronmuller, K, Henningsen, P (2008). Validity of current somatoform disorder diagnoses: perspectives for classification in DSM-V and ICD-11. Psychopathology 41, 49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, A, Buech, A, Schwenk, C, Rief, W (2007). Memory bias for health-related information in somatoform disorders. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 63, 663671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayou, R (2014). Is the DSM-5 chapter on somatic symptom disorder any better than DSM-IV somatoform disorder? British Journal of Psychiatry 204, 418419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McFarlane, AC, Ellis, N, Barton, C, Browne, D, Van Hooff, M (2008). The conundrum of medically unexplained symptoms: questions to consider. Psychosomatics 49, 369377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rief, W (2013). A commentary on: somatic symptom disorder: an important change in DSM. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 75, 584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rief, W, Isaac, M (2014). The future of somatoform disorders: somatic symptom disorder, bodily distress disorder or functional syndromes? Current Opinion in Psychiatry 27, 315319.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rief, W, Martin, A (2014). How to use the new DSM-5 somatic symptom disorder diagnosis in research and practice: a critical evaluation and a proposal for modifications. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 10, 339367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rief, W, Mewes, R, Martin, A, Glaesmer, H, Braehler, E (2010). Are psychological features useful in classifying patients with somatic symptoms? Psychosomatic Medicine 72, 648655.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rief, W, Mewes, R, Martin, A, Glaesmer, H, Brahler, E (2011). Evaluating new proposals for the psychiatric classification of patients with multiple somatic symptoms. Psychosomatic Medicine 73, 760768.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schumacher, S, Rief, W, Brahler, E, Martin, A, Glaesmer, H, Mewes, R (2013). Disagreement in doctor's and patient's rating about medically unexplained symptoms and health care use. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine 20, 3037.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steinbrecher, N, Koerber, S, Frieser, D, Hiller, W (2011). The prevalence of medically unexplained symptoms in primary care. Psychosomatics 52, 263271.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Voigt, K, Wollburg, E, Weinmann, N, Herzog, A, Meyer, B, Langs, G, Lowe, B (2012). Predictive validity and clinical utility of DSM-5 somatic symptom disorder – comparison with DSM-IV somatoform disorders and additional criteria for consideration. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 73, 345350.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wollburg, E, Voigt, K, Braukhaus, C, Herzog, A, Lowe, B (2013). Construct validity and descriptive validity of somatoform disorders in light of proposed changes for the DSM-5. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 74, 1824.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Medium- and long-term prognostic validity of competing classification proposals for the former somatoform disorders
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Medium- and long-term prognostic validity of competing classification proposals for the former somatoform disorders
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Medium- and long-term prognostic validity of competing classification proposals for the former somatoform disorders
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *