Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
×
Home

Information:

  • Access
  • Cited by 18
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Berens, S. Stroe-Kunold, E. Kraus, F. Tesarz, J. Gauss, A. Niesler, B. Herzog, W. and Schaefert, R. 2018. Pilot-RCT of an integrative group therapy for patients with refractory irritable bowel syndrome (ISRCTN02977330). Journal of Psychosomatic Research, Vol. 105, Issue. , p. 72.

    Dowrick, Christopher and Rosendal, Marianne 2018. Primary Care Mental Health. p. 138.

    Tyrer, Peter 2018. Against the Stream: Generalised anxiety disorder (GAD) – a redundant diagnosis. BJPsych Bulletin, Vol. 42, Issue. 02, p. 69.

    Koh, Kyung Bong 2018. Stress and Somatic Symptoms. p. 85.

    Tyrer, Peter and Tyrer, Helen 2018. Health anxiety: detection and treatment. BJPsych Advances, Vol. 24, Issue. 01, p. 66.

    Payne, Helen and Brooks, Susan D.M. 2017. Moving on: the BodyMind ApproachTM for medically unexplained symptoms. Journal of Public Mental Health, Vol. 16, Issue. 2, p. 63.

    Rosendal, Marianne Olde Hartman, Tim C Aamland, Aase van der Horst, Henriette Lucassen, Peter Budtz-Lilly, Anna and Burton, Christopher 2017. “Medically unexplained” symptoms and symptom disorders in primary care: prognosis-based recognition and classification. BMC Family Practice, Vol. 18, Issue. 1,

    Tyrer, Peter Salkovskis, Paul Tyrer, Helen Wang, Duolao Crawford, Michael J Dupont, Simon Cooper, Sylvia Green, John Murphy, David Smith, Georgina Bhogal, Sharandeep Nourmand, Shaeda Lazarevic, Valentina Loebenberg, Gemma Evered, Rachel Kings, Stephanie McNulty, Antoinette Lisseman-Stones, Yvonne McAllister, Sharon Kramo, Kofi Nagar, Jessica Reid, Steven Sanatinia, Rahil Whittamore, Katherine Walker, Gemma Philip, Aaron Warwick, Hilary Byford, Sarah and Barrett, Barbara 2017. Cognitive–behaviour therapy for health anxiety in medical patients (CHAMP): a randomised controlled trial with outcomes to 5 years. Health Technology Assessment, Vol. 21, Issue. 50, p. 1.

    Restrepo, Miguel and Restrepo, Diana 2017. Del trastorno conversivo a los trastornos neurológicos funcionales. ¿Superando el diagnóstico por descarte?. Revista Colombiana de Psiquiatría,

    Cozzi, Giorgio Minute, Marta Skabar, Aldo Pirrone, Angela Jaber, Mohamad Neri, Elena Montico, Marcella Ventura, Alessandro and Barbi, Egidio 2017. Somatic symptom disorder was common in children and adolescents attending an emergency department complaining of pain. Acta Paediatrica, Vol. 106, Issue. 4, p. 586.

    Lilienfeld, Scott O. Pydych, Ava L. Lynn, Steven Jay Latzman, Robert D. and Waldman, Irwin D. 2017. 50 Differences That Make a Difference: A Compendium of Frequently Confused Term Pairs in Psychology. Frontiers in Education, Vol. 2, Issue. ,

    Newby, Jill M. Hobbs, Megan J. Mahoney, Alison E.J. Wong, Shiu (Kelvin) and Andrews, Gavin 2017. DSM-5 illness anxiety disorder and somatic symptom disorder: Comorbidity, correlates, and overlap with DSM-IV hypochondriasis. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, Vol. 101, Issue. , p. 31.

    Schumacher, S. Rief, W. Klaus, K. Brähler, E. and Mewes, R. 2017. Medium- and long-term prognostic validity of competing classification proposals for the former somatoform disorders. Psychological Medicine, Vol. 47, Issue. 10, p. 1719.

    van Dessel, Nikki Claassen- van der Wouden, Johannes C. Dekker, Joost and van der Horst, Henriette E. 2016. Clinical value of DSM IV and DSM 5 criteria for diagnosing the most prevalent somatoform disorders in patients with medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS). Journal of Psychosomatic Research, Vol. 82, Issue. , p. 4.

    Kornelsen, Jude Atkins, Chloe Brownell, Keith and Woollard, Robert 2016. The Meaning of Patient Experiences of Medically Unexplained Physical Symptoms. Qualitative Health Research, Vol. 26, Issue. 3, p. 367.

    Lee, Sing Creed, Francis H Ma, Yee-Ling and Leung, Candi MC 2015. Somatic symptom burden and health anxiety in the population and their correlates. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, Vol. 78, Issue. 1, p. 71.

    van Geelen, Stefan M. Rydelius, Per-Anders and Hagquist, Curt 2015. Somatic symptoms and psychological concerns in a general adolescent population: Exploring the relevance of DSM-5 somatic symptom disorder. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, Vol. 79, Issue. 4, p. 251.

    Häuser, Winfried Bialas, Patric Welsch, Katja and Wolfe, Frederick 2015. Construct validity and clinical utility of current research criteria of DSM-5 somatic symptom disorder diagnosis in patients with fibromyalgia syndrome. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, Vol. 78, Issue. 6, p. 546.

    ×

Actions:

      • 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.

        Is the DSM-5 chapter on somatic symptom disorder any better than DSM-IV somatoform disorder?
        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.

        Is the DSM-5 chapter on somatic symptom disorder any better than DSM-IV somatoform disorder?
        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.

        Is the DSM-5 chapter on somatic symptom disorder any better than DSM-IV somatoform disorder?
        Available formats
        ×
Export citation

Abstract

DSM-5 is a modest improvement on DSM-IV, notably in abandoning the distinction between medically explained and unexplained symptoms, but problems remain. The chapter text is incoherent, contradicts the classification and will be clinically unhelpful. ICD-11 should attempt a more logical and consistent revision.

Physical complaints with no apparent organic pathological explanation are very frequent in both primary and secondary care, but medicine has found them difficult to conceptualise and classify. 1,2 All those who treat such problems need labels for the type of somatic symptom and to have an additional way of classifying the minority who also have a mental disorder. Some of the psychiatric subgroup satisfy criteria for established mental disorders (neurocognitive, mood, anxiety and personality disorders) but many do not. DSM-III 3 invented a whole new terminology for this situation, included in a chapter entitled ‘Somatoform Disorders’. This was an advance in that it recognised a substantial clinical problem. However, the complicated categories (somatisation disorder, undifferentiated somatoform disorder, pain disorder and somatoform disorder not otherwise specified (NOS)) were derived from an idiosyncratic preoccupation of the original DSM-III authors with the least prevalent clinical subgroup - those with chronic multiple ‘unexplained’ symptoms (somatisation disorder). This resulted in categories being largely defined negatively in terms of lack of organic pathology (‘medically unexplained’). A more useful psychiatric classification would have neutrally named categories based on positive psychological criteria. It would also take account of very similar psychological and behavioural reactions to proven organic illness.

DSM-5 has at last appeared. 4 How does it seem to someone who before retiring in 2005 argued that somatoform disorder should be abandoned? 1,2 Judgement must consider not just the classification but also the chapter text, because the DSM manuals have often been used as textbooks of psychiatry. Indeed, the chair of the DSM-5 taskforce has been quoted as believing that DSM-5 ‘is the best manual for helping clinicians care for patients’. 5

The classification

The renamed chapter ‘Somatic Symptom and Related Disorders’ does not depend on any new evidence, but the plain English descriptive title is undoubtedly better. There are three major changes.

  1. (a) Most importantly, the alleged distinction between medically explained and unexplained is abandoned. 6 It is unequivocally stated that ‘It is not appropriate to give an individual a mental disorder diagnosis solely because a medical cause cannot be demonstrated’. 4 The most controversial DSM-IV 7 category of somatisation disorder (together with undifferentiated somatoform disorder, pain disorder and somatoform disorder NOS) is replaced by a new diagnosis, somatic symptom disorder. This is defined by the psychological criterion: ‘excessive thoughts, feelings, or behavors related to the somatic symptoms or associated health concerns… ’.

  2. (b) It rationalises the categories and subcategories. Pain disorder has gone, body dysmorphic disorder is moved out, and hypochondriasis is renamed and redefined. Conversion disorder is tidied up, and psychological factors affecting other medical conditions and factitious disorder are moved in.

  3. (b) It is no longer dualist stating, as an example: ‘The diagnosis of somatic symptom disorder and a concurrent medical illness are not mutually exclusive […] an individual may become seriously disabled […] after an uncomplicated myocardial infarction even if the myocardial infarction itself did not result in any disability.’ 4

Illness anxiety disorder

Hypochondriasis is renamed illness anxiety disorder and defined as ‘a preoccupation with having or acquiring a serious, undiagnosed medical illness (Criterion A). Somatic symptoms are not present or, if present, are only mild in intensity (Criterion B)’ and ‘the individual’s distress emanates not primarily from the physical complaint itself but rather from his or her anxiety about the meaning, significance, or cause of the complaint’. Spruced up criteria are welcome but the restriction to symptoms of mild intensity goes against all clinical experience and the evidence. 8 The failure to move the category to the ‘Anxiety Disorders’ chapter is surely illogical and a mistake.

Somatic symptom disorder

The new single major and broader category somatic symptom disorder is a significant improvement on somatisation disorder and related DSM-IV categories. Although there have been concerns that the new diagnosis is overinclusive, this is an argument for clarifying a fairly high threshold.

Problems of differential diagnosis arise if there is also a medical condition (i.e. a proven or assumed pathological basis). Although oddly they do not appear in the differential diagnosis, it is apparent elsewhere in the chapter that somatic symptom disorder overlaps almost indistinguishably with two other categories, which seem to have received little working group attention:

  1. (a) Adjustment disorder: ‘Abnormal psychological or behavioral symptoms that develop in response to a medical condition are more properly coded as an adjustment disorder’. It is regrettable that DSM-5, like its predecessors, regards adjustment disorder as a residual category, dismissing highly prevalent clinical problems in three pages. 9

  2. (b) Psychological factors affecting a medical condition: ‘The difference is one of emphasis, rather than a clear-cut distinction. In psychological factors affecting other medical conditions, the emphasis is on the exacerbation of the medical condition […] In somatic symptom disorder, the emphasis is on maladaptive thoughts, feelings and behavior’. It may be that this category is redundant and it certainly deserves greater critical thought and research.

The text

The chapter authors admit: ‘nonpsychiatric physicians found the DSM-IV somatoform diagnoses difficult to understand and use’ but claim ‘These reconceptualized diagnoses […] are more useful for primary care and other medical (nonpsychiatric) clinicians’. Sadly, the text is incoherent and obscure. Unlike the classification, it remains firmly dualist with one reference to ‘somatizing’ individuals and many to medically unexplained symptoms. It is unable to grasp that symptoms not totally attributable to known or assumed pathology can have a medical aetiology in terms of physiological, psychological and social factors.

The opportunity to set out a clear approach to aetiology of all somatic symptoms is lost. A dense paragraph buried in the text for somatic symptom disorder has the meaningless conclusion: ‘Thus, somatic presentations can be viewed as expressions of personal suffering inserted in a cultural and social context’. There is no sense of the widely accepted common principles of aetiological models which emphasise individuals’ interpretation or experience of minor pathological and physiological bodily perceptions. 1 There is no understanding of the importance of the reactions of others and especially of reinforcement by overcautious or inadequate medical explanation and care. Discussion in such terms should have been central to the chapter and would have provided the clinical understanding with which to design interventions.

Conclusions

My verdict must be that although the DSM-5 classification is an improvement on DSM-IV it is a predictable disappointment. The most important change is that it does not require symptoms to be medically unexplained (although the text still does) and instead emphasises psychological criteria. It may be more successful than DSM-IV in satisfying its main motivation of enabling psychiatrists to charge for their services and may be more useful to planners, insurers and lawyers. However, it will not be much used in primary and general medical care or be popular with our patients. A text which reads as poorly collated and contradictory preliminary drafts by numerous working groups will baffle those who want help in treating patients. We need to find ways forward.

Developing the classification

ICD-11 is an opportunity for the logical revision that DSM-5 should have been. This should refine and simplify the categories and modify illness anxiety disorder and move it into ‘Anxiety Disorders’. It should clearly state that any mental disorder coding is additional to a somatic condition or symptom diagnosis. The DSM-5 chapter needs to be rewritten urgently in clear, jargon-free prose directed at primary care and general physicians.

Contributing to general medicine

Even more important than classificatory quibbles is need and opportunity for psychiatrists who work in the general medicine field to move on from the narrow preoccupations of mental disorder to encouraging general understanding of psychological reactions to physical illness and especially of symptoms not entirely attributable to organic pathology. I suggest the key points are:

  1. (a) showing that the range of psychological and behavioural responses to symptoms is very similar, whether caused by cancer or by minor pathology or by awareness of physiological processes;

  2. (b) outlining an aetiological approach that can inform decisions about treatment;

  3. (c) describing how good routine medical care can prevent many somatic complaints becoming chronic and how specialist interventions can treat persistent disabling complications.

It will require a determined effort to work with physicians, including those revising their own symptom classifications such as those for pain and headache. An equally demanding task will be persuading sceptical patients that psychological understanding is not a denial of the reality of their suffering but rather an essential component of all medical care.

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Michael Sharpe for discussion of the issues covered in this editorial and to an anonymous reviewer.

References

1 Mayou, R, Kirmayer, LJ, Simon, G, Kroenke, K, Sharpe, M. Somatoform disorders: time for a new approach in DSM-V. Am J Psychiatry 2005; 162: 847–55.
2 Sharpe, M, Mayou, R, Walker, J. Bodily symptoms: new approaches to classification. J Psychosom Res 2006; 60: 353–6.
3 American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3rd edn) (DSM-III). APA, 1980.
4 American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th edn) (DSM-5). APA, 2013.
5 Gornall, J. DSM-5: a fatal diagnosis? BMJ 2013; 346: f3256.
6 Sharpe, M. Somatic symtoms: beyond ‘medically unexplained'. Br J Psychiatry 2013; 203: 320–1.
7 American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th edn) (DSM-IV). APA, 1994.
8 Starevic, S. Hypochondriasis and health anxiety: conceptual challenges. Br J Psychiatry 2013; 202: 78.
9 Casey, P, Doherty, A. Adjustment disorder: implications for ICD-11 and DSM-5. Br J Psychiatry 2012; 201: 90–2.