School of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, University of Edinburgh
Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, UK
Correspondence: Dr Michael Sharpe, Reader in Psychological Medicine, Kennedy Tower, Royal Edinburgh Hospital, Edinburgh EH10 5HF, UK
See pp.
470476, this
issue.
The paper by de Waal and colleagues (2004, this issue) reports on the prevalence of somatoform disorders in Dutch primary care. They found that at least one out of six patients seen by general practitioners could be regarded as having a somatoform disorder, almost all in the non-specific category of undifferentiated somatoform disorder. The prevalence of the condition has major implications for medical services but what does this diagnosis mean? Is receiving a diagnosis of somatoform disorder of any benefit to the patient? Does it help the doctor to provide treatment?
THE SOMATOFORM CONCEPT
The category of somatoform disorders was introduced into DMSIII (American Psychiatric Association, 1980) to accommodate those patients who had somatic symptoms unexplained by a medical condition but with too few psychological symptoms to merit an alternative psychiatric diagnosis. The ICD10 followed suit, although embedding somatoform disorders within a broader category of neurotic, stress-related and somatoform disorders (World Health Organization, 1992).
Somatoform disorders include a hetero-geneous group of diagnoses united only by their tendency to present with somatic complaints. In DSMIIIR (American Psychiatric Association, 1987) the specific subcategories included somatisation disorder, hypochondriasis, body dysmorphic disorder, conversion disorder and chronic pain disorder, but the classification proved inadequate to the clinical task and the most recent edition of DSM (DSMIV; American Psychiatric Association, 1994) added the non-specific category of undifferentiated somatoform disorder. This diagnosis, which amounts to little more than relabelling the patients own complaint, has turned out in practice to be the most common of the somatoform diagnoses, as reported by de Waal et al (2004, this issue).
LIMITATIONS OF THE SOMATOFORM DISORDER CLASSIFICATION
Despite its value in drawing attention to hitherto neglected patients, many clinicians and researchers have found this classification to be unsatisfactory (Escobar & Gara, 1999; Martin, 1999). Its limitations are both theoretical and practical.
The main theoretical limitation is the assumption of psychogenesis. Although intended to be aetiologically neutral, the somatoform disorder concept in fact implied that the cause of these symptoms was understood, and was a mental disorder. The cause of somatic symptoms in the absence of disease pathology is not well understood, and the evidence suggests that it is likely to be multi-factorial including physiological (or minor pathological) as well as psychological and social factors (Mayou, 1991). The simplistic somatoform disorder concept also encourages us to think of patients as having either somatic symptoms that are unexplained by disease or somatic symptoms that are well explained by disease. In fact, even in patients with disease, the symptoms are often not well explained by the identifiable pathology. For example, the symptoms of patients with cardiovascular disease have only a limited relationship with objectively measured disease severity (Ruo et al, 2003). Hence, the use of the concept of unexplained by a medical condition as the core feature of somatoform disorders is problematic.
Somatoform disorders also have a number of practical limitations.
The severity of these shortcomings means that mere tinkering is unlikely to be adequate and that more radical revision is required. The ambitious programme to prepare for the forthcoming DSMV and ICD11 (Phillips et al, 2003) offers an opportunity to reconsider the somatoform disorders. We suggest that both the term and diagnostic category have proved to be unhelpful and, therefore, should be abolished.
WHAT SHOULD REPLACE THE SOMATOFORM DISORDERS?
If the somatoform disorders are to be abolished, with what should we replace them?
First, we should adopt a new terminology that both avoids questionable aetiological assumptions and is acceptable to patients. A variety of alternative terms have been suggested, including medically unexplained symptoms and functional somatic symptoms. None is ideal. We might do best to use a simple description of the symptoms, as is done for chronic pain. An alternative is to use the term functional symptoms, which, in its original usage (Trimble, 1982), implied merely a disturbance of bodily functioning rather than structure and did not presume a simple psychogenesis. We have also found that the diagnosis of functional symptoms is relatively acceptable to patients (Stone et al, 2002).
Second, many of the specific diagnoses currently within the category of somatoform disorders could readily be rehoused elsewhere in the existing classification. For example, somatisation disorder is arguably better considered as a combination of a personality disorder and anxiety and depressive syndromes (Bass & Murphy, 1995). Hypochondrias could be rehoused comfortably within the anxiety disorders (health anxiety; Warwick & Salkovskis, 1990). Body dysmorphic disorder could be placed in anxiety or obsessivecompulsive disorder and conversion disorder could be reunited usefully with dissociative disorders. The remaining categories (undifferentiated somatoform disorder, pain disorder and somatisation disorder) are all currently defined solely in terms of number or type of somatic symptoms. They might, therefore, be better considered as medical conditions and coded on Axis III. Indeed, the DSMV coding already allows Axis III to be used to list functional somatic syndromes or symptoms such as pain, and this practice could be formalised.
There is often the need for more than a simple diagnosis to characterise patients accurately for the purposes of treatment and research. The new classification could accommodate this knowledge by en encouracouraging the use of a supplementary multiaxial description that includes not only the type and number of symptoms, but also the relevant cognitions, behaviour and physiological disturbances (Sharpe et al, 1995). There are already analogies in the DSMIV sections on pain and sleep in their reference to other more detailed specialist classifications.
THE BENEFITS OF ABOLISHING SOMATOFORM DISORDERS
It has been argued that the somatoform disorder category has been valuable in drawing attention to a neglected waste-land between the walled citadels of medicine and psychiatry (Bass et al, 2001). In arguing for a firmer epidemiological base for this diagnosis, de Waal et al (2004, this issue) appear to accept this view. In contrast, we believe that the diagnosis has been unhelpful by perpetuating dualism. Medicine can only continue to assume that all their patients illnesses are accounted for by disease pathology if they can label those patients whose somatic complaints do not fit this assumption as really psychiatric. Psychiatry can only continue in its belief that these somatic complaints are really based purely in psychopathology by labelling them as having somatoform disorders, with the associated and dubious implications of somatisation (DeGucht & Fischler, 2002).
We predict that the abolition of somatoform disorders would have a positive impact on both medicine and psychiatry. Medicine would have to accept that many of its patients are poorly served by a focus solely on pathologically defined disease, and pay more attention to symptoms. Psychiatry would have to acknowledge that many of their patients are not well served by a focus solely on supposed psychopathology, and place more weight on patients protestations that their symptoms are genuinely physical. Indeed, we believe that it would be beneficial for all medical practice if there were more emphasis on the understanding and management of patients symptoms in their own right, rather than as merely signposts to diagnosis (Kroenke & Harris, 2001). What would medical care without somatoform disorders look like?
HEALTH CARE WITHOUT SOMATOFORM DISORDERS
The size of the problem of symptoms in primary care has been highlighted by de Waal and colleagues (2004, this issue). Clearly, in any future health care system primary care must continue to have a central role in the management of patients symptoms. However, it seems to us to be naïve to assume naïve that the problem of somatic symptoms could be managed effectively by primary care alone. What might be the role for psychiatry? Existing mental health services seem unlikely to provide the solution. The limited specialist liaison psychiatry and health psychology services will undoubtedly continue to have an important role. However, we argue that they represent only a transitional and partial phase of service development. In the post-somatoform world we envisage that there will be a renewed interest by all parts of medicine in an integrated approach to patients symptoms. Such a development will require that psychological assessment and intervention are fully integrated into medical care. Readers who regard this vision as over-ambitious might be surprised to see it described as normal medical practice over 100 years ago (Sharpe & Carson, 2001).
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the increasing recognition of the size of the problem of somatic symptoms unassociated with disease is well illustrated by de Waal et al (2004, this issue). The recognition of the importance of symptoms as a subject of study in their own right is both overdue and welcome. The question we all now need to ask is: does diagnosing these somatic symptoms as somatoform disorders help or hinder us, not only in our efforts to understand and treat this neglected group of patients, but also in our overall approach to human illness?
REFERENCES
American Psychiatric Association (1980) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3rd edn) (DSMIII) . Washington, DC: APA.
American Psychiatric Association (1987) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3rd edn, revised) (DSMIIIR) . Washington, DC: APA.
American Psychiatric Association (1994) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th edn). Washington, DC: APA.
Bass, C. & Murphy, M. (1995) Somatoform and personality disorders: syndromal comorbidity and overlapping developmental pathways. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 39, 403 -427.[CrossRef][Medline]
Bass, C., Peveler, R. & House, A. (2001)
Somatoform disorders: severe psychiatric illnesses neglected by psychiatrists.
British Journal of Psychiatry,
179, 11-14.
DeGucht, V. & Fischler, B. (2002)
Somatization: a critical review of conceptual and methodological issues.
Psychosomatics, 43, 1
-9.
de Waal, M. W. M., Arnold, I. A., Eekhof, J. A. H., et
al (2004) Somatoform disorders in general practice.
Prevalence, functional impairment and comorbidity with anxiety and depressive
disorders. British Journal of Psychiatry,
184, 470
-476.
Escobar, J. I. & Gara, M. A. (1999) DSMIV somatoform disorders: do we need a new classification? General Hospital Psychiatry, 21, 154 -156.[CrossRef][Medline]
Kendell, R. & Jablensky, A. (2003)
Distinguishing between the validity and utility of psychiatric diagnoses.
American Journal of Psychiatry,
160, 4-12.
Kroenke, K. & Harris, L. (2001) Symptoms
research: a fertile field. Annals of Internal
Medicine, 134, 801
-802.
Martin, R. D. (1999) The somatoform conundrum: a question of nosological values. General Hospital Psychiatry, 21, 177 -186.[CrossRef][Medline]
Mayou, R. A. (1991) Medically unexplained physical symptoms. BMJ, 303, 534 -535.[Medline]
Phillips, K. A., Greenberg, B. D. & Rasmussen, S. A. (2003) Should the DSM diagnostic groupings be changed? In Advancing DSM. Dilemmas in Psychiatric Diagnosis (eds K. A. Phillips, M. B. First & H. A. Pincus), pp. 57 -84. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.
Ruo, B., Rumsfeld, J. S., Hlatky, M. A., et al
(2003) Depressive symptoms and health-related quality of
life: the Heart and Soul Study. JAMA,
290, 215.
Sharpe, M. & Carson, A. J. (2001)
Unexplained somatic symptoms, functional syndromes, and
somatization: do we need a paradigm shift? Annals of Internal
Medicine, 134, 926
-930.
Sharpe, M., Mayou, R. & Bass, C. (1995) Theories, concepts and terminology. In Treatment of Functional Somatic Symptoms (eds R. Mayou, C. Bass & M. Sharpe), pp. 3 -16. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smith, G. R., Monson, R. A. & Ray, D. C. (1986) Psychiatric consultation in somatization disorder a randomized controlled study. New England Journal of Medicine, 314, 1407 -1413.[Abstract]
Stone, J., Wojcik, W., Durrance, D., et al
(2002) What should we say to patients with symptoms
unexplained by disease? The number needed to offend.
BMJ, 325, 1449
-1450.
Trimble, M. R. (1982) Functional diseases. BMJ, 285, 1768 -1770.[Medline]
Warwick, H. M. & Salkovskis, P. M. (1990) Hypochondriasis. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 28, 105-117[CrossRef][Medline]
Wessely, S., Nimnuan, C. & Sharpe, M. (1999) Functional somatic syndromes: one or many? Lancet, 354, 936 -939.[CrossRef][Medline]
World Health Organization (1992) The ICD10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders. Geneva: WHO.
Received for publication December 1, 2003. Accepted for publication February 3, 2004.
Related articles in BJP: