Psychosomatic Findings in Musician Patients at a Department of Hand Surgery

2001 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 144-151
Author(s):  
Claudia Spahn ◽  
Nikolaus Ell ◽  
Karin Seidenglanz
Keyword(s):  
Psychosocial Factors ◽  
Somatoform Disorders ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Somatic Symptoms ◽  
Decisive Role ◽  
Hand Surgery ◽  
Physical Symptoms ◽  
Somatoform Disorder ◽  
Minor Role ◽  
Depression And Anxiety

In the present study, the degree and frequency of symptoms of depression and anxiety as well as signs of somatoform disorders were ascertained in former musician patients of a department of hand surgery by means of standardized psychometric instruments. It was also the goal of the study to find out to what extent musicians seeking somatically oriented therapy ascribe significance to psychosocial factors regarding the etiology and the course of their ailments, and to what extent they feel psychologically stressed by their somatic symptoms. Sixty-nine musicians were evaluated. The results of the study showed a low frequency of significant ratings for depression and anxiety compared with clinical and nonclinical populations of nonmusicians, whereas there was a clear tendency toward somatization in the sample investigated. A fourth of the musicians had ratings compatible with those of psychosomatic patients, and can be classified as an at-risk group for a somatoform disorder. Three fourths of the musicians evinced a somatically oriented subjective ailment model. This means that, from their point of view, psychosocial factors play but a minor role in the etiology and the course of somatic symptoms. Three fourths of the musicians, however, stated in retrospective evaluation that they had felt psychologically stressed by their physical symptoms. All in all, the results suggest that psychosomatic aspects play a decisive role in somatic problems of musicians, and that it would seem particularly important for hand surgeons to take note of psychosocial aspects in the etiology and the course of their symptoms.

scholarly journals Somatization: A Riddle Wrapped Up in an Enigma

2020 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Somatoform Disorders ◽  
Medical Condition ◽  
Somatic Symptoms ◽  
Holistic Approach ◽  
Physical Symptoms ◽  
Somatoform Disorder ◽  
Anxiety And Depression ◽  
General Medical Condition ◽  
Detailed Evaluation ◽  
Psychiatric Conditions

A propensity to experience psychological distress and their expression in the form of somatic symptoms and to seek medical help for them is called Somatization. It is basically an inception of some psychiatric conditions like Affective Disorders (anxiety and depression) and Somatoform Disorders. A Somatoform Disorder is a category of mental disorder in which physical symptoms that suggest physical condition or injury cannot be explained fully by a general medical condition. This possibility must always be considered when patient has recurring somatic complaints for at least six months. Depression and Somatic Symptoms Disorder can easily be recognized when they present separately or in association with each other. But the main hurdle is to develop a holistic approach and strategy to not be misguided by the intimidating nature of presenting physical symptoms. For that detailed evaluation should be carried out and every single possibility along with somatization should be kept under consideration, which would enable to recognize and treat the illness earlier and save considerable amount of time and resources as well.

Cognitive-Affective Neuroscience of Somatization Disorder and Functional Somatic Syndromes: Reconceptualizing The Triad of Depression-Anxiety-Somatic Symptoms

CNS Spectrums ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 13 (5) ◽  
pp. 379-384 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dan J. Stein ◽  
Jacqueline Muller
Keyword(s):  
Major Depression ◽  
Somatoform Disorders ◽  
Somatic Symptoms ◽  
Somatoform Disorder ◽  
Somatization Disorder ◽  
Affective Neuroscience ◽  
Depression And Anxiety ◽  
Functional Somatic Syndromes ◽  
Evolutionary Mechanisms ◽  
High Comorbidity

ABSTRACTSomatization disorder is a somatoform disorder that overlaps with a number of functional somatic syndromes and has high comorbidity with major depression and anxiety disorders. Proposals have been made for revising the category of somatoform disorders, for simplifying the criteria for somatization disorder, and for emphasizing the unitary nature of the functional somatic syndromes in future classifications. A review of the cognitive-affective neuroscience of somatization disorder and related conditions suggests that overlapping psychobiological mechanisms mediate depression, anxiety, and somatization symptoms. Particular genes and environments may contribute to determining whether symptoms are predominantly depressive, anxious, or somatic, and there are perhaps also overlaps and distinctions in the distal evolutionary mechanisms that produce these symptoms.

CS03-04 - Concept of somatoform disorder

2011 ◽  
Vol 26 (S2) ◽  
pp. 1777-1777
Author(s):  
H.-P. Kapfhammer
Keyword(s):  
Anxiety Disorders ◽  
Somatoform Disorders ◽  
Diagnostic Category ◽  
Somatic Symptoms ◽  
Somatoform Disorder ◽  
The Other ◽  
Critical Issues ◽  
Medically Unexplained ◽  
The One ◽  
Medically Unexplained Somatic Symptoms

Patients presenting with bodily symptoms and complaints that are not sufficiently explained by organic pathology or well known pathophysiological mechanisms present a major challenge to any health delivery system. From a perspective of psychiatric classification these medically unexplained somatic symptoms may be diagnosed as primary psychiatric disorders such as depressive and anxiety disorders on the one hand, as somatoform disorders on the other. Among medical specialties a separate diagnostic approach is taken to conceptualize functional somatic syndromes. Unfortunately, both diagnostic systems do not conform to each other very well.The concept of somatoform disorders as outlined in DSM-III to DSM-IV-TR and in ICD-10 refers to a group of heterogeneous disorders with prominent somatic symptoms or special body-focussed anxieties, or convictions of illness. These disorders seem to indicate medical conditions that cannot, however, fully be explained either in terms of medical diagnostics or of other primary psychiatric disorders. There is one major conceptual assumption that postulates a decisive impact of psychosocial stress on the origin, onset and/or course of these somatic symptoms and complaints. And there is one major path of diagnostic steps to be taken, i.e. just to count the number of medically unexplained somatic symptoms, to determine their reference to any main organ system, to prove that they are not self-induced, to put special stress on prevailing pain symptoms and to separately assess dominant health anxieties or illness convictions.Since introduction of the diagnostic concept of somatoform disorders there have been arising many critical issues regarding the soundness of this diagnostic category. These issues, among other things, refer to a problematic mind-body dichotomy overemphasizing psychosocial and psychological factors and neglecting major neurobiological processes, to the impracticable criterion of “medically unexplained”, to the demand of conceptual clarity and coherence of this diagnostic category, to the rather trivial diagnostic procedure of just counting the number of medically unexplained somatic symptoms whereas not assessing typical dimensions of illness behaviour in a corresponding way, to the major overlap between subgroups of somatoform disorders on the one hand and factitious disorders, anxiety disorders and depressive disorders on the other, to a principal focus on the epidemiologically rare condition of somatisation disorder as core disorder thereby undervaluing much more prevalent subthreshold conditions, to the difficult communication of the whole diagnostic group to medical colleagues dealing with the same problems by using a different conceptual approach, however.These critical issues surrounding the concept of somatoform disorder will be reflected in respect of some major revisions projected in future diagnostic classification systems of DSM-V and ICD-11.

scholarly journals SILIK Syndrome: Should It Get a Special Concern in our Diagnostic Systems?

2015 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dr. Hemanta Dutta ◽  
Dr. Soumik Sengupta
Keyword(s):  
Demographic Data ◽  
Diagnostic System ◽  
Somatic Symptoms ◽  
Physical Symptoms ◽  
Somatoform Disorder ◽  
Diagnostic Systems ◽  
Demographic Profiles ◽  
Negative Findings ◽  
Icd 10 ◽  
Regional Institute

Background: Somatoform disorder is characterized by repeated presentations of physical symptoms, together with persistent requests for medical investigations, in spite of repeated negative findings and reassurances by doctors that the symptoms have no physical basis. Concept of SILIK syndrome has been derived from various patients who presents with a specific set of unspecified somatic symptoms. Aims: To assess the prevalence and socio-demographic profiles of patients presenting with a set of unspecific somatic symptoms i.e SILIK sensation Settings and design: the study was conducted in LGB Regional Institute of Mental Health. Total number of files of patients was 9232, which were analyzed in the period of 1st April/2014 to 31st March/2015. Methods: Patients are generally diagnosed by using ICD 10 criteria. The medical records of total Out Patient Department (OPD) patients attending to our OPD from 1st April/2014 to 31st March/2015 were reviewed and the file records of the patients who were diagnosed to be a case of undifferentiated somatoform disorder are selected. From the selected file records of the patients, who complained of SILIK sensation are taken for the study. Socio demographic data are recorded from the files. Results: Among 9232 patients 21% (total number-1982) suffered from a specific set of unspecified somatic symptoms which was termed as SILIK syndrome. Conclusion: A significant fraction of the patients attend our OPD with SILIK syndrome, who were still placed in inappropriate category of diagnostic system due to lack of proper dignognostic labeling. This study throws its light on these sections of the patients so that this syndrome can make its own stand in our diagnostic system.

Residual symptoms and comorbidity in panic disorder

2002 ◽  
Vol 17 (7) ◽  
pp. 399-406 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antoni Corominas ◽  
Tina Guerrero ◽  
Julio Vallejo
Keyword(s):  
Panic Disorder ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Somatoform Disorders ◽  
Somatic Symptoms ◽  
Physical Symptoms ◽  
Response To Treatment ◽  
Eysenck Personality Questionnaire ◽  
Residual Symptoms ◽  
A Minor

SummaryBackgroundThe aim of this study was to assess the outcome of the comorbid conditions of panic disorder after 1 year of treatment, emphasizing the detection of residual symptoms and their relationship to other clinical variables.MethodsSubjects (N=64) were assessed by the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R and the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. Comorbidity with other disorders, scores on Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale were assessed at baseline and after 12 months. Criteria for residual anxiety/somatic symptoms were defined.ResultsReduction in generalized anxiety disorder rates accounted for a significant decrease in comorbidity at 1-year follow-up, with regard to baseline assessment.When the more severe symptoms of the disorder had remitted, a third of the patients referred physical symptoms with some concern over a fluctuating state of anxiety. The said symptoms were neither a recurrence of panic disorder nor did they account for other anxiety or somatoform disorders. Lower scores on extraversion predict higher risk of residual symptoms.DiscussionThe persistence of residual anxiety/somatic symptoms in a third of the patients who apparently achieved a good response to treatment of panic disorder might characterize a minor form of chronic persistence of this condition.ConclusionThe subgroup of patients with residual symptoms would not be detectable by follow-up studies, which focus on the assessment of relapse of panic disorder by means of strictly defined diagnostic criteria.

scholarly journals Socio-demographic Characteristics and Psychosocial Stressors in the Children and Adolescents with Somatoform Disorders

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-46
Author(s):  
Rekha K. Jalan ◽  
Jyoti Adhikari ◽  
Mohan Belbase
Keyword(s):  
Children And Adolescents ◽  
Somatoform Disorders ◽  
Medical Condition ◽  
Conversion Disorder ◽  
Physical Symptoms ◽  
Somatoform Disorder ◽  
Demographic Characteristics ◽  
Psychosocial Stressors ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Academic Problems

Introduction: Somatoform disorders are characterized by physical symptoms that suggest a medical condition, and which are not fully explainable by general medical condition, or by the direct effects of a substance, or by another mental disorder. Objectives: to study the socio-demographic characteristics and psychosocial stressors in children and adolescents with somatoform disorders. Methods: From 1st January, 2018 to 30th  June 2018, Children and adolescents from 3 to 18 years of age with unexplained physical st thsymptoms were evaluated using DSM – IV criteria. Detailed evaluation followed for those meeting inclusion criteria. Results: Among 65 patients (18, 27.69% boys and 47, 72.31% girls) meeting inclusion criteria, conversion disorder was the most common (37, 56.92%), followed by undifferentiated somatoform disorder (15, 23.08%). Girls were significantly more represented among conversion disorder patients compared to other groups of somatoform disorders (68.08% vs. 27.78%, X2 =8.63, p<0.01) Stressors 2 were identified in 95% and acute precipitating stressors were present in 75% patients. Both the boys and girls had significantly higher rates of academic problems. Boys found to have social and environmental problems while girls had problems in primary support group. Conclusion: Somatoform disorder, particularly conversion disorder is more common and it is found more in girls. Academic problems, poor interpersonal relations and conflict in the family are the important psychosocial stressors.

scholarly journals Anxiety and Depression in Cardiac Inherited Disease: Prevalence and Association With Clinical and Psychosocial Factors

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Claire E. O'Donovan ◽  
Jonathan R. Skinner ◽  
Elizabeth Broadbent
Keyword(s):  
Social Support ◽  
Psychosocial Factors ◽  
Disease Severity ◽  
Illness Perceptions ◽  
Physical Symptoms ◽  
Disease Type ◽  
Psychological Support ◽  
Anxiety And Depression ◽  
Depression And Anxiety ◽  
Time Since Diagnosis

The small number of published studies indicate increased rates of anxiety and depression among patients with cardiac inherited diseases (CID). This study aimed to assess the prevalence of anxiety and depression in a New Zealand CID cohort and seek any associations with clinical and psychosocial factors. Patients on a national CID register were sent a survey; 202 of 563 contactable patients participated (36% response rate). Ages ranged from 16 to 83 years (median 53). Most had Long QT Syndrome (43%) or Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy (34%). Questionnaires collected demographic and psychological variables, including anxiety (GAD-7), depression (PHQ-9), illness perceptions, perceived risk and social support. The registry supplied clinical and genetic characteristics. 80 participants (42%) reported features of anxiety and/or depression. 24 (13%) reached clinical levels of depression, a greater proportion than that found in the general population. Poorer perceived social support was associated with worse anxiety (p &lt; .001) and depression (p &lt; .001) scores. Reporting more physical symptoms (p = .001) (commonly not caused by the CID) was associated with poorer depression scores and greater perceived consequences of the CID was associated with greater anxiety scores (p &lt; .05). Neither anxiety nor depression were associated with time since diagnosis, disease severity or type of disease. Forty percent of the CID population live with some degree of psychopathology but this did not correlate with disease severity, type of disease nor time since diagnosis. Correlating factors which may be modifiable include illness perceptions, various physical symptoms and social support. Rates of clinical levels of anxiety and depression in this CID sample were 10% and 13% respectively. Anxiety and depression were not associated with disease type, severity or time since diagnosis. Perceived lack of support, consequences, and symptoms were associated with depression and anxiety. High rates of anxiety and depression in CID’s indicate the need for access to psychological support. Rates of clinical levels of anxiety and depression in this CID sample were 10% and 13% respectively. Anxiety and depression were not associated with disease type, severity or time since diagnosis. Perceived lack of support, consequences, and symptoms were associated with depression and anxiety. High rates of anxiety and depression in CID’s indicate the need for access to psychological support.

scholarly journals Somatoform Disorders

Psychology ◽  
2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karl Julian Looper ◽  
Laurence J. Kirmayer
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Somatoform Disorders ◽  
Medical Condition ◽  
Diagnostic Category ◽  
Medically Unexplained Symptoms ◽  
Physical Symptoms ◽  
Somatoform Disorder ◽  
Somatization Disorder ◽  
Diagnostic Challenge

Around the world, physical symptoms are the most common manifestation of psychological distress. This seeming contradiction presents a diagnostic challenge for health care professionals who are consulted to provide treatment and illness management. In many situations, it is difficult to clearly identify the psychological cause of physical symptoms, and, at times, it is equally difficult to exclude the possibility of an underlying biomedical process. This clinical challenge has led to the construction of the diagnostic category of somatoform disorders, a group of psychiatric disorders characterized by the presence of physical symptoms causing significant distress or functional impairment that cannot be fully explained by a general medical condition, substance use, or any other mental disorder. This category of disorders was established based on clinical utility and the need to exclude medical causes in health care settings rather than on a theoretical model of psychopathology or shared etiology. In the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR, American Psychiatric Association 2000, cited under Classification), the somatoform disorders include somatization disorder, hypochondriasis, body dysmorphic disorder, conversion disorder, pain disorder, undifferentiated somatoform disorder, and somatoform disorder not otherwise specified. Some authors prefer other terminology, including use of the terms medically unexplained symptoms, emphasizing the uncertainty about diagnosis, or functional somatic syndromes, suggesting that symptoms are due to disturbances in the function of psychophysiological systems rather than structural or anatomical pathology.

Challenges in the Diagnostic Conceptualization of CRPS-1 (Formerly Conceptualized as RSD)

2006 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-3, 9-12
Author(s):  
Robert J. Barth ◽  
Tom W. Bohr
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Complex Regional Pain Syndrome ◽  
Somatoform Disorders ◽  
International Association ◽  
Pain Syndrome ◽  
Somatoform Disorder ◽  
Syndrome Type ◽  
Previous Issue

Abstract From the previous issue, this article continues a discussion of the potentially confusing aspects of the diagnostic formulation for complex regional pain syndrome type 1 (CRPS-1) proposed by the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP), the relevance of these issues for a proposed future protocol, and recommendations for clinical practice. IASP is working to resolve the contradictions in its approach to CRPS-1 diagnosis, but it continues to include the following criterion: “[c]ontinuing pain, which is disproportionate to any inciting event.” This language only perpetuates existing issues with current definitions, specifically the overlap between the IASP criteria for CRPS-1 and somatoform disorders, overlap with the guidelines for malingering, and self-contradiction with respect to the suggestion of injury-relatedness. The authors propose to overcome the last of these by revising the criterion: “[c]omplaints of pain in the absence of any identifiable injury that could credibly account for the complaints.” Similarly, the overlap with somatoform disorders could be reworded: “The possibility of a somatoform disorder has been thoroughly assessed, with the results of that assessment failing to produce any consistencies with a somatoform scenario.” The overlap with malingering could be addressed in this manner: “The possibility of malingering has been thoroughly assessed, with the results of that assessment failing to produce any consistencies with a malingering scenario.” The article concludes with six recommendations, and a sidebar discusses rating impairment for CRPS-1 (with explicit instructions not to use the pain chapter for this purpose).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document