Social position and functional somatic disorders: The DanFunD study

Background and aim: It is generally accepted that functional somatic disorders (FSDs) are a product of biological, psychological, and social factors. Social position might be part of this complex, but the literature on this issue is currently heterogeneous and inconsistent. The aim of the present study was – in a population-based cohort – to test the hypothesis that lower social position would be associated with higher a risk of FSD. Method: The association between social position and FSD was examined in a cross-sectional study with various measures of social position (education as measured by vocational training; employment; cohabitation; subjective social status) and delimitations of FSD (irritable bowel syndrome, chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, bodily distress syndrome, and symptom profiles). The associations were analyzed using logistic regressions to calculate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Each social measure was analyzed independently and was adjusted for age and sex. Results: Lower levels of vocational training, being unemployed, and living alone were associated with higher risk of FSD, regardless of the FSD delimitation. There was also a significant negative association between subjective evaluated social status and FSD. The associations remained after multiple adjustments, and seemed to be strongest for the more severe FSD-types. Conclusions: Lower social position is associated with higher risk of FSD, especially the more severe FSD delimitations, which might constitute an especially vulnerable group. However, the mechanisms behind the relations remain unknown.

Differentiating Psychosomatic, Somatopsychic, Multisystem Illnesses, and Medical Uncertainty

There is often difficulty differentiating between psychosomatic, somatopsychic, multisystem illness, and different degrees of medical uncertainty. Uncommon, complex, and multisystem diseases are commonly misdiagnosed. Two case histories are described, and relevant terms differentiating psychosomatic, somatopsychic, and multisystem illnesses are identified, reviewed, and discussed. Adequate differentiation requires an understanding of the mind/body connection, which includes knowledge of general medicine, psychiatry, and the systems linking the body and the brain. A psychiatric diagnosis cannot be given solely based upon the absence of physical, laboratory, or pathological findings. Medically unexplained symptoms, somatoform disorder, and compensation neurosis are outdated and/or inaccurate terms. The terms subjective, nonspecific, and vague can be used inaccurately. Conversion disorders, functional disorders, psychogenic illness, factitious disorder imposed upon another (Munchausen’s syndrome by proxy), somatic symptom disorder, psychogenic seizures, psychogenic pain, psychogenic fatigue, and delusional parasitosis can be over-diagnosed. Bodily distress disorder and bodily distress syndrome are scientifically unsupported and inaccurate. Many “all in your head” conditions may be related to the microbiome and the immune system. Better education concerning the interface between medicine and psychiatry and the associated diagnostic nomenclature as well as utilizing clinical judgment and thorough assessment, exercising humility, and maintaining our roots in traditional medicine will help to improve diagnostic accuracy and patient trust.

Prevalence of functional somatic syndromes and bodily distress syndrome in the Danish population: the DanFunD study

Aims: Little is known about the prevalence and characteristics of functional somatic syndromes (FSS) such as irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), fibromyalgia (FM), chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), whiplash associated disorders (WAD), multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS), and bodily distress syndrome (BDS) in the general population when they are investigated simultaneously. Method: This cross-sectional study is based on the Danish Study of Functional Disorders (DanFunD) cohort consisting of 9656 adults from the general population. FSS and BDS were identified by questionnaires and characterized by age, sex, vocational training, physical health and comorbidity with physical and psychiatric disease. Results: In total, 16.3% (95% CI: 15.6–17.1) of the participants fulfilled the criteria for at least one FSS, ranging from 1.7% for WAD to 8.6% for CFS, and 16.1% (95% CI: 15.4–16.9) fulfilled the criteria for BDS. Cases had a high risk of poor self-perceived health, limitations in daily activities, and a high psychiatric comorbidity, all increasing with the number of syndromes in each individual. However, the associations differed across the various FSS. Mutual overlaps of IBS, FM and CFS were greater than could be expected by chance. Conclusions: FSS and BDS are prevalent in the adult Danish population, and cases have high risk of poor self-perceived health, limitation in daily activities, and psychiatric comorbidity. These associations were particularly strong for cases with multiple FSS and multi-organ BDS.