Integrative group psychotherapy for patients with somatic symptom disorder: A randomized controlled trial.

The study aimed to determine whether specific integrative group psychotherapy (IGPT), based on CBT, combined with techniques of psychodynamic therapy and mindful body and emotional awareness is more effective than non-specific supportive group psychotherapy (SGPT) and treatment as usual (TAU) alone. A total of 120 SSD patients were randomly assigned to IGPT, SGPT or TAU groups. Both IGPT and SGPT showed significantly lower SSD-12 scores at the 4, 8, and 12-week follow-ups compared to TAU. No significant differences were observed between IGPT and SGPT at any follow-up point. These findings highlight the potential benefits of group psychotherapy in SSD treatment.

The distribution of somatic symptom disorder and bodily distress syndrome in general hospital outpatients in China: A multicenter cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the distribution of somatic symptom disorder (SSD) and bodily distress syndrome (BDS) and analyze the differences in psychosocial characteristics of patients with the two diagnoses. METHODS: A total of 694 general hospital outpatients completed the diagnostic interviews for SSD and BDS, and a set of questionnaires evaluating their psychosocial characteristics. A secondary analysis of these data is done. RESULTS: SSD and BDS had a moderate overlap (kappa value = 0.43). Patients who fulfilled both SSD and BDS diagnosis showed significantly higher levels of symptom-related psychological distress (SSD-12), somatic symptom severity (PHQ-15), depression (PHQ-9), and general anxiety (GAD-7), as well as lower mental and physical quality of life (SF-12) compared to patients with neither diagnosis and patients with only one diagnosis. Patients with either diagnosis were associated with significantly higher psychosocial impairments as compared to those with neither diagnosis. Patients who only met SSD had higher SSD-12 scores, whereas those with only BDS had higher PHQ-15 scores (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: SSD and BDS appear to represent somewhat different psychopathologies, with SSD more associated with psychological distress and BDS associated with greater experience of somatic symptoms. Patients fulfilling both diagnosis show higher symptom severity in various psychosocial aspects.

Differences in psychometric characteristics of outpatients with somatic symptom disorder from general hospital biomedical (neurology/gastroenterology), traditional Chinese medicine, and psychosomatic settings.

Objective: The aim of this study is to investigate the psychometric characteristics of outpatients diagnosed with somatic symptom disorder (SSD) in biomedical, Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) and psychosomatic settings. Materials and methods: A total of 697 participants who completed SCID-5 and questionnaires were presented in our former study, as 3 of them had missed questionnaire data, a total of 694 participants are presented in this study. A secondary analysis of the psychometric characteristics of Somatic Symptom Disorder-B Criteria Scale (SSD-12), Somatic Symptom Severity Scale of the Patient-Health Questionnaire (PHQ-15), Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and General Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) is done to compare differences among outpatients from the three settings of medical specialties. Results: Based on the DSM-5 criteria, 90 out of 224 (40.2%) participants enrolled in biomedical departments (represented by neurology and gastroenterology departments), 44/231 (19.0%) in TCM departments, and 101/239 (42.3%) in the psychosomatic medicine departments were diagnosed with SSD. The scores of PHQ-15 in the biomedical, TCM and psychosomatic settings were 11.08 (± 4.54), 11.02 (± 5.27) and 13.26 (± 6.20); PHQ-9 were 10.43 (± 6.42), 11.20 (± 5.46) and 13.42 (± 7.32); GAD-7 were 8.52 (± 6.22), 9.57 (± 5.06) and 10.83 (± 6.24); SSD-12 were 22.26 (± 11.53), 22.98 (± 10.96) and 25.03 (± 11.54) respectively. The scores of PHQ-15, PHQ-9 and GAD-7 in SSD patients were significantly higher in psychosomatic departments than that in biomedical settings (p < 0.05). The cutoff point for SSD-12 was ≥16 in total patients; 16, 16, 17 in biomedical, TCM and psychosomatic settings, respectively. The cutoff point for PHQ-15 was found to be ≥8 in total patients; 8, 9, 11 in biomedical, TCM and psychosomatic settings, respectively. Conclusion: SSD patients from psychosomatic departments had higher level of somatic symptom severity, depression and anxiety than from TCM and biomedical settings. In our specific sample, a cutoff point of ≥16 for SSD-12 could be recommended in all three settings. But the cutoff point of PHQ-15 differs much between different settings, which was ≥8, 9, and 11 in biomedical, TCM, and psychosomatic settings, respectively.

A multicenter study of bodily distress syndrome in Chinese outpatient hospital care: prevalence and associations with psychosocial variables.

BACKGROUND: Bodily distress syndrome (BDS) is a new, empirical-based diagnosis of functional somatic symptoms. This study aimed to explore the prevalence of BDS and its association with psychosocial variables in a Chinese clinical population. METHODS: A multicentre cross-sectional study of 1269 patients was conducted in 9 different Chinese tertiary outpatient hospitals. The BDS was identified by trained interviewers face-to face, based on a brief version of the Schedules for Assessment in Neuropsychiatry (RIFD) and the BDS Checklist-25. Sociodemographic data and further information were characterised from psychometric questionnaires (The Patient Health Questionnaire-15, the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, the General Anxiety Disorder-7, the Whiteley scale-8) . RESULTS: Complete data were available for 697 patients. The prevalence of BDS was 26.8% (95% confidence interval (CI): 23.5-30.1). Among the participants, 5.8% (95% CI: 4.1-7.6) fulfilled the criteria for single-organ BDS, while 20.9% (95%CI: 17.9-24.0) had multi-organ BDS. Comparison of the PHQ-15, PHQ-9, GAD-7, and WI-8 scores revealed higher scores on all dimensions for patients with BDS. In a binary logistic regression analysis, BDS was significantly associated with increased health-related anxiety (WI-8) and depression (PHQ-9). The explained variance was Nagelkerke's R2 = 0.42. CONCLUSIONS: In China, the BDS is a common clinical condition in tertiary outpatient hospital settings with high prevalence, and is associated with health anxiety and depressive symptoms. In this clinical population, the severe multi-organ subtype of BDS was the most frequent.

Detecting DSM-5 somatic symptom disorder in general hospitals in China: B-criteria instrument has better accuracy-A secondary analysis.

Objective: This study investigates the diagnostic accuracy of the PHQ-15, SSS-8, SSD-12 and Whitley 8 and their combination in detecting DSM-5 somatic symptom disorder in general hospitals. Methods: In our former multicenter cross-sectional study enrolling 699 outpatients from different departments in five cities in China, SCID-5 for SSD was administered to diagnose SSD and instruments including PHQ-15, SSS-8, SSD-12 and WI-8 were used to evaluate the SSD A and B criteria. In this secondary analysis study, we investigate which instrument or combination of instrument has best accuracy for detecting SSD in outpatients. Receiver operator curves were created, and area under the curve (AUC) analyses were assessed. The sensitivity and specificity were calculated for the optimal individual cut points. Results: Data from n = 694 patients [38.6% male, mean age: 42.89 years (SD = 14.24)] were analyzed. A total of 33.9% of patients fulfilled the SSD criteria. Diagnostic accuracy was moderate or good for each questionnaire (PHQ-15: AUC = 0.72; 95% CI = 0.68-0.75; SSS-8: AUC = 0.73; 95% CI = 0.69-0.76; SSD-12: AUC = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.81-0.86; WI-8: AUC = 0.81; 95% CI = 0.78-0.84). SSD-12 and WI-8 were significantly better at predicting SSD diagnoses. Combining PHQ-15 or SSS-8 with SSD-12 or WI-8 showed similar diagnostic accuracy to SSD-12 or WI-8 alone (PHQ-15 + SSD-12: AUC = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.81-0.87; PHQ-15 + WI-8: AUC = 0.82; 95% CI = 0.79-0.85; SSS-8 + SSD-12: AUC = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.81-0.87; SSS-8 + WI-8: AUC = 0.82; 95% CI = 0.79-0.84). In the efficiency analysis, both SSD-12 and WI-8 showed good efficiency, SSD-12 slightly more efficient than WI-8; however, within the range of good sensitivity, the PHQ-15 and SSS-8 delivered rather poor specificity. For a priority of sensitivity over specificity, the cutoff points of ≥13 for SSD-12 (sensitivity and specificity = 80 and 72%) and ≥17 for WI-8 (sensitivity and specificity = 80 and 67%) are recommended. Conclusions: In general hospital settings, SSD-12 or WI-8 alone may be sufficient for detecting somatic symptom disorder, as effective as when combined with the PHQ-15 or SSS-8 for evaluating physical burden.

Validation of the Chinese version bodily distress syndrome checklist in Chinese out-patients of general hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: The 25-item Bodily Distress Syndromes (BDS) checklist was developed to assess BDS symptoms with high validity and reliability. The aim of this study was to reveal the psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the BDS checklist in Chinese outpatients of general hospitals. METHOD: A cross-sectional study was carried out in nine Chinese general hospitals, consisting of three different medicine settings: biomedicine, traditional medicine, and psychosomatic medicine. The 25-item BDS checklist was translated into the Chinese version and conducted on outpatients from all nine centers. We performed validity and reliability analyses, including test-retest reliability, construct validity, and internal consistency reliability, on the collected checklist data. The convergent validity of the BDS checklist was analyzed with Pearson's Coefficient vs. Patient Health Questionnaire-15 (PHQ-15). The discriminant validity of the BDS checklist was analyzed with Pearson's Coefficient vs. Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), General Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) and Whiteley-8 (WI-8). RESULTS: A total of 699 patients were included in this study. The test-retest reliability, construct validity, and internal consistency reliability of the Chinese version of the BDS were satisfactory in our study. Factor analyses identified five distinct determining factors: cardiopulmonary, gastric, intestinal, musculoskeletal, and general symptoms. Pearson's coefficients were found to be high in both discriminant validity and convergent validity analyses. CONCLUSION: The results provide empirical support for the Chinese version of the BDS checklist in patients in general hospitals. The Chinese version of the BDS checklist is potentially valuable for case finding in both clinical practice and research in Chinese.

Assessment of the structured clinical interview (SCID) for DSM-5 for somatic symptom disorder in general hospital outpatient clinics in China.

BACKGROUND: It is still unknown whether the "Somatic symptom disorders (SSD) and related disorders" module of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5, research version (SCID-5-RV), is valid in China. This study aimed to assess the SCID-5-RV for SSD in general hospital outpatient clinics in China. METHODS: This multicentre cross-sectional study was conducted in the outpatient clinics of nine tertiary hospitals in Beijing, Jincheng, Shanghai, Wuhan, and Chengdu between May 2016 and March 2017. The "SSD and related disorders" module of the SCID-5-RV was translated, reversed-translated, revised, and used by trained clinical researchers to make a diagnosis of SSD. Several standardized questionnaires measuring somatic symptom severity, emotional distress, and quality of life were compared with the SCID-5-RV. RESULTS: A total of 699 patients were recruited, and 236 were diagnosed with SSD. Of these patients, 46 had mild SSD, 78 had moderate SSD, 100 had severe SSD, and 12 were excluded due to incomplete data. The SCID-5-RV for SSD was highly correlated with somatic symptom severity, emotional distress, and quality of life (all P < 0.001) and could distinguish nonsevere forms of SSD from severe ones. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that SCID-5-RV for SSD can distinguish SSD from non-SSD patients and severe cases from nonsevere cases. It has good discriminative validity and reflects the DSM-5 diagnostic approach that emphasizes excessive emotional, thinking, and behavioural responses related to symptoms.

Validation of the Chinese Version of the Somatic Symptom Disorder-B Criteria Scale for Detecting DSM-5 Somatic Symptom Disorders: A Multicenter Study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to validate the Chinese version of the Somatic Symptom Disorder-B Criteria Scale (SSD-12) in an outpatient sample from Chinese general hospitals and to determine the diagnostic performance of the SSD-12 as a screening tool for somatic symptom disorder (SSD). METHODS: The Chinese version of the SSD-12 was completed by 699 outpatients from nine general hospitals during a 16-month period (2016-2018). The SSD section of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM Disorders, Fifth Edition, Research Version, was used to determine diagnostic accuracy (criterion validity). The construct validity of the SSD-12 was evaluated by examining correlations with the Whiteley Index-7, Patient Health Questionnaire-15, Patient Health Questionnaire-9, General Anxiety Disorder-7, World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule, and Medical Outcome Study 12-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12). RESULTS: The SSD-12 had excellent internal consistency in this sample (Cronbach α = .95). Confirmatory factor analyses replicated a three-factor structure that reflects the cognitive, affective, and behavioral aspects (Comparative Fit Index = 0.963, Tucker-Lewis Index = 0.952, root mean square error of approximation = 0.08, 90% confidence interval = 0.08-0.09), but was also consistent with a general one-factor model of the SSD-12 (Comparative Fit Index = 0.957, Tucker-Lewis Index = 0.948, root mean square error of approximation = 0.09, 90% confidence interval = 0.08-0.10). The optimal cutoff point for the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM Disorders-based diagnosis of SSD was 16 (sensitivity = 0.76, specificity = 0.80). The SSD-12 sum score was significantly associated with somatic symptom burden (Patient Health Questionnaire-15: r = 0.52, p < .001), health anxiety (Whiteley Index-7: r = 0.82, p < .001), depressive symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-9: r = 0.63, p < .001), general anxiety (General Anxiety Disorder-7: r = 0.64, p < .001), health-related quality of life (physical component score of SF-12: r = -0.49, p < .001; mental component score of SF-12: r = -0.61, p < .001), and health-related disabilities (World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule: r = 0.56, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Initial assessment indicates that the Chinese version of the SSD-12 has sufficient reliability and validity to warrant further testing in both research and clinical settings.

Prevalence of DSM-5 somatic symptom disorder in Chinese outpatients from general hospital care.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to explore the prevalence of somatic symptom disorder (SSD) according to DSM-5 criteria in Chinese outpatients from general hospital departments. METHODS: This multicentre cross-sectional study enrolled 699 patients from outpatient departments, including the neurology, gastroenterology, Traditional Chinese Medicine [TCM] and psychosomatic medicine departments, in five cities in China. The structured clinical interview for DSM-5 (SCID-5) for SSD was administered by trained clinical professionals to diagnose SSD. RESULTS: SSD was diagnosed in 33.8% (236/697) of all enrolled patients. The prevalence of SSD differed significantly among the departments (χ2 = 34.049, df = 2, p ≤0.001). No differences were found between SSD patients and non-SSD patients in terms of gender, residence, marital and living statuses, family income, education, employment status and lifestyle factors. However, patients with SSD reported higher levels of depression, health-related and general anxiety, lower physical and mental quality of life, higher frequency of doctor visits, increased time devoted to physical symptoms and longer duration of somatic symptoms. In a binary linear regression analysis, SSD was significantly associated with an increase in health-related anxiety, time devoted to symptoms and impact of somatic symptoms on daily life. The explained variance was Nagelkerke R2 = 0.45. CONCLUSION: There is a high prevalence of SSD in Chinese general hospital outpatient clinics. The diagnosis is associated with high levels of emotional distress and low quality of life. There is a danger of over-diagnosis if we include the mild and moderate forms of SSD. Future studies are warranted to investigate the prevalence of SSD in inpatient departments and the development of psychological interventions for these patients.