Development of the Body-Relatedness Observation Scale: A feasibility study.

BackgroundOne characteristic of somatoform (DSM-IV) and somatic symptom disorder (DSM-5) is the troubled relation of patients to their body. To assess body-relatedness, standardized observation by a physical therapist may add valuable information to questionnaires. Purpose: This study examines the feasibility of a physiotherapeutic observation instrument: the Body-Relatedness Observation Scale (BROS). Methods: Factorial validity and inter-rater reliability of observer scores were studied in 191 patients performing two short exercises, lying face up. Fourteen indicators of body-relatedness were selected, covering execution of instructions, perception of the body, muscle tension, and behavioral adaptation to somatic symptoms. Results: Inter-rater reliability values (Kappa or Intraclass correlation [ICC] according to model 1,1) were excellent for four observation scores, substantial for two, fair for two, and poor for six. Four out of five items relating to patients' ability to perceive the body had low inter-rater reliability values (ICC < 0.40 or Kappa < 0.20). Categorical principal components analysis with the eight reliable scores indicated a 1-factor structure including seven items with Cronbach's alpha 0.69. Conclusion: This initial analysis of a structured physical therapeutic observation for people with somatic symptom disorder indicated modestly sound psychometric quality of observations of execution of instructions, muscle tension, and behavioral adaptation, but not of patients' ability to perceive the body adequately. This shows that body-related observations are feasible and indicates the viability of further development of the BROS.

The presentation of the mind-brain problem in leading psychiatry journals

Objective: The mind-brain problem (MBP) has marked implications for psychiatry, but has been poorly discussed in the psychiatric literature. This paper evaluates the presentation of the MBP in the three leading general psychiatry journals during the last 20 years. Methods: Systematic review of articles on the MBP published in the three general psychiatry journals with the highest impact factor from 1995 to 2015. The content of these articles was analyzed and discussed in the light of contemporary debates on the MBP. Results: Twenty-three papers, usually written by prestigious authors, explicitly discussed the MBP and received many citations (mean = 130). The two main categories were critiques of dualism and defenses of physicalism (mind as a brain product). These papers revealed several misrepresentations of theoretical positions and lacked relevant contemporary literature. Without further discussion or evidence, they presented the MBP as solved, dualism as an old-fashioned or superstitious idea, and physicalism as the only rational and empirically confirmed option. Conclusion: The MBP has not been properly presented and discussed in the three leading psychiatric journals in the last 20 years. The few articles on the topic have been highly cited, but reveal misrepresentations and lack of careful philosophical discussion, as well as a strong bias against dualism and toward a materialist/physicalist approach to psychiatry.