No abstract

No abstract

In this paper, we examine some of the conceptual, pragmatic and moral dilemmas intrinsic to psychosomatic explanation in medicine, psychiatry and psychology. Psychosomatic explanation invokes a social grey zone in which ambiguities and conflicts about agency, causality and moral responsibility abound. This conflict reflects the deep-seated dualism in Western ontology and concepts of personhood that plays out in psychosomatic research, theory and practice. Illnesses that are seen as psychologically mediated tend also to be viewed as less real or legitimate. New forms of this dualism are evident in philosophical attacks on Engel’s biopsychosocial approach, which was a mainstay of earlier psychosomatic theory, and in the recent Research Domain Criteria research programme of the US National institute of Mental Health which opts for exclusively biological modes of explanation of illness. We use the example of resignation syndrome among refugee children in Sweden to show how efforts to account for such medically unexplained symptoms raise problems of the ascription of agency. We argue for an integrative multilevel approach that builds on recent work in embodied and enactive cognitive science. On this view, agency can have many fine gradations that emerge through looping effects that link neurophenomenology, narrative practices and cultural affordances in particular social contexts. This multilevel ecosocial view points the way towards a renewed biopsychosocial approach in training and clinical practice that can advance person-centred medicine and psychiatry.

While social science research has demonstrated the importance of culture in shaping psychiatric illness, clinical methods for assessing the cultural dimensions of illness have not been adopted as part of routine care. Reasons for limited integration include the impression that attention to culture requires specialized skills, is only relevant to a subset of patients from unfamiliar backgrounds, and takes too much time to be useful. The DSM-5 Cultural Formulation Interview (CFI), published in 2013, was developed to provide a simplified approach to collecting information needed for cultural assessment. It offers a 16-question interview protocol that has been field tested at sites around the world. However, little is known about how CFI implementation has affected training, health services, and clinical outcomes. This article offers a comprehensive narrative review that synthesizes peer-reviewed, published studies on CFI use. A total of 25 studies were identified, with sample sizes ranging from 1 to 460 participants. In all pilot CFI studies 960 unique subjects were enrolled, and in final CFI studies 739 were enrolled. Studies focused on how the CFI affects clinical practice; explored the CFI through research paradigms in medical communication, implementation science, and family psychiatry; and examined clinician training. In most studies, patients and clinicians reported that using the CFI improved clinical rapport. This evidence base offers an opportunity to consider implications for training, research, and clinical practice and to identify crucial areas for further research.