Somatisation is often invoked to explain pain and suffering in patients. Lipowski [34] defined somatisation as "a tendency to experience and communicate somatic distress and symptoms unaccounted for by pathological findings, to attribute them to physical illness, and to seek medical help for them" (p. 1359). His concept is widely accepted. This study investigated to what extent this conceptualisation is used in the empirical studies of pain. Studies were identified through searches from Web of Science, Pubmed and Psychinfo databases for the period from 1989 until 2007. Screening an initial set of 1020 articles resulted in 120 articles fulfilling inclusion criteria. One hundred and sixteen articles were retrieved and coded in terms of the conceptualisation of Lipowski [34]. All studies had a measure of somatic symptoms, most often questionnaires. Whether the symptoms were unaccounted for by pathological findings was rarely investigated. No study assessed whether the participants attributed the somatic complaints to physical illness. Most studies included patients seeking help in a clinical setting, but only one study investigated whether patients were seeking help for the somatisation complaints. In conclusion, no study fulfilled the construct criteria as defined by Lipowski [34]. Most studies focus upon the extent and diversity of somatic complaints. We recommend that researchers who use self-report instruments do not use the term "somatisation" (even if the instrument is labeled as a "somatisation" scale), but use the term "multiple physical symptoms" instead. The current operational use may unduly lead to a "psychologisation" of physical complaints.

The present studies investigate differences in well-being between Turkish immigrants, Belgian majority members, and Turkish majority members. Furthermore, the relationships between two acculturation dimensions (adaptation and maintenance) and well-being is investigated within the immigrant group. In a first study, somatic well-being is studied in a sample of 519 Belgian majority members, 229 Turkish immigrants, and 232 Turkish majority members. Turkish immigrants reported the most somatic complaints, followed by Turkish majorities and Belgian majorities. No relationships with acculturation were found. In a second study, emotional well-being (sadness/anxiety, anger, and positive emotions) was investigated in 519 Belgians, 151 Turkish immigrants, and 200 Turkish majority members. No differences were found for sadness/anxiety. Turkish majority members report less anger than the other two groups. For positive emotions, Turkish majority members score the lowest, followed by the Turkish immigrant group and the Belgian majority members. In the immigrant group only adaptation was associated with more positive emotions. Both studies demonstrate that indices of well-being behave differently in cross-cultural comparative research.

These results indicate that the somatic differences do not result from a trade-off between somatization and psychologization, but that emotions mediate differences in somatic processes to a large extent. It was also found that differences between Turkish immigrants and Belgian majority members are to be attributed to acculturative transition, rather than to acculturative stress.

Acknowledgments:

No abstract