No abstract

No abstract

Background In 2013, the diagnosis of somatic symptom disorder (SSD) was introduced into the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). This review aims to comprehensively synthesize contemporary evidence related to SSD. Methods A scoping review was conducted using PubMed, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library. The main inclusion criteria were SSD and publication in the English language between 01/2009 and 05/2020. Systematic search terms also included subheadings for the DSM-5 text sections; i.e., diagnostic features, prevalence, development and course, risk and prognostic factors, culture, gender, suicide risk, functional consequences, differential diagnosis, and comorbidity. Results Eight hundred and eighty-two articles were identified, of which 59 full texts were included for analysis. Empirical evidence supports the reliability, validity, and clinical utility of SSD diagnostic criteria, but the further specification of the psychological SSD B-criteria criteria seems necessary. General population studies using self-report questionnaires reported mean frequencies for SSD of 12.9% [95% confidence interval (CI) 12.5–13.3%], while prevalence studies based on criterion standard interviews are lacking. SSD was associated with increased functional impairment, decreased quality of life, and high comorbidity with anxiety and depressive disorders. Relevant research gaps remain regarding developmental aspects, risk and prognostic factors, suicide risk as well as culture- and gender-associated issues. Conclusions Strengths of the SSD diagnosis are its good reliability, validity, and clinical utility, which substantially improved on its predecessors. SSD characterizes a specific patient population that is significantly impaired both physically and psychologically. However, substantial research gaps exist, e.g., regarding SSD prevalence assessed with criterion standard diagnostic interviews.

BackgroundMedically unexplained symptoms (MUS) and somatoform disorders are common in general practices, but there is evidence that general practitioners (GPs) rarely use these codes. Assuming that correct classification and coding of symptoms and diseases are important for adequate management and treatment, insights into these processes could reveal problematic areas and possible solutions. Our study aims at exploring general practitioners’ views on coding and reasons for not coding MUS/somatoform disorders.MethodsWe invited GPs to participate in six focus groups (N = 42). Patient vignettes and a semi-structured guideline were used by two moderators to facilitate the discussions. Recordings were transcribed verbatim. Two researchers analyzed the data using structuring content analysis with deductive and inductive category building.ResultsThree main categories turned out to be most relevant. For category a) “benefits of coding” GPs described that coding is seen as being done for reimbursement purposes and is not necessarily linked to the content of their reference files for a specific patient. Others reported to code specific diagnoses only if longer consultations to explore psychosomatic symptoms or psychotherapy are intended to be billed. Reasons for b) “restrained coding” were attempting to protect the patient from stigma through certain diagnoses and the preference for tentative diagnoses and functional coding. Some GPs admitted to c) “code inaccurately” attributing this to insufficient knowledge of ICD-10-criteria, time constraints or using “rules of thumb” for coding.ConclusionsThere seem to be challenges in the process of coding of MUS and somatoform disorders, but GPs appear not to contest the patients’ suffering and accept uncertainty (about diagnoses) as an elementary part of their work. From GPs’ points of view ICD-10-coding does not appear to be a necessary requirement for treating patients and coding might be avoided to protect the patients from stigma and other negative consequences. Our findings supply a possible explanation for the commonly seen difference between routine and epidemiological data. The recent developments in the DSM-5 and the upcoming ICD-11 will supposedly change acceptance and handling of these diagnoses for GPs and patients. Either way, consequences for GPs’ diagnosing and coding behavior are not yet foreseeable.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12875-018-0812-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.