Search

Objective: Despite attempts in psychiatry to adopt an integrative biopsychosocial model, social scientists have observed that psychiatrists continue to operate according to a mind-brain dichotomy in ways that are often covert and unacknowledged and suggest that the same intuitive cognitive schemas that people use to make judgments of responsibility lead to dualistic reasoning among clinicians. The goal of this study was to confirm these observations. Method: Self-report questionnaires were sent to the 270 psychiatrists and psychologists in the Department of Psychiatry at McGill University. In response to clinical vignettes, the participants rated the level of intentionality, controllability, responsibility, and blame attributable to the patients, as well as the importance of neurobiological, psychological, and social factors in explaining the patients' symptoms. Results: A total of 136 faculty members (50.4%) responded, and 127 were included in the analysis. Factor analysis revealed a single dimension of responsibility regarding the patients' illnesses that correlated positively with ratings of psychological etiology and negatively with ratings of neurobiological etiology. Psychological and neurobiological ratings were inversely correlated. Multivariate analyses of variance supported these results. Conclusions: Mental health professionals continue to employ a mind-brain dichotomy when reasoning about clinical cases. The more a behavioral problem is seen as originating in 'psychological' processes, the more a patient tends to be viewed as responsible and blameworthy for his or her symptoms; conversely, the more behaviors are attributed to neurobiological causes, the less likely patients are to be viewed as responsible and blameworthy.

Objective: DSM-I I introduced somatoform disorders as a speculative diagnostic category for somatic symptoms 'not explained by a general medical condition.' Although retained and enlarged in DSM-IV, somatoform disorders have been the subject of continuing criticism by both professionals and patients. The extended period of preparation for DSM-V offers an important opportunity to reconsider the category of somatoform disorders. Method: Exploration of the diverse aims of a diagnostic classification indicates that the authors must not only address the conceptual and practical problems associated with this category but also reconcile it with the parallel medical descriptive classification of functional symptoms and syndromes. Results: The existing somatoform disorders categories require modification. The authors favor the radical option of the abolition of the categories. Diagnoses currently within somatoform disorders could be redistributed into other groupings, and the disorders currently defined solely by somatic symptoms could be placed on axis III as 'functional somatic symptoms and syndromes.' Greater use could be made of 'psychological factors affecting medical condition' on axis I. The authors suggest supplementing the diagnosis of functional somatic symptoms with a multiaxial formulation. Conclusions: The authors promote a classification of somatic symptoms in DSM-V that is compatible with that used in general medicine and offers new opportunities both for research into the etiology and treatment of symptoms and for the greater integration of psychiatry into general medical practice.

Objective: The authors examined the effect of patients' style of clinical presentation on primary care physicians' recognition of depression and anxiety. Method: The subjects were 685 patients attending family medicine clinics on self-initiated visits. They completed structured interviews assessing presenting complaints, self-report measures of symptoms and hypochondriacal worry, the Diagnostic Interview Schedule (DIS), and the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D). Physician recognition was determined by notation of any psychiatric condition in the medical chart over the ensuing 12 months. Results: The authors identified three progressively more persistent forms of somatic presentations, labeled 'initial,' 'facultative,' and 'true' somatization. Of 215 patients with CES-D scores of 16 or higher, 80% made somatized presentations; of 75 patients with DIS-diagnosed major depression or anxiety disorder, 76% made somatic presentations. Among patients with DIS major depression or anxiety disorder, somatization reduced physician recognition from 77%, for psychosocial presenters, to 22%, for true somatizers. The same pattern was found for patients with high CES-D scores. In logistic regression models education, seriousness of concurrent medical illness, hypochondriacal worry, and number of lifetime medically unexplained symptoms each increased the likelihood of recognition, while somatized presentations decreased the rate of recognition. Conclusions: While physician recognition of psychiatric distress in primary care varied widely with different criteria for recognition, the same pattern of reduction of recognition with increasing level of somatization was found for all criteria. In contrast, hypochondriacal worry and medically unexplained somatic symptoms increased the rate of recognition. (Am J Psychiatry 1993; 150:734-741)