Search

Background: A number of studies have documented psychosocial problems, psychiatric morbidity and impaired quality of life in primary care patients.Objective: The aim of this trial was to test the usefulness of the joint use of different diagnostic interviews and self-rated questionnaires.Methods: Two hundred consecutive patients in a primary care practice in Italy underwent the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 and the Semi-Structured Interview for the Diagnostic Criteria for Psychosomatic Research (DCPR) in its recently revised form. As self-rated evaluations, the PsychoSocial Index, the Short-Form Health Survey and the Illness Attitude Scales were administered.Results: There were 46 patients (23%) with at least 1 DSM-5 diagnosis. Eighty-eight patients (44%) had at least 1 DCPR diagnosis, mainly maladaptive illness behavior (26.5%), allostatic overload (15.5%) and demoralization (15%). There were 47 (23.5%) patients who had a DCPR diagnosis only; 5 subjects (2.5%) had a DSM diagnosis only. Patients with DCPR syndromes displayed significantly higher self-rated levels of stress, psychological distress and maladaptive illness behavior and significantly lower levels of quality of life and well-being than patients with no diagnoses.Conclusions: In a busy clinical setting, a simple self-rated questionnaire such as the PsychoSocial Index may afford a useful tool to unveil patient current distress. The DCPR can provide clinical information for a substantial number of patients who do not satisfy DSM-5 classification criteria and yet present with psychosocial problems, as measured by self-rated scales. The DCPR may improve the assessment and treatment plan of primary care psychologists or consulting psychiatrists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Psychosocial Index (PSI) is a self-rating scale based on clinimetric principles that is simple to use in a busy clinical setting. It can be integrated by observer-rated clinical judgment, providing a first-line, comprehensive assessment of stress, well-being, distress, illness behavior, and quality of life. By calculation of scores, it can be used for conventional psychological measurements. Its clinical applications and clinimetric properties are reviewed. The present version of the PSI has been slightly revised. In addition, a modified version for use in adolescents and young adults (PSI-Young; PSI-Y) is also included.Methods: Articles that involved the use of the PSI were identified by searching the Web of Science database from 1998 to February 2016 and by a manual search of the literature.Results: A total of 20 studies reporting results from the use of PSI were included. The PSI has been employed in various clinical populations in different countries and showed high sensitivity. It significantly discriminated varying degrees of psychosocial impairment in different populations. When subjects were identified by categorical criteria (presence of allostatic overload, psychosomatic syndromes, psychiatric disorders), the PSI scores were significantly different across subgroups.Conclusions: In clinical practice, scanning the list of symptoms allows clinicians to assess rapidly which symptoms and problems are perceived as most troublesome. In research settings, the use of scores makes the PSI a valid and sensitive tool in differentiating levels of psychosocial variables among groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We would like to add further data on the clinical utility of the ES, in association with another clinimetric index: a self-rating scale for the assessment of mental pain - the Mental Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) [[3]]. With regard to the ES, patients who received at least one DSM-5 diagnosis reported significantly lower scores (mean = 5.26; SD = 2.36; I F i (1, 148) = 59.851; I p i < 0.001) than those with no diagnoses (mean = 8.31, SD = 1.94), particularly in case of mood disorders (mean = 4.56; SD = 2.42; I F i (1, 118) = 42.973; I p i < 0.001). Thus, both the MPQ and the ES significantly discriminated between patients presenting with at least one DSM-5 or DCPR-R diagnosis and those who had no diagnoses, displaying good sensitivity and discriminating between different patient subgroups. [Extracted from the article]