Journal of psychosomatic research · 2013
Descriptive and predictive validity of somatic attributions in patients with somatoform disorders: a systematic review of quantitative research.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Douzenis Athanassios, Seretis Dionysis
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Research on hypochondriasis and other somatoform disorders (SFD) has provided evidence that patients with SFD tend to attribute their symptoms to organic dysfunctions or disease. However, recent studies appear to discredit this. There is no systematic evidence on whether patients with SFD predominantly rely on somatic attributions, despite calls to include somatic attributions as a positive criterion of somatic symptom disorder (SSD) in the upcoming Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5).
METHODS: This study is a systematic review of quantitative studies which assess the descriptive and predictive validity of somatic attribution in SFD. The literature search was restricted to studies with patients who met the DSM-IV criteria for SFD.
RESULTS: Somatic attribution style in SFD has acceptable descriptive but insufficient predictive validity. This confirms that the overlap between somatic and psychological attributions is often substantial. Attribution style can discriminate between SFD patients with and without comorbidity.
CONCLUSION: A somatic attribution style does not qualify as a positive criterion in SSD. However, there is an urgent need for further research on causal illness perceptions in the full spectrum of medically unexplained symptoms in order to confirm this result. Given its high prevalence, research on psychological attribution style is warranted. Re-attribution does not provide a framework sophisticated enough to address the needs of patients in primary care.
METHODS: This study is a systematic review of quantitative studies which assess the descriptive and predictive validity of somatic attribution in SFD. The literature search was restricted to studies with patients who met the DSM-IV criteria for SFD.
RESULTS: Somatic attribution style in SFD has acceptable descriptive but insufficient predictive validity. This confirms that the overlap between somatic and psychological attributions is often substantial. Attribution style can discriminate between SFD patients with and without comorbidity.
CONCLUSION: A somatic attribution style does not qualify as a positive criterion in SSD. However, there is an urgent need for further research on causal illness perceptions in the full spectrum of medically unexplained symptoms in order to confirm this result. Given its high prevalence, research on psychological attribution style is warranted. Re-attribution does not provide a framework sophisticated enough to address the needs of patients in primary care.