Accessible Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter October 1, 2017

Comparison of patients diagnosed with “complex pain” and “somatoform pain”

Peter la Cour

Abstract

Background and aim

Chronic pain conditions can be diagnosed and treated in both somatic and psychiatric settings. It is still a discussed and unanswered question whether the two groups of patients differ. The purpose of this short article is to inform further reflections concerning the classifications of somatoform pain and complex pain.

Method

Sociodemographic and questionnaire data concerning anxiety and depression, perceived injustice, well-being, and levels of psycho-physiological functioning were compared for patients diagnosed with complex pain (somatic diagnosis) at a pain clinic and somatoform pain (psychiatric diagnosis) at a Liaison-psychiatric clinic.

Results

Very little differences were found between patients with complex pain (N = 162) and somatoform conditions (N = 89). Both patient groups were seriously impaired both physically and mentally.

Conclusion

These comparisons lend support to the viewpoint of non-segregation of somatoform and complex pain.

Implications

Pain treatment might be better-managed in common multidisciplinary centers with specialists in both pain treatment and psychiatric aid.


Knowledge Center for Functional Diseases, Mental Health Center, Nannasgade 28, 2200 Copenhagen N., Denmark. Email:

  1. Ethical issues: Data collection was performed in accordance with the guidelines for the Danish national scientific ethics committee, and the database was approved by the national Danish Data Protection Agency.

  2. Conflicts of interest: There is no conflict of interests.

References

[1] Merskey H. The history of pain and hysteria. NeuroRehabilitation 1997;8:157–62, http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/NRE-1997-8302. Search in Google Scholar

[2] Mendell LMLM. Constructing and deconstructing the gate theory of pain. Pain 2014;155:210–6, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016Zj.pain.2013.12.010. Search in Google Scholar

[3] Bourke JH, Langford RM, White PD. The common link between functional somatic syndromes may be central sensitisation. J Psychosom Res 2015;78:228–36 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/jjpsychores.2015.01.003. Search in Google Scholar

[4] Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1983;67:361–70. Search in Google Scholar

[5] Bjelland I, Dahl AA, Haug TT, Neckelmann D. The validity of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale - an updated literature review. J Psychosom Res 2002;52:69–78. Search in Google Scholar

[6] Harter Katrin Gross-Hardt, Jurgen Bengel, Martin KR. Screening for anxiety, depressive and somatoform disorders in rehabilitation - validity of HADS and GHQ-12 in patients with musculoskeletal disease. Disabil Rehabil 2001;23:737–44. Search in Google Scholar

[7] Pallant JF, Bailey CM. Assessment of the structure of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale in musculoskeletal patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2005;3:82. Search in Google Scholar

[8] Sullivan MJL, Adams H, Horan S, Maher D, Boland D, Gross R. The role of perceived injustice in the experience of chronic pain and disability: scale development and validation. J Occup Rehabil 2008;18:249–61, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10926-008-9140-5. Search in Google Scholar

[9] la Cour P, Smith AA, Schultz R. Validation of the Danish Language Injustice Experience Questionnaire. J Health Psychol 2015, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1359105315616178. Search in Google Scholar

[10] Bech P, Olsen LR, Kjoller M, Rasmussen NK. Measuring well-being rather than the absence of distress symptoms: a comparison of the SF-36 Mental Health subscale and the WHO-Five well-being scale. 1nt J Methods Psychiatr Res 2003;12:85–91. Search in Google Scholar

[11] Ware Jr JE, Gandek B. The SF-36 health survey: development and use in mental health research and the IQOLA project. Int J Ment Health 1994:49–73. Search in Google Scholar

[12] Bjorner JB, Damsgaard MT, Watt T, Groenvold M. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability of the Danish SF-36. J Clin Epidemiol 1998;51:1001–11. Search in Google Scholar

[13] WareJr JE, Kosinski M, Bayliss MS, McHorney CA, Rogers WH, Raczek A. Comparison of methods for the scoring and statistical analysis of SF-36 health profile and summary measures: summary of results from the Medical Out comes Study. Med Care 1995:AS264–79. Search in Google Scholar

[14] Jenkinson C, Stewart-Brown S, Petersen S, Paice C. Assessment of the SF-36 version 2 in the United Kingdom. J Epidemiol Community Health 1999;53:46–50. Search in Google Scholar

[15] Angst F, Aeschlimann A, Stucki G. Smallest detectable and minimal clinically important differences of rehabilitation intervention with their implications for required sample sizes using WOMAC and SF-36 quality of life measurement instruments in patients with osteoarthritis of the lower extremities. Arthritis Rheum 2001;45:384–91, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1529-0131(200108)45:4384::A1D-ART352>3.0.CO;2-0_ Search in Google Scholar

[16] Auffinger B, Lam S, Shen J, Thaci B, Roitberg BZ. Usefulness of minimum clinically important difference for assessing patients with subaxial degenerative cervical spine disease: statistical versus substantial clinical benefit. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2013;155:2345–54, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00701-013-1909-4, discussion 2355. Search in Google Scholar

[17] Merskey H. Somatization: or another God that failed. Pain 2009;145:4–5, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016Zj.pain.2009.04.031. Search in Google Scholar

[18] Merskey H. Chronic pain and psychiatric problems. In: VanGriensven H, Strong J, Unruh AM, editors. Pain: a text book for health professionals. 2nd ed. Churchill Livingstone; 2014. p. 383-94. Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2017-04-11
Revised: 2017-06-15
Accepted: 2017-07-05
Published Online: 2017-10-01
Published in Print: 2017-10-01

© 2017 Scandinavian Association for the Study of Pain