Fonksiyonel somatik sendromlar ve DSM-5: Zihin beden yaklaşımı açısından bir değerlendirme

Klasik anlayışla “Somatizasyon” veya “Psikosomatik” olarak ifade edilen klinik görüngüler çağdaş literatürde sıklıkla “Fonksiyonel Somatik Sendrom” üst başlığı altında değerlendirilmektedir. Ancak günümüz tıp sistemi uygulamalarında halen geçerliğini koruyan biyomedikal düalistik anlayış bu klinik görüngülere tam bir zihin-beden bütünlüğü içerisinde yaklaşılmasını engellemektedir. Bu sendrom ve semptomların tanılanmasında da DSM-IV’te “tıbben açıklanamamaları” üzerinden yapılan bir değerlendirme merkezi role sahip olmuştur. Bu türden bir bakış açısının da doğası gereği multidisipliner bir ekiple ele alınması gereken Fonksiyonel Somatik Sendromların anlaşılmasını ve ele alınmasını zorlaştırdığı söylenebilir. Öte yandan APA’nın 2013 yılında yayımladığı DSM-5 ile gelen revizyonlar, ilgili klinik görüngülerin ele alınmasında önemli bir dönüşümü başlatmış görünmektedir. Bu yeni tanısal sistemle ortaya konan revizyonlar Fonksiyonel Somatik Sendromların düalistik bakışla ele alınmasında ön planda olan temel problemleri çözmeye aday görünmektedir. Bu bağlamda bu derleme çalışmasında ilgili klinik görüngülerin tam bir “zihin-beden bütünlüğü” yaklaşımıyla ele alınabilmesi açısından DSM-5’in kritik rolünün ve güncel bakış açılarının özetlenmesi amaçlanmıştır.

Functional somatic syndromes and DSM-5: An evaluation from the standpoint of mindbody approach

Clinical phenomena, classically expressed as “Somatization” or “Psychosomatic” have become to be evaluated under the title of “Functional Somatic Syndromes” in the current literature. However, biomedical dualism which still remains valid in today's medical practice prevents these clinical phenomena from being approached in a complete mind-body integrity. In the diagnosis of these syndromes and symptoms, emphasis on “medically unexplained” of DSM-IV had a central role. Indeed, this kind of approach makes the understanding and addressing of Functional Somatic Syndromes in a multidisciplinary fashion difficult. On the other hand, the revisions on DSM-5 by APA in 2013 seem to have initiated an important reconceptualization of these clinical phenomena. These revisions seem promising for solving main problems in handling Functional Somatic Syndromes caused by a dualistic approach. Therefore, this review aimed to discuss the critical role of DSM-5 on Functional Somatic Syndromes and summarize current approaches about them by proposing a full “mind-body integration”.

___

  • American Psychiatric Association (APA). (1980). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM- III®). American Psychiatric Pub.
  • American Psychiatric Association (APA). (1994). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM- IV®). American Psychiatric Pub.
  • American Psychiatric Association (APA). (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM- 5®). American Psychiatric Pub.
  • Barsky, A.J. ve Borus, J. F. (1999). Functional somatic syndromes. Annals of Internal Medicine, 130(11), 910-921.
  • Bunge, M. (2010). The Mind-Body Problem. Bunge Mario (Ed.), The Mind-Body Problem içinde (s. 143-157).
  • Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media. Dimsdale, J. E., Creed, F., Escobar, J., Sharpe, M., Wulsin, L., Barsky, A., Lee, S., Irwin, M. R. ve Levenson, J. (2013). Somatic symptom disorder: An important change in DSM. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 75 (3), 223-228.
  • Duruk, B., Sertel-Berk, H. Ö. ve Ketenci, A. (2015). Are fibromyalgia and failed back surgery syndromes actually “functional somatic syndromes” in terms of their symptomatological, familial and psychological characteristics? A comparative study with chronic medical illness and healthy controls. Agri, 27, 123- 131.
  • Duruk, B. (2013). Fonksiyonel Somatik Sendromlar: Fibromiyalji ve Başarısız Bel Cerrahisi Sendromlarında Tıbbi Yardım Arama Davranışı ve Belirti Sayısının Psikolojik Yordayıcıları. (Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). İstanbul Üniversitesi/Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
  • Fabbri, S., Fava, G. A., Sirri, L. ve Wise, T. N. (2007). Development of a New Assessment Strategy in Psychosomatic Medicine: The Diagnostic Criteria For Psychosomatic Research. Porcelli Piero ve Sonino Nicoletta (Ed.), Psychological Factors Affecting Medical Conditions içinde (s. 1-20). Basel: Karger Publishers.
  • Fava, G. A., Freyberger, H. J., Bech, P., Christodoulou, G., Sensky, T., Theorell, T. ve Wise, T. N. (1995). Diagnostic criteria for use in psychosomatic research. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 63(1), 1-8.
  • Fava, G. A. ve Sonino, N. (2009). Psychosomatic assessment. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 78(6), 333-341.
  • Fava, G.A. ve Wise, T. N. (2007). Issues for DSM-V: Psychological factors affecting either identified or feared medical conditions: A solution for somatoform disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry, 164, 1002- 1003.
  • Fink, P., Rosendal, M. ve Olesen, F. (2005). Classification of somatization and functional somatic symptoms in primary care. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 39, 772-781.
  • Fink, P., Rosendal, M. ve Toft, T. (2002). Assessment and treatment of functional disorders in general practice: The extended reattribution and management model— An advanced educational program for nonpsychiatric doctors. Psychosomatics, 43, 93-131.
  • Fink, P. ve Schröder, A. (2010). One single diagnosis, bodily distress syndrome, succeeded to capture 10 diagnostic categories of functional somatic syndromes and somatoform disorders. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 68(5), 415-426.
  • Fink, P. ve Rosendal, M. (2008). Recent developments in the understanding and management of functional somatic symptoms in primary care. Current Opinion In Psychiatry, 21(2), 182-188.
  • Frances, A. (2013a). The new somatic symptom disorder in DSM-5 risks mislabeling many people as mentally ill. Bmj, 346, f1580.
  • Frances, A. (2013b). DSM-5 somatic symptom disorder. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 201, 530-531.
  • Gatchel, R. J. ve Dersh, J. (2002). Psychological Disorders and Chronic Pain: Are There Cause-and-Effect Relationships?. Dennis Turk ve Robert Gatchel (Ed.), Psychological Approaches to Pain Management: A Practitioner's Handbook içinde (s. 30-51). New York: Guilford Press.
  • Gol, J. M., Burger, H., Janssens, K. A., Slaets, J. P., Gans, R. O. ve Rosmalen, J. G. (2014). PROFSS: A screening tool for early identification of functional somatic symptoms. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 77, 504-509.
  • Greco, M. (2012). The classification and nomenclature of ‘medically unexplained symptoms’: Conflict, performativity and critique. Social Science & Medicine, 75, 2362-2369.
  • Guidi, J., Rafanelli, C., Roncuzzi, R., Sirri, L. ve Fava, G. A. (2013). Assessing psychological factors affecting medical conditions: Comparison between different proposals. General Hospital Psychiatry, 35(2), 141- 146.
  • Jacob, R. G., Hugo, J. A. ve Dunbar-Jacob, J. (2015). History of Psychosomatic Medicine and ConsultationLiaison Psychiatry. Kurt Ackerman ve Andrea Dimartini (Ed.) Psychosomatic Medicine içinde (s. 3- 18). New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Kirmayer, L. J. ve Taillefer, S. (1997). Somatoform disorders. Adult Psychopathology and Diagnosis, 3, 333-383.
  • Köroğlu, E. (2014). Türk psikiyatri dergisinde yayımlanan “DSM-5 Türkçe çevirisi üzerine” adlı mektuba yanıt. Türk Psikiyatri Dergisi, 25(3), 215-217.
  • Kouyanou, K., Pither, C. E., Rabe-Hesketh, S. ve Wessely, S. (1998). A comparative study of iatrogenesis, medication abuse, and psychiatric morbidity in chronic pain patients with and without medically explained symptoms. Pain, 76, 417-426.
  • Kroenke, K., Sharpe, M. ve Sykes, R. (2007). Revising the classification of somatoform disorders: Key questions and preliminary recommendations. Psychosomatics, 48, 277-285.
  • Kroenke, K. (2006). Physical symptom disorder: A simpler diagnostic category for somatization-spectrum conditions. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 60, 335-339.
  • Levenson, J. L. (2011). The somatoform disorders: 6 characters in search of an author. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 34, 515-524.
  • Löwe, B., Mundt, C., Herzog, W., Brunner, R., Backenstrass, M., Kronmüller, K. ve Henningsen, P. (2008). Validity of current somatoform disorder diagnoses: Perspectives for classification in DSM-V and ICD-11. Psychopathology, 41(1), 4-9.
  • Mayou, R. ve Farmer, A. (2002). ABC of psychological medicine: Functional somatic symptoms and syndromes. BMJ, 325(7358), 265-268.
  • Mayou, R., Kirmayer, L. J., Simon, G., Kroenke, K. ve Sharpe, M. (2005). Somatoform disorders: Time for a new approach in DSM-V. American Journal of Psychiatry, 162(5), 847-855.
  • Mayou, R. (2005). Are psychological skills necessary in treating all physical disorders?. Aust N Z J Psychiatry, 39, 800-806.
  • Oken, D. (2007). Evolution of psychosomatic diagnosis in DSM. Psychosom Med, 69, 830-831.
  • Reid, S., Crayford, T., Patel, A., Wessely, S. ve Hotopf, M. (2003). Frequent attenders in secondary care: A 3- year follow-up study of patients with medically unexplained symptoms. Psychological Medicine, 33, 519-524.
  • Rief, W. ve Broadbent, E. (2007). Explaining medically unexplained symptoms-models and mechanisms. Clinical Psychology Review, 27, 821-841.
  • Rief, W. ve Isaac, M. (2007). Are somatoform disorders ‘mental disorders’? A contribution to the current debate. Current Opinion In Psychiatry, 20(2), 143- 146.
  • Rief, W. ve Isaac, M. (2014). The future of somatoform disorders: Somatic symptom disorder, bodily distress disorder or functional syndromes?. Current Opinion In Psychiatry, 27(5), 315-319.
  • Rief, W., Martin, A., Rauh, E., Zech, T. ve Bender, A. (2006). Evaluation of general practitioners’ training: How to manage patients with unexplained physical symptoms. Psychosomatics, 47(4), 304-311.
  • Rief, W. ve Martin, A. (2014). How to use the new DSM-5 somatic symptom disorder diagnosis in research and practice: A critical evaluation and a proposal for modifications. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10, 339-367.
  • Ring, A., Dowrick, C. F., Humphris, G. M., Davies, J. ve Salmon, P. (2005). The somatising effect of clinical consultation: What patients and doctors say and do not say when patients present medically unexplained physical symptoms. Social Science & Medicine, 61(7), 1505-1515.
  • Şahin, E., Türkcan, A. S., Belene, A., Yeşilbursa, D. ve Yurt, E. (2009). Somatizasyonda kültürel ve sosyolojik faktörler. Yeni Symposium, 47(4).
  • Sayar, K. (2002). Tıbben açıklanamayan belirtiler. Türk Psikiyatri Dergisi, 13(3), 222-231.
  • Sirri, L. ve Fava, G. A. (2013). Diagnostic criteria for psychosomatic research and somatic symptom disorders. International Review of Psychiatry, 25(1), 19-30.
  • Stone, J. ve Carson, A. (2011). Functional neurologic symptoms: Assessment and management. Neurologic clinics, 29, 1-18.
  • Sullivan, P. F., Smith, W. ve Buchwald, D. (2002). Latent class analysis of symptoms associated with chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia. Psychological Medicine, 32(5), 881-888.
  • Sykes, R. (2012). Somatoform disorder and the DSM-V Workgroup's interim proposals: Two central issues. Psychosomatics, 53, 334-338.
  • Tomenson, B., Essau, C., Jacobi, F., Ladwig, K. H., Leiknes, K. A., Lieb, R., Meinlschmidt, G., Mcbeth, J., Rosmalen, J., Rief, W., Sumathipala, A. ve Creed, F. (2013). Total somatic symptom score as a predictor of health outcome in somatic symptom disorders. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 203(5), 373-380.
  • Ünal, S. (2002). Bir anlatım tarzı olarak bedenselleştirme/Somatization as an expressional style. Anadolu Psikiyatri Dergisi, 3(1), 52.