Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T14:37:21.333Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Criterion-related validity in a sample of migraine outpatients: the diagnostic criteria for psychosomatic research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 October 2019

Fiammetta Cosci Open the ORCID record for Fiammetta Cosci [Opens in a new window] ,
Andrea Svicher ,
Sara Romanazzo ,
Lucia Maggini ,
Francesco De Cesaris ,
Silvia Benemei  and
Pierangelo Geppetti
Fiammetta Cosci*
Affiliation:
Department of Health Sciences, University of Florence, Florence, Italy Department of Psychiatry & Neuropsychology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
Andrea Svicher
Affiliation:
Department of Health Sciences, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
Sara Romanazzo
Affiliation:
Department of Health Sciences, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
Lucia Maggini
Affiliation:
Department of Health Sciences, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
Francesco De Cesaris
Affiliation:
Headache and Clinical Pharmacology Center, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy
Silvia Benemei
Affiliation:
Headache and Clinical Pharmacology Center, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy
Pierangelo Geppetti
Affiliation:
Department of Health Sciences, University of Florence, Florence, Italy Headache and Clinical Pharmacology Center, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy
*
*Fiammetta Cosci, MD, MSc, PhD Email: fiammetta.cosci@unifi.it
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective.

The Diagnostic Criteria for Psychosomatic Research (DCPR) are those of psychosomatic syndromes that did not find room in the classical taxonomy. More recently, the DCPR were updated, called DCPR-revised (DCPR-R). The present study was conducted to test the criterion-related validity of the DCPR-R.

Methods.

Two hundred consecutive subjects were enrolled at the Headache Center of Careggi University Hospital (Italy): 100 subjects had a diagnosis of chronic migraine (CM) and 100 had a diagnosis of episodic migraine (EM). Participants received a clinical assessment, which included the DCPR-revised Semi-Structured Interview (DCPR-R SSI), the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 (SCID-5), and the psychosocial index (PSI).

Results.

Forty-seven subjects (23.5%) had at least one DSM-5 diagnosis: major depressive disorder (8.5%; n = 17) and agoraphobia (7.5%; n = 15) were the most frequent. One hundred and ten subjects (55%) reported a DCPR-R diagnosis: allostatic overload (29%; n = 58) and type A behavior (10.5%; n = 21) were the most frequent. When the incremental validity of the DCPR system over the DSM system was tested using PSI subscales as the criterion variable, the DCPR-R increased up to 0.11–0.24 the amount of explained variance. Subjects with at least one DCPR-R diagnosis showed lower PSI well-being scores (p = .001), higher PSI stress scores (p < .001), and higher PSI psychological distress scores (p = .008) than subjects without a DCPR-R diagnosis.

Conclusion.

The DCPR-R showed a good criterion-related validity in migraine outpatients. Thus, they might be implemented, together with the DSM-5, in the assessment of migraine subjects.

Keywords

Diagnostic criteria for psychosomatic research revised version (DCPR-R)diagnostic criteria for psychosomatic research (DCPR)migrainepsychosocial index (PSI)Statistical Manual of Mental DisordersSCID-5
Type
Original Research
Information
CNS Spectrums , Volume 25 , Issue 4 , August 2020 , pp. 545 - 551
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Engel, GL. A unified concept of health and disease. Perspect Biol Med. 1960; 3: 459–485.10.1353/pbm.1960.0020Google Scholar
Engel, GL. The need for a new medical model: a challenge for biomedicine. Science 1977; 196: 129–136.10.1126/science.847460Google Scholar
Engel, G. The clinical application of the biopsychosocial model. Am J Psychiatry. 1980; 137(5): 535–544.Google Scholar
Engel, GL. From biomedical to biopsychosocial. Psychother Psychosom. 1997; 66: 57–62.10.1159/000289109Google Scholar
Fava, GA, Sonino, N. From the lesson of george engel to current knowledge: the biopsychosocial model 40 years later. Psychother Psychosom. 2017; 86: 257–259.10.1159/000478808Google Scholar
Fava, GA, Sonino, N. The biopsychosocial model thirty years later. Psychother Psychosom. 2007; 77(1): 1–2.10.1159/000110052Google Scholar
Fava, GA. Carrozzino, D, Lindberg, L, Tomba, E. The clinimetric approach to psychological assessment: a tribute to Per Bech, MD (1942–2018). Psychother Psychosom. 2018; 87: 321–326.10.1159/000493746Google Scholar
Cosci, F, Fava, GA. The clinical inadequacy of the DSM-5 classification of somatic symptom and related disorders: an alternative trans-diagnostic model. CNS Spectr. 2015; 21(4): 310–317.10.1017/S1092852915000760Google Scholar
American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing; 2013.Google Scholar
Fava, GA, Freyberger, HJ, Bech, P, et al.Diagnostic criteria for use in psychosomatic research. Psychother Psychosom. 1995; 63(1): 1–8.10.1159/000288931Google Scholar
Mangelli, L, Semprini, F, Sirri, L, et al.Use of the diagnostic criteria for psychosomatic research (DCPR) in a community sample. Psychosomatics. 2006; 47(2): 143–146.10.1176/appi.psy.47.2.143Google Scholar
Rafanelli, C, Roncuzzi, R, Milaneschi, Y, et al.Stressful life events, depression and demoralization as risk factors for acute coronary heart disease. Psychother Psychosom. 2005; 74(3): 179–184.10.1159/000084003Google Scholar
Rafanelli, C, Roncuzzi, R, Milaneschi, Y. Minor depression as a cardiac risk factor after coronary artery bypass surgery. Psychosomatics. 2006; 47(4): 289–295.10.1176/appi.psy.47.4.289Google Scholar
Grassi, L, Sabato, S, Rossi, E, et al.Use of the diagnostic criteria for psychosomatic research in oncology. Psychother Psychosom. 2005; 74(2): 100–107.10.1159/000083168Google Scholar
Picardi, A, Porcelli, P, Pasquini, P, et al.Integration of multiple criteria for psychosomatic assessment of dermatological patients. Psychosomatics. 2006; 47(2): 122–128.10.1176/appi.psy.47.2.122Google Scholar
Sonino, N, Ruini, C, Navarrini, C, et al.Psychosocial impairment in patients treated for pituitary disease: a controlled study. Clin Endocrinol. 2007; 67(5): 719–726.10.1111/j.1365-2265.2007.02951.xGoogle Scholar
Venditti, F, Cosci, F, Bernini, O, et al.Criterion validity of the diagnostic criteria for psychosomatic research in patients with morbid obesity. Psychother Psychosom. 2013; 82(6): 411–412.Google Scholar
Battaglia, Y, Martino, E, Piazza, G, et al.Abnormal illness behavior, alexithymia, demoralization, and other clinically relevant psychosocial syndromes in kidney transplant recipients: a comparative study of the diagnostic criteria for psychosomatic research system versus ICD-10 psychiatric nosology. Psychother Psychosom. 2018; 87(6): 375–376.Google Scholar
Piolanti, A, Gostoli, S, Gervasi, J, et al.A trial integrating different methods to assess psychosocial problems in primary care. Psychother Psychosom. 2019; 88(1): 30–36.Google Scholar
Porcelli, P, Sonino, N. Appendix 2. Interview for the diagnostic criteria for psychosomatic research. In: Porcelli, P, Sonino, N, eds. Psychological Factors Affecting Medical Conditions. A New Classification for DSM-V . Basel: Karger; 2007: 174–181.10.1159/000106811Google Scholar
Porcelli, P, Guidi, J. The clinical utility of the diagnostic criteria for psychosomatic research: a review of studies. Psychother Psychosom. 2015; 84(5): 265–272.10.1159/000430788Google Scholar
Fava, GA, Cosci, F, Sonino, N. Current psychosomatic practice. Psychother Psychosom. 2017; 86(1): 13–30.Google Scholar
Fava, GA, McEwen, BS, Guidi, J, et al.Clinical characterization of allostatic overload. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2019; 31; 108: 94–101.10.1016/j.psyneuen.2019.05.028Google Scholar
Terwindt, GM, Ferrari, MD, Tijhuis, M, et al.The impact of migraine on quality of life in the general population: the GEM study. Neurology. 2000; 55(5): 624–629.Google Scholar
Lipton, R, Liberman, J, Kolodner, K, et al.Migraine headache disability and health-related quality-of-life: a population-based case-control study from England. Cephalalgia. 2003; 23(6): 441–450.10.1046/j.1468-2982.2003.00546.xGoogle Scholar
Kokonyei, G, Szabo, E, Kocsel, N, et al.Rumination in migraine: mediating effects of brooding and reflection between migraine and psychological distress. Psychol Health. 2016; 31(12): 1481–1497.10.1080/08870446.2016.1235166Google Scholar
Lebedeva, ER, Kobzeva, NR, Gilev, DV, et al.Psychosocial factors associated with migraine and tension-type headache in medical students. Cephalalgia. 2016; 37(13): 1264–1271.Google Scholar
Peres, MFP, Mercante, JPP, Tobo, PR, et al.Anxiety and depression symptoms and migraine: a symptom-based approach research. J Headache Pain. 2017; 18(1): 1–8.10.1186/s10194-017-0742-1Google Scholar
Wise, TN, Mann, LS, Jani, N, et al.Illness beliefs and alexithymia in headache patients. Headache. 1994; 34(6): 362–365.10.1111/j.1526-4610.1994.hed3406362.xGoogle Scholar
Neyal Muftuoglu, M, Herken, H, Demirci, H, et al.Alexithymic features in migraine patients. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2004; 254(3): 182– 186.10.1007/s00406-004-0466-5Google Scholar
Huber, D, Henrich, G. Personality traits and stress sensitivity in migraine patients. Behav Med. 2003; 29(1): 4–13.Google Scholar
Williams, DE, Raczynski, JM, Domino, J, et al.Psychophysiological and MMPI personality assessment of headaches: an integrative approach. Headache. 1993; 33(3): 149–154.Google Scholar
Demjen, S, Bakal, D. Illness behavior and chronic headache. Pain. 1981; 10(2): 221–229.10.1016/0304-3959(81)90197-4Google Scholar
Bech, P.Clinical Psychometrics. Oxford, Wiley Blackwell, 2012.Google Scholar
Piolanti, A, Offidani, E, Guidi, J, et al.Use of the psychosocial index: a sensitive tool in research and practice. Psychother Psychosom. 2016; 85(6): 337–345.10.1159/000447760Google Scholar
Headache Classification Committee of the International Headache Society (IHS). The international classification of headache disorders, 3rd edition. Cephalalgia. 2018; 38(1): 1–211.Google Scholar
Guidi, J, Gambineri, A, Zanotti, L, et al.Psychological aspects of hyperandrogenic states in late adolescent and young women. Clin Endocrinol. 2015; 83(6): 872–878.10.1111/cen.12783Google Scholar
Galeazzi, GM, Ferrari, S, Mackinnon, A, et al.Interrater reliability, prevalence, and relation to ICD-10 diagnoses of the diagnostic criteria for psychosomatic research in consultation-liaison psychiatry patients. Psychosomatics. 2004; 45(5): 386–393.10.1176/appi.psy.45.5.386Google Scholar
Tomba, E, Offidani, E. A Clinimetric Evaluation of allostatic overload in the general population. Psychother Psychosom. 2012; 81(6): 378–379.10.1159/000337200Google Scholar
First, MB, Williams, JBW, Karg, RS, et al.SCID-5-CV: structured clinical interview for DSM-5 disorders: clinician version. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association Publishing; 2016.Google Scholar
Glasofer, DR, Brown, AJ, Riegel, M. Structured clinical interview for DSM-IV (SCID). In: Wade, T, ed. Encyclopedia of Feeding and Eating Disorders. Singapore: Springer; 2015: 1–4.Google Scholar
Spitzer, RL, Williams, JB, Gibbon, M, et al.The structured clinical interview for DSM-III-R (SCID). I: history, rationale, and description. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1992; 49(8): 624–629.10.1001/archpsyc.1992.01820080032005Google Scholar
Sonino, N, Fava, GA. A simple instrument for assessing stress in clinical practice. Postgrad Med J. 1998; 74 (873): 408–410.Google Scholar
Kellner, R. A problem list for clinical work. Ann Clin Psychiatry. 1991; 3(2): 125–130.10.3109/10401239109147981Google Scholar
Wheatley, D. The stress profile. Br J Psychiatry. 1990; 156(05): 685–688.10.1192/bjp.156.5.685Google Scholar
Ryff, CD. Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being . J Pers Soc Psychol. 1989; 57(6): 1069–1081.10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069Google Scholar
Gill, TM, Feinstein AR. A critical appraisal of the quality of quality-of-life measurements. JAMA 1994; 272(8): 619–626.Google Scholar
Hunsley, J, Meyer, GJ. The incremental validity of psychological testing and assessment: conceptual, methodological, and statistical issues. Psychol Assess. 2003; 15(4): 446–455.Google Scholar
Piccinelli, M, Simon, G. Gender and cross-cultural differences in somatic symptoms associated with emotional distress. An international study in primary care. Psychol Med. 1997; 27(2): 433–444.10.1017/S0033291796004539Google Scholar
Kroenke, K, Spitzer, RL. Gender differences in the reporting of physical and somatoform symptoms. Psychosom Med. 1998; 60(2): 150–155.Google Scholar
Fallon, BA. Pharmacotherapy of somatoform disorders. J Psychosom Res. 2004; 56(4): 455–460.Google Scholar
Sirri, L, Grandi, S, Fava, GA. The illness attitude scales. Psychother Psychosom. 2008; 77(6): 337–350.Google Scholar
Gravetter, FJ, Wallnau, LB. Statistics for the behavioral sciences. Boston: Cengage Learning; 2016.Google Scholar
Rutherford, A.ANOVA and ANCOVA: a GLM approach. (2nd ed). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2011.10.1002/9781118491683Google Scholar
Fox, J, Monette, G. Generalized collinearity diagnostics. J Am Stat Assoc. 1992; 87(417): 178–183.10.1080/01621459.1992.10475190Google Scholar
Breusch, TS, Pagan, AR. A simple test for heteroscedasticity and random coefficient variation. Econometrica. 1979; 47(5): 1287–1294.Google Scholar
McLean, G, Mercer, SW. Chronic migraine, comorbidity, and socioeconomic deprivation: cross-sectional analysis of a large nationally representative primary care database. J Comorb. 2017; 7(1): 89–95.Google Scholar
Minen, MT, Begasse De Dhaem, O, Kroon Van Diest, A, et al.Migraine and its psychiatric comorbidities. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2016; 87(7): 741–749.10.1136/jnnp-2015-312233Google Scholar
Hamelsky, SW, Lipton, RB. Psychiatric comorbidity of migraine. Headache. 2006; 46(9): 1327–1333.Google Scholar
Vo, P, Fang, J, Bilitou, A, et al.Patients’ perspective on the burden of migraine in Europe: a cross-sectional analysis of survey data in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom. J Headache Pain. 2018; 19(1): 1–11.10.1186/s10194-018-0907-6Google Scholar
Fava, GA, Sonino, N. Psychosomatic medicine. Int J Clin Pract. 2010; 64: 999–1001.Google Scholar
Fava, GA. Well-Being Therapy: Treatment Manual and Clinical Applications. Basel: Karger; 2016.10.1159/isbn.978-3-318-05822-2Google Scholar
Tomba, E, Tecuta, L, Guidi, J, et al.Demoralization and response to psychotherapy: a pilot study comparing the sequential combination of cognitive-behavioral therapy and well-being therapy with clinical management in cyclothymic disorder. Psychother Psychosom. 2016; 85(1): 56–57.10.1159/000438674Google Scholar
Gaynes, BN, Warden, D, Trivedi, MH, Wisniewski, SR, Fava, M, Rush, AJ. What did STAR*D teach us? Results from a large-scale, practical, clinical trial for patients with depression. Psychiatr Serv. 2009; 60: 1439–1445.Google Scholar
Chouinard, G, Chouinard, VA. New classification of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor withdrawal. Psychother Psychosom 2015; 84: 63–71.Google Scholar
Fava, GA. Can long term treatment with antidepressant drugs worsen the course of depression? J Clin Psychiatry. 2003; 64: 123–133.Google Scholar
Fava, GA, Offidani, E. The mechanisms of tolerance in antidepressant action. Progr Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2011; 35: 1593–1602.10.1016/j.pnpbp.2010.07.026Google Scholar
Carvalho, AF, Sharma, MS, Brunoni, AR, et al.The safety, tolerability and risks associated with the use of newer generation antidepressant drugs: a critical review of the literature. Psychother Psychosom. 2016; 85: 270–288.Google Scholar
Csoka, AB, Shipko, S. Persistent sexual side effects after SSRI discontinuation. Psychother Psychosom 2006; 75: 187–188.10.1159/000091777Google Scholar
Maslej, MM, Bolker, BM, Russell, MJ, et al.The mortality and myocardial effects of antidepressants are moderated by preexisting cardiovascular disease: a meta analysis. Psychother Psychosom. 2017; 86: 268–282.Google Scholar
Bahl, S, Cotterchio, M, Kreiger, N. Use of antidepressant medications and the possible association with breast cancer risk. A review. Psychother Psychosom. 2003; 72: 185–194.10.1159/000070782Google Scholar