Abstract/References

Prediction of the prognosis of somatoform disorders using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory

Akiko Sato, Shuntaro Itagaki, Takatomo Matsumto, Yoko Ise, Shunya Yokokura, Tomohiro Wada, Kaoru Hayashi, Takeyasu Kakamu, Tetsuhito Fukushima, Takuya Nikaido, Shinichi Konno, Hirooki Yabe

Abstract

Background: Somatoform disorders are frequently resistant to treatment. This study aimed to determine the utility of the Minnesota Multifaceted Personality Inventory (MMPI) in predicting the prognosis of somatoform disorders.

Methods: Overall, 125 patients diagnosed with somatoform disorders between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2017 in the psychiatric department of Fukushima Medical University Hospital were included. Patients with positive outcomes were identified based on a subjective estimation regarding (1) pain and (2) social functions, including activities of daily living. They were divided into the improved group (IG) and the non-improved group (NIG). Each factor was then descriptively compared between the two groups, and the sensitivity and specificity were determined.

Results: The NIG had significantly higher scores but only on the Hy scale. Thus, the optimal Hy scale cutoff score was calculated. The cutoff point was 73.5, with a sensitivity of 55.7% and a specificity of 71.7%.

Conclusion: An MMPI Hy scale score higher than a cutoff value of 73.5 predicts a poor response to conventional supportive psychotherapy or drug therapy in patients with somatoform disorders. This cutoff point may be used as an important index for selecting treatment for somatoform disorders.

The content of research paper

References

1. World Health Organization. ICD-10, the ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders. Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Guidelines, World Health Organization;1992.
2. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders:DSM IV, American Psychiatric Association;1994.
3. Okuma T. Modern Clinical Psychiatry, 12th ed. Tokyo:Kaneharashuppan, 2013.
4. Watanabe K, Konno S. Musculoskeletal pain management. Prog Med, 33:9-12, 2013.
5. Mashiko H. Indefinite complaints in orthopedic surgery. Japanese Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 41:275-281, 2012.
6. Mizuno Y, Fukunaga M, Nakai Y. Differences in psychological characteristics between chronic pain patients and other psychosomatic (mind-body) disease patient. The Journal of the Japanese Society for the Study of Chronic Pain, 23:193-199, 2004.
7. Nagoshi Y. Recent advances in pharmacotherapy for somatic symptom and related disorders (somatoform disorders). Japanese Journal of Psychosomatic Medicine, 59:554-559, 2019.
8. Sellbom M, Wygant D, Bagby M. Utility of the MMPI-2-RF in detecting non-credible somatic complaints, Psychiatry Res, 197:295-301, 2012.
9. Otani K. Liaison treatment for patients with chronic pain of locomotive organ-experience of Fukushima Medical University Hospital. Japanese Journal of Psychosomatic Medicine, 51:709-714, 2011.
10. Naylor B, Boag S, Gustin SM. New evidence for a pain personality? A critical review of the last 120 years of pain and personality. Scand J Pain, 17:58-67, 2017.
11. Vendrig AA. The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory and chronic pain, a conceptual analysis of a long-standing but complicated relationship. Clin Psychol Rev, 20:533-559, 2000.
12. Fishbain DA, Cole B, Cutler RB, Lewis J, Rosomoff HL, Rosomoff RS. Chronic pain and the measurement of personality:do states influence traits? Pain Med, 7:509-529, 2006.
13. Dersh J, Polatin PB, Gatchel RJ. Chronic pain and psychopathology, research findings and theoretical considerations. Psychosom Med, 64:773-786, 2002.
14. Garyfallos G, Adamopoulou A, Karastergiou A, et al. Somatoform disorders:comorbidity with other DSM-III-R psychiatric diagnoses in Greece. Compr Psychiatry, 40:299-307, 1999.
15. Balasanyan M, Boone KB, Ermshar A, et al. Examination of the Modified Somatic Perception Questionnaire (MSPQ) in a large sample of credible and noncredible patients referred for neuropsychological testing. Clin Neuropsychol, 32:165-182, 2018.
16. Koelen JA, Eurelings-Bontekoe EH, van Broeckhuysen-Kloth SA, Snellen WM, Luyten P. Social cognition and levels of personality organization in patients with somatoform disorders, a case-control study. J Nerv Ment Dis, 202:217-223, 2014.
17. Vendrig AA, Derksen JJ, de Mey HR. MMPI-2 Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY-5) and prediction of treatment outcome for patients with chronic back pain. J Pers Assess, 74:423-438, 2000.
18. Hasegawa M, Hattori S, Ohnaka M, Ishizaki K, Goto F. Psychological characteristics of chronic pain patients. Journal of Japan Society of Pain Clinicians, 5:30-35, 1998.
19. Barnes D, Gatchel RJ, Mayer TG, Barnett J. Changes in MMPI profile levels of chronic low back pain patients following successful treatment. J Spinal Disord, 3:353-355, 1990.
20. McCreary C, Naliboff B, Cohen M. A comparison of clinically and empirically derived MMPI groupings in low back pain patients. J Clin Psychol, 45:560-570, 1989.
21. Williams DE, Thompson JK, Haber JD, Raczynski JM. MMPI and headache:a special focus on differential diagnosis, prediction of treatment outcome, and patient-treatment matching. Pain, 24:143-158, 1986.
22. McCreary C, Turner J, Dawson E. The MMPI as a predictor of response to conservative treatment for low back pain. J Clin Psychol, 35:278-284, 1979.
23. Kasahara S. Psychiatric approach for the patients with chronic pain. Japanese Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 42:739-748, 2013.
24. Nikaido T, Yabuki S, Otani K, et al. Scientific approach for pain based on biopsychosocial model: liaison approach for chronic low back pain. Journal of Musculoskeletal Pain Research, 8:192-198, 2016.
25. Shioya T. History of MMPI, The Society for MMPI New Japanese Version MMPI. Tokyo: Kongoshuppan, 2004.
26. Noro H, Arakawa W, Ide S. MMPI Handbook, Basics to Understand, Japanese Clinical Society for the Study of MMPI. Tokyo:Kongoshuppan, 2014.
27. Butcher JN. MMPI-2 in Psychological Treatment. Oxford:Oxford University Press, 1990.
28. Kanazawa University Psychology Laboratory. MMPI Japanese Language Implementation Guide (Kanazawa University version). Kanazawa: Kanazawa University Psychology Laboratory, 1965.
29. Konno SI, Sekiguchi M. Association between brain and low back pain. J Orthop Sci, 23:3-7, 2018.
30. Lipsker CW, Bölte S, Hirvikoski T, Lekander M, Holmström L, Wicksell RK. Prevalence of autism traits and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder symptoms in a clinical sample of children and adolescents with chronic pain. J Pain Res, 11:2827-2836, 2018.
31. Baeza-Velasco C, Cohen D, Hamonet C, et al. Autism, joint hypermobility-related disorders and pain. Front Psychiatry, 9:656, 2018.
32. Kooij JJS, Bijlenga D, Salerno L, et al. Updated European Consensus Statement on diagnosis and treatment of adult ADHD. Eur Psychiatry, 56: 14-34, 2019.
33. Bishop-Fitzpatrick L, Minshew NJ, Eack SM. A systematic review of psychosocial interventions for adults with autism spectrum disorders. J Autism Dev Disord, 43:687-694, 2013.
34. Ornduff SR, Brennan AF, Barrett CL. The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) Hysteria (Hy) scale:scoring bodily concern and psychological denial subscales in chronic back pain patients. J Behav Med, 11:131-146, 1988.
35. Kinder BN, Curtiss G, Kalichman S. Anxiety and anger as predictors of MMPI elevations in chronic pain patients. J Pers Assess, 50:651-661, 1986.
36. Aragona M, Tarsitani L, De Nitto S, Inghilleri M. DSM-IV-TR “pain disorder associated with psychological factors” as a nonhysterical form of somatization. Pain Res Manag, 13:13-18, 2008.
37. McGrath RE, O’Malley WB. The assessment of denial and physical complaints:the validity of the Hy scale and associated MMPI signs. J Clin Psychol, 42:754-760, 1986.
38. Tarescavage AM, Scheman J, Ben-Porath YS. Prospective comparison of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) and MMPI-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) in predicting treatment outcomes among patients with chronic low back pain. J Clin Psychol Med Settings, 25:66-79, 2018.
39. Koelen JA, Houtveen JH, Abbass A, et al. Effectiveness of psychotherapy for severe somatoform disorder:meta-analysis. Br J Psychiatry, 204: 12-19, 2014.
40. Sutherland AM, Nicholls J, Bao J, Clarke H. Overlaps in pharmacology for the treatment of chronic pain and mental health disorders. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry, 87:290-297, 2018.
41. van Dessel N, den Boeft M, van der Wouden JC, et al. Non-pharmacological interventions for somatoform disorders and medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS) in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, CD011142, 2014.
42. van Ravesteijn H. Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for patients with somatoform disorders. Tijdschr Psychiatr, 58:198-206, 2016.
43. Cyranka K, Rutkowski K, Mielimąka M, et al. Changes in personality functioning as a result of group psychotherapy with elements of individual psychotherapy in persons with neurotic and personality disorders-MMPI-2. Psychiatr Pol, 50:105-126, 2016.
44. Kurlansik SL, Maffei MS. Somatic symptom disorder. Am Fam Physician, 93:49-54, 2016.
45. Yoshino A, Okamoto Y, Jinnin R, Takagaki K, Mori A, Yamawaki S. Role of coping with negative emotions in cognitive behavioral therapy for persistent somatoform pain disorder:is it more important than pain catastrophizing? Psychiatry Clin Neurosci, 73:560-565, 2019.
46. Yoshino A, Okamoto Y, Doi M, et al. Effectiveness of group cognitive behavioral therapy for somatoform pain disorder patients in Japan:a preliminary non-case-control study. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci, 69:763-772, 2015.
47. Liu J, Gill NS, Teodorczuk A, Li ZJ, Sun J. The efficacy of cognitive behavioural therapy in somatoform disorders and medically unexplained physical symptoms:a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Affect Disord, 245:98-112, 2019.
48. Sumathipala A. What is the evidence for the efficacy of treatments for somatoform disorders? A critical review of previous intervention studies. Psychosom Med, 69:889-900, 2007.
49. Hilton L, Hempel S, Ewing BA, et al. Mindfulness meditation for chronic pain:systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Behav Med, 51: 199-213, 2017.

Figures