BACKGROUND: Somatoform disorders are characterised by chronic, medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS). Although different medications are part of treatment routines for people with somatoform disorders in clinics and private practices, there exists no systematic review or meta-analysis on the efficacy and tolerability of these medications. We aimed to synthesise to improve optimal treatment decisions.OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of pharmacological interventions for somatoform disorders (specifically somatisation disorder, undifferentiated somatoform disorder, somatoform autonomic dysfunction, and pain disorder) in adults.SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group's Specialised Register (CCDANCTR) (to 17 January 2014). This register includes relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from The Cochrane Library (all years), MEDLINE (1950 to date), EMBASE (1974 to date), and PsycINFO (1967 to date). To identify ongoing trials, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials metaRegister, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and the Chinese Clinical Trials Registry. For grey literature, we searched ProQuest Dissertation {\&} Theses Database, OpenGrey, and BIOSIS Previews. We handsearched conference proceedings and reference lists of potentially relevant papers and systematic reviews and contacted experts in the field.SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected RCTs or cluster RCTs of pharmacological interventions versus placebo, treatment as usual, another medication, or a combination of different medications for somatoform disorders in adults. We included people fulfilling standardised diagnostic criteria for somatisation disorder, undifferentiated somatoform disorder, somatoform autonomic dysfunction, or somatoform pain disorder.DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One review author and one research assistant independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes included the severity of MUPS on a continuous measure, and acceptability of treatment.MAIN RESULTS: We included 26 RCTs (33 reports), with 2159 participants, in the review. They examined the efficacy of different types of antidepressants, the combination of an antidepressant and an antipsychotic, antipsychotics alone, or natural products (NPs). The duration of the studies ranged between two and 12 weeks.One meta-analysis of placebo-controlled studies showed no clear evidence of a significant difference between tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) and placebo for the outcome severity of MUPS (SMD -0.13; 95{\%} CI -0.39 to 0.13; 2 studies, 239 participants; I(2) = 2{\%}; low-quality evidence). For new-generation antidepressants (NGAs), there was very low-quality evidence showing they were effective in reducing the severity of MUPS (SMD -0.91; 95{\%} CI -1.36 to -0.46; 3 studies, 243 participants; I(2) = 63{\%}). For NPs there was low-quality evidence that they were effective in reducing the severity of MUPS (SMD -0.74; 95{\%} CI -0.97 to -0.51; 2 studies, 322 participants; I(2) = 0{\%}).One meta-analysis showed no clear evidence of a difference between TCAs and NGAs for severity of MUPS (SMD -0.16; 95{\%} CI -0.55 to 0.23; 3 studies, 177 participants; I(2) = 42{\%}; low-quality evidence). There was also no difference between NGAs and other NGAs for severity of MUPS (SMD -0.16; 95{\%} CI -0.45 to 0.14; 4 studies, 182 participants; I(2) = 0{\%}).Finally, one meta-analysis comparing selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) with a combination of SSRIs and antipsychotics showed low-quality evidence in favour of combined treatment for severity of MUPS (SMD 0.77; 95{\%} CI 0.32 to 1.22; 2 studies, 107 participants; I(2) = 23{\%}).Differences regarding the acceptability of the treatment (rate of all-cause drop-outs) were neither found between NGAs and placebo (RR 1.01, 95{\%} CI 0.64 to 1.61; 2 studies, 163 participants; I(2) = 0{\%}; low-quality evidence) or NPs and placebo (RR 0.85, 95{\%} CI 0.40 to 1.78; 3 studies, 506 participants; I(2) = 0{\%}; low-quality evidence); nor between TCAs and other medication (RR 1.48, 95{\%} CI 0.59 to 3.72; 8 studies, 556 participants; I(2) =14{\%}; low-quality evidence); nor between antidepressants and the combination of an antidepressant and an antipsychotic (RR 0.80, 95{\%} CI 0.25 to 2.52; 2 studies, 118 participants; I(2) = 0{\%}; low-quality evidence). Percental attrition rates due to adverse effects were high in all antidepressant treatments (0{\%} to 32{\%}), but low for NPs (0{\%} to 1.7{\%}).The risk of bias was high in many domains across studies. Seventeen trials (65.4{\%}) gave no information about random sequence generation and only two (7.7{\%}) provided information about allocation concealment. Eighteen studies (69.2{\%}) revealed a high or unclear risk in blinding participants and study personnel; 23 studies had high risk of bias relating to blinding assessors. For the comparison NGA versus placebo, there was relatively high imprecision and heterogeneity due to one outlier study. Although we identified 26 studies, each comparison only contained a few studies and small numbers of participants so the results were imprecise.AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current review found very low-quality evidence for NGAs and low-quality evidence for NPs being effective in treating somatoform symptoms in adults when compared with placebo. There was some evidence that different classes of antidepressants did not differ in efficacy; however, this was limited and of low to very low quality. These results had serious shortcomings such as the high risk of bias, strong heterogeneity in the data, and small sample sizes. Furthermore, the significant effects of antidepressant treatment have to be balanced against the relatively high rates of adverse effects. Adverse effects produced by medication can have amplifying effects on symptom perceptions, particularly in people focusing on somatic symptoms without medical causes. We can only draw conclusions about short-term efficacy of the pharmacological interventions because no trial included follow-up assessments. For each of the comparisons where there were available data on acceptability rates (NGAs versus placebo, NPs versus placebo, TCAs versus other medication, and antidepressants versus a combination of an antidepressant and an antipsychotic), no clear differences between the intervention and comparator were found.Future high-quality research should be carried out to determine the effectiveness of medications other than antidepressants, to compare antidepressants more thoroughly, and to follow-up participants over longer periods (the longest follow up was just 12 weeks). Another idea for future research would be to include other outcomes such as functional impairment or dysfunctional behaviours and cognitions as well as the classical outcomes such as symptom severity, depression, or anxiety.

Pharmacological interventions for somatoform disorders in adults.

How people intentionally change addictive behaviors with and without treatment is not well understood by behavioral scientists. This article summarizes research on self-initiated and professionally facilitated change of addictive behaviors using the key transtheoretical constructs of stages and processes of change. Modification of addictive behaviors involves progression through five stages—precontemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, and maintenance—and individuals typically recycle through these stages several times before termination of the addiction. Multiple studies provide strong support for these stages as well as for a finite and common set of change processes used to progress through the stages. Research to date supports a transtheoretical model of change that systematically integrates the stages with processes of change from diverse theories of psychotherapy.

http://cedd.org.au/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/In-Search-of-How-People-Change-Applications-to-Addictive-Behaviours.pdf

In search of how people change: Applications to addictive behaviors.

Introduction 1. Woman's Place in Man's Life Cycle 2. Images of Relationship 3. Concepts of Self and Morality 4. Crisis and Transition 5. Women's Rights and Women's Judgment 6. Visions of Maturity References Index of Study Participants General Index

In a Different Voice. Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Cambridge, MA (Harvard University Press) 1982.

In this article we propose mechanisms that govern the processing of emotional information, particularly those involved in fear reduction. Emotions are viewed as represented by information structures in memory, and anxiety is thought to occur when an information structure that serves as program to escape or avoid danger is activated. Emotional processing is denned as the modification of memory structures that underlie emotions. It is argued that some form of exposure to feared situations is common to many psychotherapies for anxiety, and that confrontation with feared objects or situations is an effective treatment. Physiological activation and habituation within and across exposure sessions are cited as indicators of emotional processing, and variables that influence activation and habituation of fear responses are examined. These variables and the indicators are analyzed to yield an account of what information must be integrated for emotional processing of a fear structure. The elements of such a structure are viewed as cognitive representations of the stimulus characteristic of the fear situation, the individual's responses in it, and aspects of its meaning for the individual. Treatment failures are interpreted with respect to the interference of cognitive defenses, autonomic arousal, mood state, and erroneous ideation with reformation of targeted fear structures. Applications of the concepts advanced here to therapeutic practice and to the broader study of psychopathology are discussed.

/pdf/emotional-processing-of-fear-exposure-to-corrective-2ehs11haf7.pdf

Emotional processing of fear : exposure to corrective information

The psychoanalytic concept of the working alliance is reviewed and elaborated. It is argued that various modes of psychotherapy can be meaningfully differentiated in terms of the kinds of working alliances embedded in them. Moreover, the strength, rather than the kind of working alliance, will prove to be the major factor in change achieved through psychotherapy. Strength of alliance will be a function of the goodness of fit of the respective personalities of patient and therapist to the demands of the working alliance. Past research bearing on these propositions and indicated future research are discussed. Extensions to changes sought in teaching and other group processes are briefly touched. Proliferation of psychotherapies has dominated the sixties and seventies. Thirty-six psychotherapies (Harper, 1959) had to be supplemented by an additional compilation (Harper, 1975). Unchecked, this trend would come perilously close to the solipsism, a psychotherapeutic method for each psychotherapist. Not unexpectedly, research in psychotherapy has suffered from an analogous lack of convergence, and with it a disappointing impotence about providing empirical tests of competing claims. As Donald Campbell (1976) suggests, given the wide prevalence of the need for psychotherapy, and the continuing ability of individuals or society to pay for it, the winnowing of this harvest of methods must come from research. Campbell (1976) speaks to the practitioner, exhorting him or her to engage in systematic follow-up. This essay addresses those prac1 An earlier version of this paper was given at the annual meeting of the Society for Psychotherapy, June, 1975. * Requests for reprints should be sent to Edward S. Bordin, Ph.D., University of Michigan Counseling Center, 1007 East Huron Street, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109. titioners who are also research workers, to call attention to a point of view that can encompass most, if not all, approaches to psychotherapy and can lead toward the needed convergence in research. There has been a promising rate of growth of research and research workers, with encouraging trends toward a coming together on basic issues: I aim to contribute to that movement. Moreover, because of the generalizability of my ideas to all change situations, I hope to stimulate research applications to teaching and to community change processes. 1 propose that the working alliance between the person who seeks change and the one who offers to be a change agent is one of the keys, if not the key, to the change process. The working alliance can be defined and elaborated in terms which make it universally applicable, and can be shown to be valuable for integrating knowledge—particularly for pointing to new research directions. As my initial statement suggests, a working alliance between a person seeking change and a change agent can occur in many places besides the locale of psychotherapy. The concept of the working alliance would seem to be applicable in the relation between student and teacher, between community action group and leader, and, with only slight extension, between child and parent. While I believe such extensions to be fruitful, they are beyond the scope of this paper. I shall confine myself to the therapeutic working alliance, making only brief inferences to extensions to other change enterprises.2 2 One might extend the idea of working alliances to nonchange situations. Although prisons, under reform ideology, have been set up as change situations, most observation suggests that staff and inmates typically arrive at a mutually agreed-upon alliance to get through their relationship with as little upset as possible.

https://psycnet.apa.org/journals/pst/16/3/252.pdf

The generalizability of the psychoanalytic concept of the working alliance.

Thank you for the invitation to answer questions about my 1980 article. It is a pleasure to be reminded of that special episode in my career. Here are some thoughts in reply that I hope will be helpful to your readers. During the 1970’s, the mental health and social science disciplines were being challenged to rethink their views on religion and spirituality by forward-looking individuals and groups, as noted in the list of references in my 1980 article.1 What precipitated my particular essay was my feeling of frustration and annoyance with the academic mental health “establishment” which opposed this development. They made it clear to the public and professional world that their own work was based on science and objectivism. They were not happy with the idea of “regressing” toward outdated, subjective and non-empirical intrusions into their secular modes of inquiry and practice. This professional mainstream considered such new movements to be a retreat from the hard-earned credibility gained over many decades in their “soft” sciences by being very “hard-nosed” and like “real” sciences. I had a different perspective. My early background had been in physical science and mathematics, which I had pursued as a student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and, in a joint program between MIT and Reed College in Oregon (1952-54). However, I slowly migrated from that focus into psychological science and then, because of some religious experiences, into an interest in combining spiritual and scientific perspectives. My subsequent transfer to a church-sponsored school, Brigham Young University, made this begin to grow more fully (1954-57). However, because of professional aspirations and opportunities, a long interlude occurred. I spent the next 15 years at Stanford University, the University of Wisconsin, and Columbia University. This time was wonderful in many respects, but my spiritual and religious interests gained little traction and considerable opposition in those settings. So it was fortunate that I was recruited back to Brigham Young University in the 1970’s, given a nice position and a “Values Institute” to work within. I was thus encouraged to meld my scientific and religious interests; and I had a new sense of freedom to harmonize the spiritual and the psychological. As I began to speak out about this, I was opposed by some of my own faculty colleagues and by a wide array of leaders in the mental health disciplines. Because, by then, I had an established reputation as an expert in psychological research, I could speak out with some authority against those who tried to undermine and deride investigation into the mental health benefits of religious and spiritual involvements. I must admit that, as a senior figure in my field, I felt considerable annoyance, even irritation, that the old and flimsy “anti-religious” arguments were again being tossed forth in arrogant and cavalier terms. One day, subduing my negative emotions I simply sat down and wrote out a treatise setting forth a case for religious values in the mental health domain, firmly, clearly and with a touch of challenge to the “establishment.” I felt happy about this, integrated in bringing together an array of deep interests, and somewhat declarative or challenging to those who might not like it. It also allowed me to break out of a “boxed-in” feeling I felt surrounded by in a field dominated by agnostic and atheistic philosophies. I submitted the article to what I considered to be the best journal in clinical psychology. After some debate, it was published; and the rest is history. I was inundated with requests for reprints, invitations to

Letter to Editors

/pdf/some-current-themes-in-harmonizing-spiritual-and-secular-56wzw5xgvs.pdf

Allen E. Bergin

Papers

Letter to Editors

Some Current Themes in Harmonizing Spiritual and Secular Approaches to Mental Health

In memoriam: Sol L. Garfield, PhD (1918-2004).