Skip to main content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Ment Health Fam Med. 2010 Jun; 7(2): 71–84.
PMCID: PMC2939455
PMID: 22477925

The cost of somatisation among the working‐age population in England for the year 2008–2009

Sarah L Bermingham, BSc (Hons) MSc,corresponding author Alan Cohen, FRCGP, John Hague, MB BS DRCOG, and Michael Parsonage, BA (Hons)

Abstract

Medically unexplained symptoms are one of the most commonly encountered symptoms across all healthcare settings. They are also responsible for a large proportion of disability in the workforce and decreased quality of life. These patients represent an important clinical phenomenon with considerable direct and indirect economic consequences.

This study aims to calculate the economic burden of somatisation among English adults in 2008–2009.

Using existing literature, estimates of prevalence, healthcare use and disability were combined in order to calculate the annual cost of healthcare use and productivity loss associated with these patients in excess of non‐somatising patients.

Based on the results of our analysis, the incremental health care cost incurred by somatising patients is estimated to be £3 billion. This represents approximately 10% of total NHS expenditure on these services for the working‐age population in 2008–2009. The cost of sickness absence and decreased quality of life associated with these patients amounts to over £14 billion.

By highlighting the magnitude of this phenomenon at each level of the health system and the considerable impact of non‐healthcare costs, this study serves to draw attention to a group of patients who are frequently unrecognised or misdiagnosed by physicians who tend to repeatedly pursue organic possibilities through multiple tests, procedures and operations. As economic perspectives play an increasing role in healthcare planning, the reduction of health care use and improvement of functioning among this group of patients should be a major goal. In order to realise these goals, changed pathways and behaviour in primary and secondary care are needed, along with improved access to psychological therapy services.

Keywords: cost, economics, England, medically unexplained symptoms, quality of life, somatisation, utilisation

Introduction

Medically unexplained symptoms (MUS; Table 1) are the most commonly encountered symptoms in primary care.1–3 They also have a high prevalence across secondary care settings4,5 and are responsible for a large proportion of disability in the workforce and decreased quality of life among the general population.6

Table 1

Examples of conditions where somatisation plays a part


SpecialtySomatic presentation of mental disorder

CardiologyUnexplained chest pain
Cardiac neurosis
GastroenterologyUnexplained abdominal pain
NeurologyConversion states
Pseudo‐seizures
DiabetesBurden of self‐perceived disorder
EndocrineProlactin levels sensitive to stress levels
Accident and emergencySelf‐harm
Orthopaedics and traumaChronic (back) pain
Plastic surgerySelf‐esteem issues
ENTGlobus hystericus
Renal/urologySexual dysfunction
Scrotal pain
RheumatologyUnexplained joint pain/swelling
Arthralgia
Pain clinicSomatoform pain disorder
Pain amplification
RespiratoryPanic disorder in asthma and COPD
OncologyMedically unexplained decline
General medicineGeneral malaise/anergia
Medically unexplained symptoms
Multiple pains
Geriatric medicinePseudo‐dementia
Non‐specific decline
PaediatricsRecurrent abdominal pain
Self‐harm
DermatologyObsessive washing
Dermatitis artefacta
Obstetrics and gynaecologyUnexplained abdominal pain
Sexual dysfunction

Table adapted from Webb and Pieters, 200938

While these patients are sometimes referred to as ‘heartsink’ patients or the ‘worried well’ and implicitly associated with overuse or abuse of the healthcare system by those with no physical ailment, it is important to note that they are not malingerers and their symptoms are not factitious. These symptoms are experienced as real and are thought to represent a somatic manifestation of psychological distress, or abnormal activation of sensory pathways. Nor is somatisation a modern phenomenon in the illness experience. Over 2000 years ago Galen noted that 60% of people visiting a doctor suffered from symptoms that had emotional rather than physical causes.7

Although not all patients who somatise suffer from comorbid mental illness, MUS are strongly and consistently associated with emotional distress, with a considerable degree of diagnostic overlap with depression, anxiety and panic disorder.8–11

While there is little to indicate that these are discrete syndromes separated from the somatoform disorders by natural boundaries,12 they each exhibit specific profiles of psychosocial impairment and unique patterns of healthcare use.8,10,11,13–15 When somatisation is comorbid with depression and anxiety, patients exhibit greater disability and impairment than those in whom the conditions are independent.11,16 A large literature demonstrates a linear relationship between the number of bodily symptoms, prevalence of comorbid anxiety and depression, degree of functional impairment, frequency of healthcare use and high costs.16–20 However, somatoform disorders also appear to have a specific effect on costs and disability independently of other mental or physical illnesses.8

These patients represent an important clinical phenomenon with considerable direct and indirect economic consequences. They use significantly and disproportionately more medical (but not mental) health services across all settings compared to non‐somatic controls;8,14,21 have comparable or greater impairment of physical function, worse mental health and poorer perceived general health compared with other chronically ill patients;22 and spend more days in bed per month than patients with major medical disorders,22,23 take more sick leave,24,25 have more restricted activity days21 and have higher rates of unemployment26 than the national average. Observational studies suggest that MUS patients make use of multiple healthcare services simultaneously,27 often fail to keep scheduled appointments and frequently switch physicians.21,22,28 They undergo surgery and treatment more often than non‐somatising patients,29 putting them at risk from unnecessary procedures with the potential for iatrogenic harm.30

It has been estimated that 10–20% of total medical expenditure in the USA is on patients with somatisation,8,31,32 with a per capita expenditure of two‐to ninefold above average.8,22,33 Extrapolating patient‐level cost data to total healthcare expenditure, Barsky et al8 estimate that the total annual incremental cost of somatisation in the USA amounts to approximately $256 billion (2002 dollars). Although the prevalence and consequences of MUS have been found to be similar across widely different countries and cultural settings34 one must be wary about extrapolating the associated economic evidence to a British context.

In the UK, several studies have attempted to calculate either the aggregate or individual cost of conditions associated with somatisation. In 1989, Croft‐Jeffries and Wilkinson35 estimated the national cost of ‘neurosis’ to be £370 million (1985 pounds), with two‐thirds of this expense attributed to lost productivity. The importance of secondary and tertiary care to these costs is illustrated by Shaw and Creed,36 who calculated that a median of £286 per person (1990 pounds) was spent on medical investigations for somatic symptoms later attributed to a psychiatric disorder, and in a case study by Kinder et al37 which estimated the cost of a single highly somatic patient to be £209 391 (2003 pounds) over 20 years, with inpatient stays and investigations comprising the majority of total cost in both studies.

Using existing literature, this study aims to employ a prevalence‐based approach in order to calculate the economic burden of somatisation among English adults in 2008 to 2009. This burden consists of the direct costs of primary and secondary healthcare use and indirect costs associated with productivity loss in excess of non‐somatising patients. As this is a heterogeneous group of patients, this study also aims to account for the effect of varying levels of somatic severity on prevalence, healthcare use and costs.

Methods

Search strategy and data sources

A literature search was carried out to identify studies related to direct and indirect resource consumption of somatising patients and the prevalence of this condition across all settings. A MEDLINE search of peer‐reviewed articles (including those in press) from 1980 to 2009 was conducted using the key words: ‘somatisation’, ‘medically unexplained’, ‘hypochondriasis’, ‘somatoform disorder’ or ‘conversion disorder’ combined with ‘healthcare use’, ‘cost’, ‘primary care’, ‘secondary care’ or ‘disability’ in abstract, keywords or title. Potential studies were also identified from the bibliographies of retrieved articles, several systematic reviews and literature already known to us.

All information was restricted to sources published in English and was obtained from peer reviewed journals and the public domain. Both prospective and retrospective studies, as well as cohort and trial populations, were included. Studies that focused on functional somatic syndromes (e.g. irritable bowel syndrome, fibromyalgia) or single unexplained symptoms (e.g. headache, back pain) were excluded. Also excluded were studies restricted to children (<18 years) and group‐specific studies (e.g. refugees, veterans and adopted persons).

Population

All prevalence and resource consumption data were limited to the working‐age population (about 18–65 years). This was due to the limited amount of data for older age groups, and because studies which have included this age group note a consistently and significantly lower prevalence of somatoform disorder across all clinical settings.9,39,40,41 Moreover, age makes it increasingly difficult to tease apart healthcare use and disability due to greater incidence of illness from that due to somatisation.

Prevalence and healthcare use were disaggregated according to severity of somatoform disorder because healthcare use increases with illness worry, which is in turn associated with the number of somatic symptoms and presence of comorbid anxiety and depression.16–20

Adopting the classification used by Woolfolk and Allen,42 the term ‘subthreshold somatisation’ is used to refer to any somatoform disorder in which symptoms are not sufficiently numerous or diverse to qualify for a diagnosis of somatisation disorder (including abridged somatisation, undifferentiated and multisomatoform disorders). ‘Somatisation disorder’ is used to describe patients who meet full criteria for the disorder; these patients are generally thought to represent the extreme end of the somatisation spectrum.23

Prevalence and healthcare use

Prevalence estimates vary considerably depending on the diagnostic method used for evaluation. For this study, estimates were obtained from studies which used diagnostic interviews conducted by trained professionals. Only DSM criteria were considered both in order to ensure inter‐study comparability and because this is the classification system most often used in research. Studies which took care to exclude somatic symptoms due to disease by medical record checks were preferred. In the majority of cases utilisation data were obtained from studies which used measures based on administrative databases or medical records.

Mental health costs were not included in our evaluation as there is a large literature demonstrating that mental healthcare is the only major healthcare service that does not show significantly increased rates of utilisation by this group of patients.8,14,21

Wherever possible, excess healthcare use by somatising patients was calculated as a ratio compared with non‐somatising (control) patients. Applying this ratio to setting‐specific prevalence and population data allowed incremental resource use by these patients to be calculated as a percentage of total use for the working‐age population. This proportion was then applied to the expenditure associated with this age group across each setting to obtain the specific cost of somatisation from the perspective of the NHS. Output losses were calculated based on days of sickness absence in excess of the average population and unit costs were applied to obtain the indirect cost of somatisation from a societal perspective. Because of data limitations it was not possible to make a reliable estimate of costs associated with the possible impact of somatisation on unemployment and economic inactivity. Therefore, the figure for output losses is likely to be an underestimate. National expenditure data were obtained from the Department of Health (Keith Derbyshire by electronic correspondence, 14 August 2009) and unit costs were based on data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS)43 and the Centre for Mental Health.44

Excluded studies

On the basis of our inclusion criteria and interest in the overlap between rates of use and cost amongst patients with subthreshold somatisation and somatisation disorder, several studies which were initially identified as relevant were excluded as they did not allow for age adjustment,45–48 nor did they specify type of healthcare provider20,49,50 or account for affective comorbidity/severity of somatoform disorder.24,51,52 From the remaining sources, estimates of prevalence, healthcare use and disability were combined in order to calculate the aggregate cost of somatisation among English adults in 2008–2009.

General practice consultations

In the absence of accurate data on the number of patients who attend English general practices in any given year, this figure was estimated based on ONS population statistics for this age group53 and the finding that 81% of the working‐age population attends a general practice surgery at least once per year.14 Primary care prevalence rates of subthreshold somatisation and somatisation disorder were based on estimates from a Dutch study by de Waal et al.9 Although these figures closely match those reported in several American studies,8,10,16 Dutch estimates were chosen as the Dutch primary care system functions similarly to that in England. Consultation ratios for somatic and severely somatic patients were obtained from one German14 and two Dutch studies.39,54

The percentage of consultations due to somatisation (i.e. in excess of non‐somatising patients) was calculated by subtracting the total number of consultations given the average consulting ratio from the sum product of the number of patients in each group and their respective consultation ratios. As 54% of all primary care consultations are made by patients in this age group,55 assuming that the average cost of a general practice consultation is broadly the same across all age groups, the same percentage of total general practice expenditure in England was attributed to this age group. The cost of somatisation‐specific consultations was then calculated as a proportion of total expenditure for this age group. Table 2 provides an example of these calculations; a similar method is used for all areas of expenditure.

Table 2

How each area of expenditure was calculated

Example: GP consultations
In the first series of calculations, prevalence and consultation rates are multiplied to obtain an estimate of the total number of consultations per 1000 patients for each subgroup (Column 4). This figure does not represent the actual number of consultations, but rather an adjusted total based on a consultation rate for non‐somatising patients which has been normalised to 1 (i.e. the non‐somatising population is used as the reference case and data are adjusted accordingly). Against the reference case, the number of somatisation‐specific consultations is calculated (Column 6). Dividing the number of somatisation‐specific consultations by the total number of consultations yields the percentage of consultations due to somatisation (Column 7). Although these steps vary slightly between different areas of expenditure, a final estimate in terms of the percentage of total healthcare use attributed to somatising patients is common to all areas.

Column 1Column 2Column 3Column 4Column 5Column 6Column 7
Prevalence of each subgroupNumber of people belonging to each subgroup per 1000 patientsNormalised consultation ratioNumber of consultations (column 2 × 3)Number of consultations expected in absence of somatisationNumber of somatisation‐specific consultations (column 5 − 4)Percentage of total consultations due to somatisation (column 6 ÷ 4)

No somatisation
75.4%7541.0075475400%
Subthreshold somatisation
23.4%2342.0548023424619.2%
Somatisation disorder
1.2%123.614312312.5%
Total
100%10001277100027721.7%

Total expenditure (for England in 2008–2009) for this area is then multiplied by the percentage of consultations made by the working‐age population to yield total expenditure for this age group (column 10). Multiplying this figure by the percentage of consultations due to somatisation (as calculated above) results in an estimate of general practice expenditure for this population. This figure can be further broken down by subgroup using the percentages from Column 7. This second sequence of calculations is the same for all areas of expenditure.
Column 8Column 9Column 10(Column 7)Column 11
Total general practice expenditure in 2008–2009 (£)Percentage of total consultations made by the working‐age populationTotal general practice expenditure for the working‐age population (£; column 8 × 9)Percentage of total consultations due to somatisation (as above)Somatisation‐specific GP consultation expenditure (£; column 7 × 10)

7 142 000 00054%3 856 680 00021.7%836 617 667

General practice drug consumption

The average number of drugs prescribed to patients with subthreshold somatisation and somatisation disorder was obtained from Dutch39 and American15 studies, the only controlled studies to directly assess the number of unique prescription items taken by patients with varying degrees of somatoform disorder. Using these ratios and primary care population and prevalence data, the percentage of total excess prescriptions for somatising, working‐age patients is obtained.

The proportion of total primary care prescriptions attributed to this age group is 63%, as calculated from the General Household Survey (GHS).56 Applying the percentage of prescriptions that are issued to patients with subthreshold somatisation and somatisation disorder to the total primary care prescription expenditure for this age group results in an estimate of the total somatisation‐specific expenditure for primary care prescription medication.

Outpatient consultations

Outpatient consultations were analysed by first‐time specialist consultation (referral) and follow‐up appointment rates. Relevant data for patients with subthreshold somatisation and comorbid somatisation, anxiety and affective disorders were obtained from three German,14 American8 and British57 studies. Data on the number of first‐time and follow‐up consultations for this age group in England were obtained from 2007–2008 Hospital Episode Statistics (HES).58 To ensure consistency with prevalence and utilisation literature, specialties in which patients are unlikely to present with MUSa were excluded from calculations of the excess activity attributed to somatisation. These specialties were then included in the denominator in order to calculate the percentage of total consultations attributed to somatisation for this age group. The percentage of referral and follow‐up consultations as a proportion of total outpatient consultations, as well as the percentage of consultations made by this age group, was calculated from HES59 data and applied to total outpatient expenditure for 2008–2009. Applying the percentage of somatisation‐specific referral and follow‐up consultations to the expenditure for each type of consultation for this age group results in an estimate of somatisation‐specific outpatient costs.

Inpatient costs

Somatising patients are admitted more often to hospital,14,60 undergo more surgical procedures29 and have longer lengths of stay than their nonsomatising counterparts. In the absence of detailed NHS cost and utilisation data pertaining to day case procedures, the cost of inpatient care was calculated as the number of days in hospital incurred by patients with subthreshold somatisation and somatisation disorder in excess of the national average. These data were obtained from German14 and British61 studies, and 2008–2009 HES62 respectively.

These figures, combined with Danish prevalence data from Fink et al,40 were applied to the number of total overnight admissions exclusive of maternal and psychiatric stays, calculated by subtracting the number of obstetric admissions from total admissions for the 15–59 age group and multiplying the result by the percentage of admissions that result in an overnight stay;62 psychiatric data are not included in this database. This yields the number of excess bed days due to somatisation, which is then divided by the total number of bed days for the working‐age population, calculated by multiplying the number of admissions for this age group (including obstetric admissions) by the average length of stay for this age group of 5.5 days, as reported by the GHS;56 this gives the number of somatisation‐specific excess bed days as a percentage of total bed days for the working‐age population.

Total inpatient expenditure was multiplied by the percentage of cases for this age group in order to obtain a rough estimate of total inpatient expenditure for the working age population in England in 2008–2009. Applying the percentage of bed days attributed to somatisation to this cost results in an estimate of the cost incurred by patients with subthreshold somatisation and somatisation disorder.

Accident and emergency attendances

Only two studies address the proportion and number of somatisation attendances in UK settings, one reporting the proportion of somatising patients among ‘routine attenders,’63 and the other the average number of attendances made by ‘frequent attenders’.61 American data60 were not included, due to the many differences in patterns of use compared with English accident and emergency (A and E) wards.

The ratios and prevalence rates reported by the above‐mentioned studies were applied to the number of A and E visits in England among the 20–69 year old population, as reported in the HES,64 to obtain the number of attendances by somatising patients in excess of the national averageb for this age group as apercentage of total attendances for the working‐age population. The percentage of total attendances attributed to this age group was applied to total A and E expenditure and multiplied by the percentage of attendances due to somatisation to obtain the total cost of somatisation‐specific A and E attendances.

Sickness absence

While several studies make note of an increased number of disability days and days spent in bed among people with somatisation, two German studies and one British study report directly on the number of days absent from work due to ill health.14,24,65 Although the number of sick days varies markedly from country to country, historically Germany and England have similar national average rates of days off due to illness (4% of total working days, or approximately seven days per year)66 and it is therefore assumed that these studies are applicable to the English workforce. Using an expert estimate of £120 for the daily cost44 results in the total cost of sickness absence attributable to somatisation.

Quality of life

In order to place a monetary value on the decreased quality of life experienced by patients with somatisation, mean SF‐36 scores for patients with subthreshold somatisation, somatisation disorder and no somatisation disorder were obtained from a study by Kroenke et al.67 These values were transformed to EQ‐5D preference‐based weights for the British population using the algorithm reported and validated by Ara and Brazier.68 Bringing together 18–65 year old population and prevalence data, the total number of quality adjusted life years (QALYs) lost each year as a result of somatisation is estimated at over 300 000. If each QALY is worth £30 00069 we arrive at an estimate of the value of the reduction in quality of life caused by somatisation.

Sensitivity analysis

One‐way sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the effect of altering the assumptions used in the estimation of the cost of somatisation. The effect of 20% changes in baseline prevalence and utilisation estimates, and the effect of reducing the cost of a QALY to £20 000 were evaluated.

Results

Prevalence

The prevalence of subthreshold somatisation and somatisation disorder in the general population is considerably lower than that found in clinical settings (Table 3), the main reason for this being that somatisation is closely associated with treatment‐seeking behaviour.70 Therefore, samples from the general population are less likely to be biased in terms of illness behaviour.71 The greatest number of somatising patients is found in primary care settings where they make up approximately a quarter of all patients.8,13,16,48,72 Somatising patients also account for a large amount of consultations in general outpatient settings (somatoform disorders are even more prevalent in certain well‐researched settings such as neurology, gastroenterology, cardiology and gynaecology4,73–75) while Fink et al40 report that somatoform disorder is the most frequently encountered mental disorder on Danish inpatient wards. To the limited extent that the prevalence of somatisation in A and E wards has been explored, there is also evidence that many patients present to emergency departments with their symptoms.

Table 3

Prevalence of subthreshold somatisation and somatisation disorder in the general population and across clinical settings


Subthreshold (%)Somatisation disorder (%)Diagnostic assessmentSource

General population11(A)0.6(B)(A) CIDI interview(A) Jacobi et al, 2004 (Germany)77
(B) DIS(B) Swartz et al, 1991 (USA)26
Primary care setting23.41.2SCAN interview, medical records obtained in cases of uncertaintyDe Waal et al, 2004 (Netherlands)9
Outpatient setting16.0(A)1.0(B)(A) PSE interview*(A) van Hermert et al, 1993 (Netherlands)5
(B) Hospital database, medical record check(B) Reid et al, 2002 (UK)57**
Inpatient setting13.41.1SCAN interviewFink et al, 2004 (Denmark)40***
A and E3.8(A)0.4(B)SCAN interview plus medical record check(A) Williams et al, 2001 (UK)63
(B) Theadom et al, 2006 (UK)61

*With items relating to psychosomatic symptoms and hypochondriasis replaced by questions to enable somatisation disorder and hypochondriasis to be detected according to DSM‐III‐R criteria

**Identified as ‘frequent attenders’ with two or more MUS. Psychiatric comorbidity rates of these patients reported in Reid et al, 2003

***Including patients too physically ill for interview in denominator (on the assumption that these patients have a somatisation rate close to zero), resulting in lower (DSM‐IV) estimated prevalence

Healthcare use, sickness absence and quality of life effects

Table 4 represents the ratio of general practitioner (GP) consultations, prescription medications and outpatient consultations between patients with no somatisation, subthreshold somatisation and somatisation disorder; and the average adjustedc number of inpatient bed days, A and E attendances, days of sickness absence and net QALY loss associated with each form of somatisation in excess of the English working‐age national average as reported in the literature.

Table 4

Annual healthcare use and output loss per person with subthreshold somatisation and somatisation disorder*


GP consultationsPrescriptionsOutpatient consultationsInpatient bed daysiA and E attendancesiiSick daysiiiQALYs lost
Referral apptmntsFollow‐up apptmnts

Ratio of healthcare use, non‐somatising:somatising individualsNumber of units in excess of national average
Subthreshold somatisation
1:2.114,391:1.3391:1.314,601:2.114,601.8140.8638.8140.0867
Somatisation disorder
1:3.6541:1.7151:6.5571:2.75718.9615.86127.324,650.1767

*Source by reference number in superscript

igiven a national average of 0.4 bed days per person per year56,62

iigiven a national average of 0.2 A and E attendances per person per year64

iiigiven a national average of seven days of sickness absence per person per year66

The number of GP consultations made by somatising patients in excess of non‐somatisating patients was equivalent to 22% of all GP visits for this age group (Table 5). This is in accordance with findings by Fink et al.76 Peveler et al2 and Katon et al.1 Similarly, our finding that excess use by somatising patients accounts for over 25% of outpatient consultations is consistent with figures reported in the literature,4,5 though it is not uncommon to find figures as high as 50–60% in specific settings.

Table 5

Somatisation‐specific costs among the working‐age population in England in 2008–2009


Healthcare costs
Type of resourceUnit of measurementPercentage of total (adult) units attributed to somatisationCost (£ million)
Subthreshold somatisationSomatisation disorderTotalSubthreshold somatisationSomatisation disorderTotal

Primary careConsultations19.22.521.774096837
Prescriptions5.80.76.528536321
Hospital outpatient careReferral consultations4.94.99.8414283
Follow‐up consultations13.91.415.326727294
Hospital inpatient careBed days4.43.98.36936101303
Accident and emergencyAttendances32.25.2322354
Healthcare subtotal2892
Non‐healthcare costs
Type of resourceUnit of measurementUnits attributed to somatisationAverage unit cost (£)Cost (£ million)
Subthreshold somatisationSomatisation disorderTotalSubthreshold somatisationSomatisation disorderTotal

Output lossesSick days39 869 7203 757 57242 374 76812047844515235
Quality of lifeQALYs lost279 04832 545311 59330 00083718769348
Non‐healthcare subtotal14 583
Total burden17 475

Healthcare costs

The aggregate incremental healthcare cost incurred by somatising patients is estimated to be approximately £3 billion (Table 5). Inpatient costs were the largest component of total somatisation‐specific healthcare expenditure, followed by GP consultations, prescriptions, outpatient consultations and A and E attendances. This represents approximately 10% of total NHS expenditure on these services for the working‐age population in 2008–2009.

The majority of resource use and costs in each setting is attributable to patients with subthreshold somatisation rather than somatisation disorder.

Non‐healthcare costs

As shown in Table 5, an estimated 42 million work days were lost due to somatisation‐related sickness absence, resulting in a cost of approximately £5235 million to employers. The costs associated with the decreased quality of life which is experienced by patients suffering from somatisation are estimated at over £9 billion.

Sensitivity analysis

The estimated costs were sensitive to the assumptions made in the analyses. Lower prevalence rates would obviously lead to lower costs: varying the assumed prevalence of somatisation by 20% across all settings results in a change of approximately 18% in total cost. Between settings, general practice consultation costs are least sensitive to variation in prevalence rates.

Most sensitive to change are the assumptions regarding incremental healthcare utilisation. Varying the ratio of incremental healthcare use by 20% in either direction across all settings results in approximately a 30% change in total healthcare cost from our baseline estimate. Changes in the number of inpatient bed days produce the greatest proportional changes in total cost, followed by GP consultations, prescriptions, outpatient consultations and A and E attendances.

At a cost of £20 000 per QALY, the quality of life cost associated with somatisation is reduced by one‐third to £6.2 billion.

Discussion

This study sought to estimate the total aggregate cost of somatisation in the English working‐age population by combining the best available data on prevalence, healthcare use, quality of life effects and output losses due to somatisation across a spectrum of severity with English resource use and expenditure data for the year 2008–2009.

Based on these estimates, the total annual burden of somatisation among working‐age adults in England is estimated at nearly £18 billion per year. The cost of additional healthcare use accounts for about 17% of the total (£3 billion per year), output losses from sickness absence for nearly 30% (£5.2 billion per year) and the costs of reduced quality of life for the remainder (£9.3 billion per year).

This is the first study to analyse the total socioeconomic cost of somatisation anywhere in Britain and the first to estimate the proportion of these costs incurred by patients with somatic disorders of varying severity. However, several notable comparisons exist between this study and others which have sought to estimate costs among a similar group of patients. First, our finding that the area of largest healthcare expenditure is accounted for by inpatient bed days and the area of least expense is outpatient consultations is the same as the conclusions drawn by Kinder et al,37 Shaw and Creed36 and Smith et al.22 Second, our estimate that 10% of total healthcare expenditure for this age group is accounted for by somatising patients is similar to Barsky et al's figure of 16%.8 We believe our estimate to be the more correct of the two as Barsky et al8 have based their figure on individual patient data and applied it at a national level without taking into account certain important exemptions (such as settings in which one would not encounter MUS: radiology, obstetrics, etc.).

This study has several limitations. First, in the absence of any single, nationally representative data source to allow estimation of all elements included in our cost calculations, estimates had to be built up from a wide variety of sources. Most notably, due to the heterogeneity of somatoform conditions and disease definitions, judgement had to be exercised in deciding which studies to include in prevalence and utilisation estimates in order to desegregate data by symptom severity, allow inter‐study comparability and compatibility with an English setting, thus introducing a potential source of bias. Moreover, the very use of the somatoform disorders as diagnostic categories is not without controversy. The need to revise the diagnostic criteria of somatoform disorders is undisputed among the vast majority of researchers78 as the existing criteria of both the DSM‐IV and ICD‐10 are based largely on arbitrary cut‐off values not supported by substantial clinical evidence73,79 and lacking criterion validity.78 Nevertheless, their use in this study is justified by the fact that they have consistently been shown to be good predictors of health service use and disability.78

Second, the complexity of the relationship between somatisation and medical illness makes it likely that our utilisation and cost estimates are conservative. Somatisation and organic illness frequently coexist. One may precipitate the other and in general somatising patients tend to be a group with higher rates of physical illness than non‐somatising patients. Organic conditions may also develop following inappropriate treatment of somatising patients (e.g. side effects from drugs or adhesions following abdominal surgery). Although somatising patients have been shown to have increased healthcare use even when controlling for physical disease,8 the presence of any associated organic illness often excludes these patients from prevalence and utilisation studies.

Third, this study did not account for the effect of demographic characteristics other than age on clinical prevalence and healthcare utilisation patterns. In particular, gender differences are found in a number of studies, with the association between female sex, the presence of somatisation and increased healthcare use becoming more obvious with increasing symptom severity.80,81 It has been suggested that higher prevalence rates in women could be biased by a higher frequency of healthcare utilisation in women,82 or gender bias on the part of diagnosing physicians.83 Another possibility is the demonstrated but little‐explored overlap between somatoform disorders and alcohol/drug abuse. It is possible that substance use disorders, which are vastly overrepresented among men, are a source of bias due to misattribution of the cause (or lack thereof) of symptoms in this group.84 If so, both the social and healthcare costs associated with severe somatisation (i.e. somatisation with comorbid substance use disorder) are likely to be much higher.

Nevertheless, by highlighting the magnitude of the problem at each level of the health system and the considerable impact of non‐healthcare costs, this study serves to draw attention to a group of patients who have fallen into the ‘neglected wasteland between the walled citadels of medicine and psychiatry’.75 These patients are frequently unrecognised or misdiagnosed by physicians who tend to repeatedly pursue organic possibilities through multiple tests, procedures and operations. Not only does this serve to reinforce illness behaviour and drive up costs, but it also acts as a barrier to providing these patients with appropriate mental healthcare services.

The greatest healthcare costs were associated with inpatient care (£1303m) and GP consultation costs (£837m). This information is of value in identifying areas where changes in clinical behaviour can have the greatest economic benefit, as well as offering the patient improved levels of care. For example, identifying patients prior to planned admission who would benefit from a psychological assessment for somatisation spectrum disorders would offer a reduction in planned hospital activity and give the patient a more appropriate intervention. Specialities that might benefit from such an approach include gastroenterology, gynaecology, neurology and cardiology.

To realise such benefits, changed pathways and behaviour in primary and secondary care are needed, along with improved access to psychological therapy services. The UK Department of Health Programme ‘Improving Access to Psychological Therapy’ (IAPT) – www.iapt.nhs.uk – delivers the core psychological therapy component. This economic analysis of the costs to the NHS and the wider economy provides evidence for a further investment in psychological therapies.

As economic perspectives play an increasing role in healthcare planning, the reduction of healthcare use and improvement of functioning among this group of patients should be a major goal. Removing barriers to holistic care through early recognition and communication of the fact that physical symptoms are not always a sign of organic disease, and early appreciation of the role that biopsychosocial factors play in all disease processes, has the potential to both improve outcomes and reduce costs across all settings.

In conclusion, this study provides the first estimate of the aggregate cost of somatisation in England, highlighting a well‐established but poorly served public health problem that places an enormous burden on the healthcare system and society.

This group of patients holds enormous potential for reducing both healthcare demand and disability levels among a substantial section of the population. There is good evidence from several countries that psychological therapies can lead to decreased utilisation, improved wellbeing and between 9% and 53% reduction in costs, especially when implemented at the primary care level.85 So far, a comprehensive cost‐offset study has yet to be conducted in the UK and there is a need for such an evidence base in order to inform policy initiatives and decision making.

Footnotes

aRestorative dentistry; paediatric dentistry; orthodontics; endodontics; peridontics; prosthadontics; surgical dentistry; paediatric surgery; A and E; critical care medicine; non‐UK provider, specialty not known; clinical genetics; clinical cytogenetics and molecular genetics; rehabilitation; palliative medicine; paediatric cardiology; medical oncology; nuclear medicine; paediatrics; paediatric neurology; obstetrics; adult mental illness; child and adolescent psychiatry; clinical oncology; radiology; blood transfusion

bDerived from HES64 and ONS53 data

cProportionately adjusted using the working‐age English average as the ‘control’ group

Contributor Information

Sarah L Bermingham, Economics Policy Intern, Centre for Mental Health, London, UK.

Alan Cohen, National Primary Care Advisor, Improving Access to Psychological Therapies Programme, Department of Health and Director of Primary Care, West London Mental Health Trust, London, UK.

John Hague, General Practice Clinical Lead, Improving Access to Psychological Therapies Programme, NHS East of England, Cambridge, UK; General Practitioner, Ipswich; Independent Consultant, Centre for Mental Health, London, UK.

Michael Parsonage, Senior Policy Adviser, Centre for Mental Health, London, UK.

REFERENCES

1. Katon W, Ries RK, Kleinman A. The prevalence of somatization disorder in primary care. Comprehensive Psychiatry 1984;25:208–15 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2. Peveler R, Kilkenny L, Kinmonth AL. Medically unexplained physical symptoms in primary care: a comparison of self‐report screening questionnaires and clinical opinion. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 1997;42:245–52 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3. Burton C. Beyond somatization: a review of the understanding and treatment of medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS). British Journal of General Practice 2003;53:233–41 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4. Nimnuan C, Hotopf M, Wessely S. Medically unexplained symptoms: an epidemiological study in seven specialties. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 2001;51:361–7 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5. van Hermert AM, Hengeveld MW, Bolk JH, Rooijmans HG, Vandenbroucke JP. Psychiatric disorders in relation to medical illness among patients of a general medical out‐patient clinic. Psychological Medicine 1993;23:167–73 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6. Herrman H, Chopra P. Quality of life and neurotic disorders in general health care. Current Opinion in Psychiatry 2008;22:61–8 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7. Cummings N. Arguments for the financial efficacy of psychological services in health care settings. : Sweet J, Rezensky RH, Tovian SM.(eds)Handbook of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings. New York: Plenum Press, 1991. [Google Scholar]
8. Barsky AJ, Orav EJ, Bates DW. Somatization increases medical utilization and costs independent of psychiatric and medical comorbidity. Archives of General Psychiatry 2005;62:903–10 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9. De Waal MW, Arnold IA, Eekhof JA, van Hemert AM. Somatoform disorders in general practice. British Journal of Psychiatry 2004;184:470–76 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10. Löwe B, Spitzer RL, Williams JBW, Mussell M, Schellberg D, Kroenke K. Depression, anxiety and somatisation in primary care: syndrome overlap and functional impairment. General Hospital Psychiatry 2008;30:191–9 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11. Hanel G, Henningsen P, Herzog W, et al. Depression, anxiety and somatoform disorders: vague or distinct categories in primary care? Results from a large cross‐sectional study. Journal of Psychosomatic Research In press, 2009. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12. Kendall R, Jablensky A. Distinguishing between the validity and utility of psychiatric diagnoses. American Journal of Psychiatry 2003;160:4–12 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13. Barsky AJ, Orav EJ, Bates DW. Distinctive patterns of medical care utilisation in patients who somatise. Medical Care 2006;44:803–11 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14. Reif W, Martin A, Klaiberg A, Brahler E. Specific effects of depression, panic, and somatic symptoms on illness behaviour. Psychosomatic Medicine 2005;67:596–601 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15. Hollifield M, Paine S, Tuttle L, Kellner R. Hypochondriasis, somatisation, and perceived health and utilisation of health care services. Psychosomatics 1999;40:380–6 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16. Allen LA, Gara MA, Escobar JI, Waitzkin H, Silver RC. Somatisation: a debilitating syndrome in primary care. Psychosomatics 2001;42:63–7 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17. Henningsen P, Zimmerman T, Sattel H. Medically unexplained physical symptoms, anxiety and depression: a meta‐analytic review. Psychosomatic Medicine 2003;65:528–33 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18. Creed F, Barsky A. A systematic review of the epidemiology of somatisation disorder and hypochondriasis. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 2004;56:391–408 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19. Luo Z, Goddeeris J, Gardiner JC, Smith RC. Costs of an intervention for primary care patients with medically unexplained symptoms: a randomised controlled trial. Psychiatric Services 2007;58:1079–86 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20. Jackson JL, Kroenke K. Prevalence, impact and prognosis of multisomatoform disorder in primary care: a 5‐year follow‐up study. Psychosomatic Medicine 2008;70:430–4 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21. Escobar JI, Burnham MA, Karno M, Forsythe A, Golding JM. Somatization in the community. Archives of General Psychiatry 1987;44:713–18 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22. Smith RG, Monson RA, Ray DC. Patients with multiple unexplained symptoms: their characteristics, functional health, and health care utilization. Archives of Internal Medicine 1986;146:69–72 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23. Katon W, Lin E, Von Korff M, Russo J, Lipscomb P, Bush T. Somatization: a spectrum of severity. American Journal of Psychiatry 1991;148:34–40 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24. Martin A, Rauh E, Ficher M, Reif W. A one‐session treatment for patients suffering from medically unexplained symptoms in primary care: a randomised clinical trial. Psychosomatics 2007;48:294–303 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25. Hiller W, Fichter M, Reif W. A controlled treatment study of somatoform disorders including analysis of healthcare utilisation and cost‐effectiveness. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 2003;54:369–80 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26. Swartz M, Landerman R, George L, Blazer DG, Escobar J. Somatization disorder. : Robins LN, Regier DA. (eds)Psychiatric Disorders in America. New York: Free Press, 1991, pp. 220–57 [Google Scholar]
27. Beaber RJ, Rodney WM. Underdiagnosis of hypochondriasis in family practice. Psychosomatics 1984;25:39–46 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28. Simon G. Psychiatric disorders and functional somatic symptoms as predictors of health care use. Psychiatric Medicine 1992;10:49–59 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29. Fink P. Surgery and medical treatment in persistent somatising patients. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 1992;36:439–47 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
30. Page LA, Wessley S. Medically unexplained symptoms: exacerbating factors in the doctor‐patient encounter. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 2003;96:223–7 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
31. Ford CV. The Somatizing Disorders: illness as a way of life. New York: Elsevier, 1983. [Google Scholar]
32. Kellner R. Somatization: theories and research. Journal of Mental Disorders 1990;178:150–60 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33. Coryell W. Diagnosis‐specific mortality: primary unipolar depression and Briquet's syndrome (somatisation disorder). Archives of General Psychiatry 1981;38:939–42 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34. Gureje O, Simon GE, Ustun TB, Goldberg DP. Somatization in cross‐cultural perspective: World Health Organization study in primary care. American Journal of Psychiatry 1997;154:989–95 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
35. Croft‐Jeffries C, Wilkinson G. Costs of neurotic illness in UK general practice in 1985. Psychological Medicine 1989;19:549–58 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36. Shaw J, Creed F. The cost of somatization. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 1991;35:307–12 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37. Kinder A, Jorsh M, Johnston K, Dawes P. Somatization disorder: a defensive waste of NHS resources. Rheumatology 2004;43:672–4 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
38. Webb T, Pieters T. Suffolk Annual Health Report. NHS Suffolk, 2009. [Google Scholar]
39. De Waal MW, Arnold IA, Eekhof JA, Assendelft WJ, van Hemert AM. Follow‐up study on health care use of patients with somatoform, anxiety and depressive disorders in primary care. BMC Family Practice 2008;9:5. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
40. Fink P, Hansen MS, Oxhøj M. The prevalence of somatoform disorders among internal medical inpatients. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 2004;56:413–18 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41. Hansen MS, Fink P, Frydenberg M, Oxhøj, Søndergaard L, Munk‐Jørgensen P. Mental disorders among internal medical inpatients: prevalence, detection and treatment status. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 2001;50:199–204 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
42. Woolfolk RL, Allen LA. Treating Somatisation: a cognitive‐behavioral approach. New York: Guilford Press, 2007. [Google Scholar]
43. Office for National Statistics Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings for 2008. www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/Product.asp?vlnk=15187 [Google Scholar]
44. Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health Policy Paper 8. Mental Health at Work: developing the business case. London: Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health, 2007. [Google Scholar]
45. Margalit AP, El‐Ad A. Costly patients with unexplained medical symptoms: a high‐risk population. Patient Education and Counselling 2008;70:173–8 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
46. Matalon A, Nahmani T, Rabin S, Maoz B, Hart J. A short‐term intervention in a multidiciplinary referral clinic for primary care frequent attenders: description of the model, patient characteristics and their use of medical resources. Family Practice 2002;19:251–6 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
47. Van der Feltz‐Cornelis CM, van Oppen P, Adèr HJ, van Dyck R. Randomised controlled trial of a collaborative care model with psychiatric consultation for persistent medically unexplained symptoms in general practice. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics 2006;75:282–9 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
48. Dickinson WP, Dickinson LM, deGruy FV, et al. The somatisation in primary care study: a tale of three diagnoses. General Hospital Psychiatry 2003;25:1–7 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
49. Bleichhardt G, Timmer B, Reif W. Cognitive‐behavioral therapy for patients with multiple somatoform symptoms: a randomised controlled trial in tertiary care. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 2004;56:449–54 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
50. Fava GA, Grandi S, Rafanelli C, Fabbri S, Cazzaro M. Explanatory therapy in hypochondriasis. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 2000;61:317–22 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
51. Lyles JS, Hodges A, Collins C, et al. Using nurse practitioners to implement an intervention in primary care for high utilising patients with medically unexplained symptoms. General Hospital Psychiatry 2003;25:63–73 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
52. Wilkinson P, Mynors‐Wallis L. Problem‐solving therapy in the treatments of unexplained physical symptoms in primary care: a preliminary study. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 1994;38:591–8 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
53. Office for National Statistics Population Estimates Mid‐2008. www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/Product.asp?vlnk=15106 [Google Scholar]
54. Verhaak PF, Meijer SA, Visser AP, Wolters G. Persistent presentation of medically unexplained symptoms in general practice. Journal of Family Practice 2006;23:414–20 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
55. Hippisley‐Cox J, Jumbu G. Trends in Consultation Rates in General Practice 1995 to 2007: analysis of the QRESEARCH database. London: Health and Social Care Information Centre, NHS Information Centre and Department of Health, 2008. [Google Scholar]
56. Office for National Statistics General Household Survey for 2007. www.statistics.gov.uk/Statbase/Product.asp?vlnk=5756
57. Reid S, Wessely S, Crayford T, Hotopf M. Medically unexplained symptoms in frequent attenders of secondary health care: a retrospective cohort study. British Medical Journal 2002;322:1–4 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
58. Hospital Episode Statistics Outpatient First Attendances 2007–2008. www.hesonline.nhs.uk/Ease/servlet/ContentServer?siteID=1937andcategoryID=890
59. Hospital Episode Statistics Outpatient All Attendances. 2009. www.hesonline.nhs.uk/Ease/servlet/ContentServer?siteID=1937andcategoryID=893
60. Barsky AJ, Ettner SL, Horsky J, Bates DW. Resource utilisation of patients with hypochondriacal health anxiety and somatisation. Medical Care 2001;39:705–15 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
61. Theadom A, Dupont S, Byron K. Functional somatic symptoms in accident and emergency: an exploratory study. Accident and Emergency Nursing 2006;14:171–7 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
62. Hospital Episode Statistics Inpatient Data: main procedures and interventions summary. www.hesonline.nhs.uk/Ease/servlet/ContentServer?siteID=1937andcategoryID=204
63. Williams E, Guthrie E, Mackway‐Jones K, et al. Psychiatric status, somatisation, and health care utilisation of frequent attenders at the emergency department. A comparison with routine attenders. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 2001;50:161–7 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
64. Hospital Episode Statistics Accident and Emergency Attendances in England 2007–08. www.hesonline.nhs.uk/Ease/servlet/ContentServer?siteID=1937andcategoryID=1117
65. Reid S, Crayford T, Patel A, Wessely S, Hotopf M. Frequent attenders in secondary care: a three‐year follow‐up study of patients with medically unexplained symptoms. Psychological Medicine 2003;33:519–24 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
66. Chartered Institute of Personnel Development Absence Management: a survey of policy and practice. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, 2005. [Google Scholar]
67. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, de Gruy FV, Swindle R. A symptom checklist to screen for somatoform disorders in primary care. Psychosomatics 1998;39:263–372 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
68. Ara R, Brazier J. Deriving an algorithm to convert the eight mean SF‐36 dimension scores into a mean EQ‐5D preference‐based score from published studies (where patient level data are not available). Value in Health 2008;11:1131–43 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
69. Department of Health Measurement of Healthcare Output and Productivity: technical paper 2. London: Department of Health, 2005. [Google Scholar]
70. Regier DA, Farmer ME, Rae DS, et al. Comorbidity of mental disorders with alcohol and other drug abuse. Results from the epidemiologic catchment area (ECA) study. Journal of the American Medical Association 1990;264:2511–18 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
71. Leib R, Meinlschmidt G, Araya R. Epidemiology of the association between somatoform disorders and anxiety and depressive disorders: an update. Psychosomatic Medicine 2007;69:860–3 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
72. Escobar JI, Gara M, Waitzkin H, Holman A, Compton W. Somatisation in primary care. British Journal of Psychiatry 1998;173;262–6 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
73. Fink P, Hansen MS, Søndergaard L. Somatoform disorders among first‐time referrals to a neurology service. Psychosomatics 2005;46:540–8 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
74. Carson AJ, Ringbauer B, Stone J, McKenzie L, Warlow C, Sharpe M. Domedically unexplained symptoms matter? A prospective cohort study of 300 new referrals to neurology outpatient clinics. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry 2000;68:207–10 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
75. Reif W, Sharpe M. Editorial. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 2004;56:387–90 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
76. Fink P, Sorensen L, Enberg M, Holm M, Munk‐Jørgensen P. Somatisation in primary care: prevalence, health care utilisation and general practitioner recognition. Psychosomatics 1999;40:330–8 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
77. Jacobi F, Wittchen HU, Hölting C, et al. Prevalence, co‐morbidity and correlates of mental disorders in the general population: results from the German Health Interview and Examination Survey (GHS). Psychological Medicine 2004;34:597–611 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
78. Löwe B, Mundt C, Herzog W, et al. Validity of current somatoform disorder diagnoses: perspectives for classification in DSM‐V and ICD‐11. Psychopathology 2008;41:4–9 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
79. Mayou R, Kirmayer LJ, Simon G, Kroenke K, Sharpe M. Somatoform disorders: time for a new approach in DSM‐V. American Journal of Psychiatry 2005;162:847–55 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
80. Reif W, Hessel A, Braehler E. Somatisation symptoms and hypochondriacal features in the general population. Psychosomatic Medicine 2001;63:595–602 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
81. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL. Gender differences in the reporting of physical and somatoform symptoms. Psychosomatic Medicine 1998;60:150–5 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
82. Goldberg DP, Bridges K. Somatic presentations of psychiatric illness in primary care settings. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 1988;32:137–44 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
83. Golding JM, Smith GR, Kashner M. Does somatization disorder occur in men? Clinical characteristics of women and men with multiple unexplained physical symptoms. Archives of General Psychiatry 1991;48:231–52 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
84. Hasin D, Katz H. Somatoform and substance abuse disorders. Psychosomatic Medicine 2007;69:870–5 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
85. Kathol RG, Kunkel EJ, Weiner JS, McCarron RM, Worley LL, Yates WR. Psychiatrists for medically complex patients: bringing value at the phsysical health and mental health/substance‐use disorder interface. Psychosomatics 2009;50:93–107 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

FUNDING

This study was funded by a research grant from the Centre for Mental Health.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

None.


Articles from Mental Health in Family Medicine are provided here courtesy of Radcliffe Publishing and Wonca