Somatic Symptom Disorder, Conversion Disorder, and Chronic Pain: Pediatric Clinician Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: The appropriateness and relevance of somatic symptom disorder and conversion disorder ( American Psychiatric Association, 2013 ) diagnoses are in question as they relate to pediatric chronic pain. This survey-based study on pediatric chronic pain explores how these psychiatric diagnoses are made and perceived and how treatment of patients is approached by Canadian health care professionals working in pediatric chronic pain clinics. Method: Health care professionals ( N = 50) completed the survey, which contained both qualitative and quantitative items. Results: Of participants, 88% reported moderate/advanced training in pain, whereas only 26% reported moderate/advanced training in somatic symptom disorder and conversion disorder. Somatic symptom disorder and conversion disorder were reportedly diagnosed in approximately 17% and 5% of young people with chronic pain, respectively; however, overall, the participants were not confident or only slightly confident when diagnosing these disorders. There were no major differences in the reported interventions used to treat pain, somatic symptom disorder, or conversion disorder. Conclusions: These results highlight the need for standardized training in pain and psychiatric assessment, diagnosis, and treatment; diagnostic guidelines; and how to best provide this training to health care staff who work with young people with chronic pain. Implications for Impact Statement These results raise questions about the conceptualization of chronic pain, somatic symptom disorder, and conversion disorder, and point to the need for further research, improved training, clearer differential diagnostic criteria, and effective treatments.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".