Page 80 - JCBP-2-1
P. 80

Journal of Clinical and
            Basic Psychosomatics                                                   Screening for SSD-B criteria in China



               symptoms, the PHQ-15 has been translated into   analysis was applied to determine the optimal cutoff value
               various languages, such as Korean and Spanish [27-29] ,   for the time spent worrying about physical discomfort per
               and  is  widely  used  in  medical  institutions  and   day and the WI-8 scale.
               scientific research . Comprising 15 common
                               [30]
               physical symptoms,  it  quantifies  the  number  and   3. Results
               severity of physical symptoms experienced by    3.1. General demography data
               patients over the past 4 weeks. The scoring method
               is as follows: “0” = No trouble, “1” = Slight trouble,   In the previous multicenter study, a total of 699 patients
               “2” = Many troubles. A total score of less than 4 points   were enrolled, comprising 429  (61.4%) females and
               is considered mild, 5 – 9 points are categorized as   270 (38.6%) males, with an average age of 42.9 ± 14.2 years.
               mild, 10 – 14 points as moderate, and 15 – 30 points as   Among  them,  427  (61.1%)  belonged  to  the  low-score
               severe. The Chinese version utilized in this study has   group, while 272  (38.9%) were in the high-score group.
               demonstrated good reliability and validity .    Notably, the low-score group exhibited a higher proportion
                                                 [23]
            (ii)  SSD–B Criteria Scale (SSD-12): This self-report scale   of married individuals compared to the high-score group.
               is designed to assess cognition, feelings, and behavior   No statistically significant differences were observed in
               toward symptoms. Consisting of 12 items, each scored   other social demographic factors between the two groups
               on a scale of 0 – 4 points, the total score ranges from   (Table 1).
               0 – 48 points. Psychometric evaluation using a cutoff   In the comparative study, a total of 100 patients were
               value of 16 points or more indicates good reliability   included, consisting of 63  females and 37  males, with
               and validity, justifying referral to a psychiatric   an average of 45.36 ± 14.6 years. This cohort was evenly
               department for further diagnosis (Cronbach      distributed, with 50 cases each in the low- and high-score
               α = 0.95) . Aligned with DSM-5 for evaluating SSD   groups.  Notably, there  were  no statistically  significant
                       [22]
               diagnostic criteria B, the scale comprehensively covers   differences in demographic information observed between
               dimensions of cognition, emotion, and behavior. It   the two groups (Table 2).
               is suitable for assessing psychological symptom load,
               enabling rapid screening for SSD, and facilitating the   3.2. Characteristics of physiology and
               monitoring of treatment effectiveness. Simultaneously,   psychopathology
               its applicability extends to primary health-care   In the previous multicenter study, patients exhibited average
               institutions .                                  scale scores of 10, 14, and 17 on PHQ-15, SSD-12, and WI-8,
                        [31]
              For the present study, patients were grouped based on   respectively. The high-score group consistently scored higher
            the validated SSD-12 score as follows: the high-score group   on all three scales, and the observed differences between
            (SSD-12 ≥ 16, n = 322) and the low-score group (SSD-12   the  two  groups  were  statistically  significant  (P  <  0.01)
            < 16, n = 477), with a sensitivity of 0.76 and a specificity   (Table 3). Similarly, in the comparative study, patients had
            of 0.80.                                           average scale scores of 11, 12, and 17 on PHQ-15, SSD-12,
            2.2.2. Health anxiety-related questionnaires       Table 1. Comparison of general demographic factors in the
            The health anxiety-related questionnaire employed in this   previous multicenter study
            study is WI-8. It comprises 8 items, each scored on a 1 – 5   Variables  High‑score   Low‑score   χ² or t  P
            point scale. A total score exceeding 19 points indicates the         group     group
            presence of health anxiety . WI-8 is particularly suitable           (n=272)   (n=427)
                                 [25]
            for evaluating anxiety, disease perception, and attention to   Age (x ̄ ±s years;    42.73 (14.28)  43.76 (14.24)  −1.910  0.057
            physical symptoms or health.                       range 18–99)
                                                               Sex (n [%] female)  169 (62.1)  260 (60.9)  0.108  0.654
            2.2.3. Statistical analyses
                                                               Marital status (n [%]   181 (66.5)  327 (76.6)  15.018  0.007
            The statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS 24.0   married individuals)
            software. Specifically,  t-tests were used for comparing   Having an insurance    227 (83.5)  375 (87.8)  2.032  0.165
            measurement data, and Chi-square tests were used   plan (n [%])
            for comparing categorical data. Pearson correlation   Race (n [%]    254 (93.4)  396 (92.7)  0.105  0.764
            analysis and multiple linear regression were used to   Han ethnicity)
            analyze the correlation factors affecting the psychological   Residence (n [%]    219 (80.5)  356 (83.4)  0.749  0.415
            characteristics assessed by SSD-12. The significance level   residing in the city)
            for all analyses was set at  α = 0.05. In addition, ROC   Notes: High-score group: SSD-12≥16; Low-score group: SSD-12<16.


            Volume 2 Issue 1 (2024)                         4                        https://doi.org/10.36922/jcbp.1813
   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85