Compensation neurosis: A too quickly forgotten concept?
2500 West Lake Mary Boulevard, Suite 219, Lake Mary, FL 32746. .The journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law (Impact Factor: 0.93). 09/2012; 40(3):390-8.
There has been great debate concerning the existence and meaning of compensation neurosis. It is included in the International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9 and -10 but not listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR). On the eve of publication of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), we re-examine the history and concept of compensation neurosis and conceptually update the condition to reflect current psychiatric thought. We consider its utility as a diagnostic entity for forensic evaluations and its components as they relate to exaggeration in injury claims. We also discuss how compensation neurosis differs from malingering and factitious disorder.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Chronic pain syndromes either have no underlying organic explanation, or include patients whose chronic pain complaints (without focal deficits or significant radiographic findings) were not alleviated by surgery (in 80% of cases). Patients with chronic pain typically "turn off" members of the medical community; they are often "written off" as malingerers or psychiatric cases. The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory often shows elevations on the hysteria and hypochondriasis scales; together these constitute somatization defined as patients converting emotional distress into bodily complaints. Depression, anxiety, and borderline personality disorders are also often encountered. Secondary gain also plays a critical role in patients with chronic pain syndromes (e.g., includes avoiding onerous tasks/work, or rewards opioid-seeking behaviors). Tertiary gain pertains to the physicians' financial rewards for administering ineffective and repeated treatment of these patients, while validating for the patient that there is truly something organically wrong with them. Self-mutilation (part of Munchausen Syndrome/Fictitious Disorders) also brings these chronic pain patients to the attention of the medical community. They are also often involved in the legal system (e.g., workmen's compensation or tort action) that in the United States, unfortunately financially rewards "pain and suffering." The main purpose of this commentary is to reeducate spinal surgeons about the pitfalls of operating on patients with chronic pain syndromes in the absence of significant neurological deficits or radiographic findings, as such "last ditch surgery" invariably fails.Surgical Neurology International 06/2013; 4(Suppl 5):S330-3. DOI:10.4103/2152-7806.113442 · 1.18 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Compared with other psychiatric disorders, diagnosis of factitious disorders is rare, with identification largely dependent on the systematic collection of relevant information, including a detailed chronology and scrutiny of the patient's medical record. Management of such disorders ideally requires a team-based approach and close involvement of the primary care doctor. As deception is a key defining component of factitious disorders, diagnosis has important implications for young children, particularly when identified in women and health-care workers. Malingering is considered to be rare in clinical practice, whereas simulation of symptoms, motivated by financial rewards, is regarded as more common in medicolegal settings. Although psychometric investigations (eg, symptom validity testing) can inform the detection of illness deception, such tests need support from converging evidence sources, including detailed interview assessments, medical notes, and relevant non-medical investigations. A key challenge in any discussion of abnormal health-care-seeking behaviour is the extent to which a person's reported symptoms are considered to be a product of choice, or psychopathology beyond volitional control, or perhaps both. Clinical skills alone are not typically sufficient for diagnosis or to detect malingering. Medical education needs to provide doctors with the conceptual, developmental, and management frameworks to understand and deal with patients whose symptoms appear to be simulated. Central to the understanding of factitious disorders and malingering are the explanatory models and beliefs used to provide meaning for both patients and doctors. Future progress in management will benefit from an increased appreciation of the contribution of non-medical factors and a greater awareness of the conceptual and clinical findings from social neuroscience, occupational health, and clinical psychology.The Lancet 03/2014; 383(9926). DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62186-8 · 45.22 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Research is accumulating highlighting the negative impact of perceptions of injustice on health and mental outcomes associated with pain. To date, the relation between perceived injustice and adverse pain outcomes has been demonstrated with individuals suffering from a wide range of debilitating pain conditions. This paper summarizes what is currently known about the negative impact of justice-related appraisals on recovery trajectories following injury. The paper also addresses the processes that might underlie the relations between perceived injustice and adverse pain outcomes. Given the research indicating that perceived injustice is a powerful predictor of disability, it follows that interventions that yield reductions in perceived injustice should be associated with reductions in disability. Of concern, however, is that perceptions of injustice do not appear to respond to current treatment approaches used in the management of pain and disability consequent to injury. It is argued that a paradigm shift in approaches to evaluation and treatment might be required in order to yield meaningful reductions in perceived injustice. Such a paradigm shift might entail broadening the targets of assessment and intervention beyond the ‘perceptions’ of the injured individual to include potential external sources of injustice (e.g., employer, insurer, health care provider) in the treatment plan.Psychological Injury and Law 12/2014; 7(4):325-334. DOI:10.1007/s12207-014-9209-8
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.