Diagnostic assessment and case formulation in psychogenic nonepileptic seizures: A pilot comparison of approaches

Abstract

Management of psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES) is complex, requiring multidisciplinary care. A standardized assessment approach to PNES is lacking, yet use of a comprehensive model may alleviate problems such as mental health aftercare noncompliance. Although a biopsychosocial (BPS) approach to PNES balancing predisposing, precipitating, and perpetuating (PPP) variables has been described, it is unclear how this formulation style is perceived amongst clinicians. We predicted preference of a comprehensive, “BPS/PPP” assessment style by those most involved in PNES diagnosis and care (i.e., neurologists and psychologists). Sixty epileptologists, psychiatrists, and psychologists completed a survey featuring a fictional PNES case followed by assessment style options (“Multiaxial,” “Narrative,” and “BPS/PPP”). Epileptologists and psychologists (“nonpsychiatrists”) differed from psychiatrists in PNES case formulation choice, with nonpsychiatrists preferring the robust BPS/PPP approach and with psychiatrists opting for less comprehensive Multiaxial and Narrative assessments (p=0.0009). Reasons for choosing the BPS/PPP by nonpsychiatrists included ease of organization, clear therapeutic goals, and comprehensive nature. Alternatively, psychiatrists cited time constraints and familiarity as reasons to prefer briefer Multiaxial or Narrative approaches. This pilot assessment of acceptability of a BPS/PPP approach to PNES case formulation, thus, reveals important gaps in formulation priorities between neurologists and psychiatrists. Implications and future directions are explored.