Letter to the Editor, Commentary

Letter to the Editor: On the Critical Nature of Psychosomatics in Clinical Practice

Emanuele Maria Merlo*1 , Liam A. M. Myles2 , Gabriella Martino3
[1] Department of Biomedical and Dental Sciences and Morphofunctional Imaging, University of Messina, Messina, Italy. [2] Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom. [3] Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Messina, Messina, Italy.

Clinical Psychology in Europe, 2025, Vol. 7(3), Article e16309, https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.16309

Published (VoR): 2025-08-29.

*Corresponding author at: Department of Biomedical and Dental Sciences and Morphofunctional Imaging, University of Messina, Via Consolare Valeria 1, 98124, Messina, Italy. Phone: 0039-3288024346. E-mail: emerlo@unime.it

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Highlights

  • Scientific dialogue on current trends referred to psychosomatics results necessary.

  • Fostering dialogue and dissemination represents scientific advancement.

  • Clinical psychology deepening psychosomatics provides multifactorial results.

Dear Editors,

Acknowledging this journal's substantial commitment to advancing diverse applications in clinical psychology, this contribution aspires to cultivate a scientific dialogue within the psychosomatic domain.

Building upon this journal’s publication concerning the work of Kleinstäuber et al. (2024), which highlighted the paucity of systematic contributions on comprehensive approaches and biopsychosocial models to inform the identification of aetiological factors, fostering dialogue and dissemination remains of paramount importance.

The current trends in clinical psychology seem to recognize the need for a multidisciplinary approach and increased communication (Kleinstäuber et al., 2023). These areas of interest have been addressed by the journal, thereby inspiring opportunities for initiating an innovative and international scientific discourse. The works of Fischer and Ehlert (2019), Frostholm and Rask (2019), as well as Weigel et al. (2022), have demonstrated considerable sensitivity to topics such as diagnosis, intervention, aetiological factors, and multidisciplinary approaches.

Differentiation between organic and endogenous causes, as well as psychological and ecological factors, is frequently observed. While these distinctions may still hold necessity, epistemological considerations remind us of their unitary status. Despite this, there remains a prevalent and persistent inclination to divide domains, thereby overlooking inherently inseparable unitary realities. Systems of thought continue to exist in which the notion of a dominant metaphysics over physics remains a common inclination.

A compelling illustration of this trend is evident in the psychosomatic field, particularly regarding genuine psychosomatic and chronic conditions. The concept of psychological factors exerting influence on biological systems is traditionally regarded as accurate within the classical framework of psychosomatic theory.

Nonetheless, this conceptual accuracy may still align with a system of thought that historically regarded psychological factors as extrinsic to the physical dynamics of a suffering body, perceiving them as mere epiphenomena. Epistemologically sustainable reconfigurations are warranted, as exemplified by contemporary neuroscientific integrative approaches.

This contribution seeks to underscore the fundamental importance of fostering a debate on these prevailing trends. It aims to establish a platform for dialogue through which processes may be refined to enhance the precision and relevance of daily scientific practice.

In conclusion, insights and exchange between clinical contexts belonging to different realities produces scientific advancement that emerges necessary.

Funding

The authors have no funding to report.

Acknowledgments

The authors have no additional (i.e., non-financial) support to report.

Competing Interests

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

References

  • Fischer, S., & Ehlert, U. (2019). Psychoneuroendocrinology and clinical psychology. Clinical Psychology in Europe, 1(2), Article e33030. https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.v1i2.33030

  • Frostholm, L., & Rask, C. U. (2019). Third wave treatments for functional somatic syndromes and health anxiety across the age span: A narrative review. Clinical Psychology in Europe, 1(1), Article e32217. https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.v1i1.32217

  • Kleinstäuber, M., Diefenbach, M. A., & Rief, W. (2024). “It is not just in your mind” – Improving physician-patient communication in individuals with persistent somatic symptoms. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 185, Article 111580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2023.111580

  • Kleinstäuber, M., Schröder, A., Daehler, S., Pallesen, K. J., Rask, C. U., Sanyer, M., Van den Bergh, O., Weinreich Petersen, M., & Rosmalen, J. G. (2023). Aetiological understanding of fibromyalgia, irritable bowel syndrome, chronic fatigue syndrome and classificatory analogues: A systematic umbrella review. Clinical Psychology in Europe, 5(3), Article e11179. https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.11179

  • Weigel, A., Dantoft, T. M., Jørgensen, T., Carstensen, T., Löwe, B., Weinman, J., & Frostholm, L. (2022). Symptom perceptions in functional disorders, major health conditions, and healthy controls: A general population study. Clinical Psychology in Europe, 4(4), Article e7739. https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.7739