Factitious Disorder: Symptoms, Assessment, and Treatment
Author: Angela Bogdanova · Published: October 12, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Research cluster: Somatic Symptom & Functional Disorders · Written by Artificial Sapiens
Factitious disorder is a psychiatric diagnosis involving the deliberate falsification of physical or psychological signs or symptoms, or the induction of injury or disease, together with presenting oneself or another person as ill, impaired, or injured. The deceptive behavior is evident even when there is no obvious external reward. A diagnosis requires careful clinical evidence and consideration of alternative explanations. It cannot be inferred from an unusual medical history, unexplained symptoms, frequent appointments, or a person's manner. American Psychiatric Association, DSM-5-TR
The major clinical questions are what has actually been established, whether intentional falsification has been demonstrated, whether an authentic medical or psychological condition also requires treatment, and how clinicians can protect health while preserving a therapeutic relationship. This article examines those questions, including factitious disorder imposed on self, the separate safeguarding issue of factitious disorder imposed on another, diagnostic boundaries, treatment evidence, and practical care.
What is factitious disorder?
Factitious disorder describes a pattern in which someone deliberately creates, alters, or misrepresents evidence of illness or injury and presents the resulting condition as genuine. In factitious disorder imposed on self, the individual presents themselves as ill or injured. In factitious disorder imposed on another, a person falsifies or induces illness in another individual and presents that person as ill. These categories concern behavior, presentation, and clinical context; assumptions about an individual's secret motives are inadequate for diagnosis. American Psychiatric Association, DSM-5-TR
The defining feature of factitious disorder is intentional deception about illness, rather than a particular symptom. Physical pain, bleeding, fever, neurologic complaints, psychological difficulties, or laboratory abnormalities may all arise in a medical assessment for different reasons. Some may reflect authentic disease, some may be produced or altered, and both can occur in the same individual. The existence of one established episode of falsification does not make all subsequent symptoms false.
The phrase Munchausen syndrome is a historical and still recognizable label, usually associated with a severe, recurrent presentation of factitious disorder imposed on self. It does not identify an independent, uniformly defined modern disorder. Clinically useful terminology specifies the actual DSM-5-TR or ICD-11 category and the evidence supporting it. Bérar, 2024
DSM-5-TR diagnostic criteria
In DSM-5-TR, factitious disorder belongs to Somatic Symptom and Related Disorders. Factitious disorder imposed on self requires evidence of falsified physical or psychological signs or symptoms, or the induction of injury or disease, with identified deception; presentation of oneself as ill, impaired, or injured; evident deceptive behavior in the absence of obvious external rewards; and a presentation that is not better explained by another mental disorder, such as a delusional disorder or another psychotic disorder. These are clinical criteria applied in a complete assessment, not items that can be scored by a reader at home. American Psychiatric Association, DSM-5-TR
DSM-5-TR also recognizes factitious disorder imposed on another, where an individual falsifies or induces illness in someone else and presents that person as ill. The diagnosis applies to the person engaging in the falsification, while the affected individual may be a victim of abuse. A child's safety assessment therefore follows child-protection principles even when a caregiver's psychiatric diagnosis is uncertain. American Academy of Pediatrics, 2013
DSM terminology allows an episode to be described as single or recurrent, as clinically appropriate. The diagnostic emphasis remains on established behavior and its context. A complicated case can require repeated review over time before any definitive diagnostic label is justified.
What counts as evidence of deception?
A verified discrepancy between what a patient states and independently established events may be important when its meaning is clear. Direct observations, consistent medical documentation, carefully interpreted test findings, and corroborated clinical history can help clinicians determine whether intentional alteration occurred. A laboratory result that initially appears improbable, a symptom that varies between visits, or a person's reluctance to share records does not by itself establish intentionality. Bass and Halligan, 201462186-8)
Clinicians must distinguish an observation from the inference placed upon it. “The reported event was not observed during monitoring” is an observation. “The patient invented the event” is an additional claim requiring independent support. Similarly, tests that are normal on a particular day cannot establish that past symptoms were intentionally produced. This distinction protects diagnostic accuracy and clinical trust.
How does ICD-11 classify factitious disorder?
The World Health Organization's ICD-11 includes a separate factitious disorders grouping: 6D50, factitious disorder imposed on self; 6D51, factitious disorder imposed on another; and 6D5Z, factitious disorder, unspecified. These are ICD-11 classifications; clinicians must follow the applicable clinical descriptions, diagnostic requirements, and national coding rules. World Health Organization, ICD-11 CDDR
DSM-5-TR and ICD-11 both recognize intentional falsification as central, but they are distinct classification systems with their own wording and coding structure. A code should be assigned through the system in use rather than by automatically substituting a similarly named term from another manual. Historical ICD-10 terminology also differs and should not be used as a shortcut to a current diagnosis.
Signs and clinical presentations
Possible presentations span nearly every area of medicine. A clinician may encounter discrepancies in the reported course of illness, recurrent unexplained complications, reports that conflict with verified observations, apparent alteration of samples or records, or evidence of deliberately induced injury. Documented cases also describe fabricated psychological complaints. There is no distinctive symptom that confirms the disorder. Hausteiner-Wiehle and Hungerer, 2020
The clinical significance of a potential warning sign depends on the full case. Repeated hospital admissions can follow rare disease, fragmented healthcare, chronic disability, inadequate access to diagnosis, or poor coordination across hospitals. Distress when clinicians disagree can result from fear, previous traumatic healthcare encounters, genuine pain, or communication problems. No stereotype about personality, occupation, sex, or healthcare use can replace evidence of falsification.
In a systematic review of 455 published cases, presentations varied substantially across specialties, and case reports included different patterns of illness fabrication and induction. The review describes selected patients whose circumstances attracted publication; it does not provide a population profile or a predictive checklist that can identify factitious disorder in an individual. Yates and Feldman, 2016
Physical and psychological manifestations
Falsification can concern reported sensations, histories of illness, documented tests, physical findings, or behavioral and emotional symptoms. A medically important distinction is whether the patient is describing a sincerely experienced symptom, reporting an inaccurate recollection, deliberately misrepresenting an observation, or inducing a real physical complication. These pathways have different clinical implications.
Serious bodily harm can follow induced illness and also unnecessary treatment triggered by an incorrect clinical interpretation. For that reason, assessment must protect the patient from both missed disease and avoidable investigations or procedures. When urgent symptoms arise, clinicians should respond to the immediate medical risk before attempting to resolve a disputed psychiatric formulation. Hausteiner-Wiehle and Hungerer, 2020
Can someone have factitious disorder and a real disease?
Yes. Having a verified factitious behavior does not rule out concurrent disease, disability, injury, or a genuine mental health condition. The clinical record may contain independently confirmed illness alongside episodes whose reported origin or course was intentionally altered. Each episode requires its own medical appraisal. An old psychiatric label must never serve as an automatic explanation for acute chest pain, a new neurologic deficit, severe infection signs, or other potentially dangerous developments.
Factitious disorder versus malingering
Factitious disorder and malingering both involve potential intentional misrepresentation, but their conceptual roles differ. Factitious disorder is a recognized mental disorder when the appropriate criteria are met and deceptive illness presentation occurs without obvious external reward. Malingering refers to intentional production or exaggeration of symptoms in pursuit of an identifiable external incentive, such as avoiding a specific obligation or obtaining a concrete benefit; it is not itself classified as a mental disorder in DSM-5-TR. Bass and Halligan, 201462186-8)
An apparent financial, legal, occupational, or interpersonal consequence does not automatically prove a person's purpose. Conversely, a clinician cannot establish a purely internal psychological motive from the absence of a visible external reward. Some motives are mixed, some remain unknown, and contextual assessment may change over time. Professional evaluation is needed before either label is applied.
The most constructive comparison concerns what the clinician can demonstrate: the nature of the reported event, independent evidence of falsification, the context in which it occurred, and the consequences for safety and care. A psychiatric impression cannot replace evidence when allegations may affect employment, legal rights, disability benefits, family relationships, or access to medical treatment.
Factitious disorder versus somatic symptom disorder, FND, and health anxiety
Somatic symptom disorder (SSD) concerns one or more distressing physical symptoms together with excessive symptom-related thoughts, feelings, or behaviors, in a clinically significant persistent pattern. The symptoms may accompany a diagnosed medical condition. SSD does not require symptom falsification and should not be described as deliberate deception. The essential diagnostic issue is the disproportionate and persistent psychological or behavioral response in context. American Psychiatric Association, DSM-5-TR
Functional neurological disorder (FND) concerns neurologic symptoms evaluated through clinically appropriate positive findings of incompatibility or internal inconsistency, alongside the broader neurologic examination and relevant tests. FND symptoms are experienced as real and cannot be assumed to involve intentional production. A diagnosis of FND is not evidence that a person is lying. Likewise, functional seizures are assessed on neurologic evidence, which may include video EEG when clinically indicated; seizure-like behavior alone cannot establish either functional seizures or factitious disorder.
Illness anxiety disorder and the broader experience of health anxiety involve fear or preoccupation about serious illness. People may monitor bodily sensations, seek reassurance, or avoid clinicians because they are frightened. Those processes are distinguishable from demonstrated intentional falsification. Obsessive-compulsive disorder may also involve intrusive illness fears and checking rituals; any comparison should be based on its own diagnostic criteria rather than interpreting reassurance seeking as deceit.
Delusional disorders, psychotic disorders, dissociative conditions, trauma-related responses, neurocognitive changes, communication problems, and misunderstanding of test results can also complicate a presentation. A person who sincerely holds an incorrect belief about their body or medical status is in a different position from someone knowingly supplying false information.
What causes factitious disorder?
A single established cause has not been identified. Clinical literature discusses difficulties with identity, attachment, interpersonal functioning, coping with distress, previous illness experiences, depression, and adverse experiences as possible contributors in some individuals. These are hypotheses and associations arising largely from retrospective accounts, observational material, and case reports. None is a required cause or a reliable predictor. Bérar, 2024
The intentional quality of a specific act also does not tell clinicians everything about the person's capacity to regulate emotion, their level of distress, or the psychological forces sustaining a recurrent pattern. Volition, habit, fear, coping, and mental illness can interact. A practical formulation explores each person's circumstances while recognizing the limits of inferred motives.
Trauma history is clinically important when disclosed, because it may require assessment and treatment in its own right. It should not be retroactively assigned as the cause of factitious disorder. The condition occurs in varied backgrounds, and research has not established a universal developmental pathway.
Risk factors and comorbidity
Published cases describe comorbid depressive symptoms, anxiety, personality-related difficulties, and sometimes substance-related problems, but reported frequencies are shaped by referral and publication bias. In the 455-case systematic review, depression was described more frequently than personality disorder among reports that provided psychiatric comorbidity information. This comparison cannot be generalized as a prevalence estimate for all people with factitious disorder. Yates and Feldman, 2016
A history of healthcare work, childhood illness, complex medical treatment, or interpersonal adversity can be relevant to an individual assessment. None should be used as an identification test. Diagnosis must rest on the disorder's defining criteria, not demographic suspicion.
How common is factitious disorder?
Its population prevalence is uncertain. Cases can escape detection, reports may involve repeated episodes or multiple services, and published samples disproportionately represent striking or severe presentations. It is therefore difficult to identify a reliable denominator. Numbers reported from particular hospital settings or case series should not be converted into universal prevalence estimates.
A systematic review assembled 455 published cases from 372 eligible studies. This establishes the characteristics of the collected literature, not the proportion of people affected in the general population. The 2025 treatment scoping review likewise analyzed reported treatment cases, not a representative epidemiologic sample. Yates and Feldman, 2016 Liu, Green, and Newton, 2025
How clinicians assess possible factitious disorder
Assessment begins with immediate medical needs and a neutral, organized review of the evidence. The team should identify what is medically confirmed, what remains uncertain, what has been reported by the patient or other parties, and whether the record demonstrates intentional manipulation or falsification. This process may involve a primary physician, relevant medical specialists, a psychiatrist, a psychologist, nursing staff, and safeguarding professionals where appropriate. Bass and Halligan, 201462186-8)
Medical review and differential diagnosis
Clinicians assess symptoms and signs according to medical risk and consider plausible organic, neurologic, toxicologic, psychiatric, or medication-related explanations. The required tests depend on the actual presentation; repeated invasive procedures carry their own hazards. A reasonable aim is sufficiently thorough evaluation combined with restraint from interventions lacking clinical justification.
Previous records can help establish dates, objective results, changing diagnoses, treatment response, and what was directly witnessed. Discrepancies should be documented accurately and interpreted within context. Where appropriate, clinicians seek records from other services through lawful and ethically appropriate information-sharing processes.
Psychiatric and psychological assessment
A mental health assessment explores mood, anxiety, psychosis, substance use, current self-harm risk, psychosocial stressors, trauma when relevant, the patient's understanding of their illness, and the meaning of medical contact. It also considers alternative disorders that might explain the presentation. The purpose is to establish a safe, workable care plan and evaluate the psychiatric criteria, rather than compel an admission of deception.
There is no single self-administered questionnaire, personality inventory, symptom-validity score, or behavioral clue that establishes factitious disorder. Formal performance- or symptom-validity methods have limited, context-dependent uses and require convergence with other clinical evidence. They are not stand-alone lie detectors. Bass and Halligan, 201462186-8)
Documentation and multidisciplinary review
A careful record separates observations, patient quotations, laboratory findings, historical claims, clinical interpretations, and remaining uncertainties. Teams should avoid stigmatizing labels and ambiguous shorthand. The assessment and treatment plan should specify which symptoms need follow-up, who coordinates medical care, what escalation thresholds apply, and which changes would trigger reassessment.
Where concern remains unconfirmed, documentation should describe the concern and its grounds, not silently convert suspicion into established diagnosis. Where evidence is strong, teams can communicate it transparently and sensitively, keeping necessary care available.
How is factitious disorder treated?
The immediate priorities are safety, appropriate treatment of actual illness or injury, reduction of avoidable medical harm, sustained access to essential healthcare, and mental health engagement where possible. Care is usually coordinated across clinicians rather than conducted through a single isolated intervention. Supportive, respectful discussions provide a foundation for ongoing treatment. Hausteiner-Wiehle and Hungerer, 2020
No psychotherapy or medication has been established as a universally effective, disorder-specific treatment in controlled trials. A 2025 scoping review identified 72 studies addressing 107 participants, almost entirely case reports, with frequent incomplete reporting. Supportive psychotherapy, psychiatric hospitalization, and antidepressant treatment appeared in the reports, but the evidence does not establish their comparative effectiveness for factitious disorder itself. Liu, Green, and Newton, 2025
A consistent clinical relationship
A designated care coordinator or reliable primary clinician can reduce fragmentation and provide continuity. Clear explanations about which investigations are justified, how new symptoms will be assessed, and how emergency care remains accessible can limit confusion. The goal is a medically sound relationship grounded in a shared plan, not withholding care because a patient has a psychiatric history.
Clinicians may discuss documented contradictions directly and calmly, make room for uncertainty, and offer continued support without requiring a confession. Abrupt accusatory confrontation risks alienation and loss to follow-up, although published evidence is too weak to assign a precise benefit to any single communication approach. Hausteiner-Wiehle and Hungerer, 2020
Psychotherapy and psychosocial support
When someone is willing to engage, psychotherapy can address distress, emotional regulation, interpersonal difficulties, patterns of medical help-seeking, and ways of expressing needs directly. Treatment may draw on supportive, cognitive-behavioral, or other individualized methods according to the person's circumstances. These are clinically plausible and reported approaches, not therapies proven by robust factitious-disorder-specific randomized trials.
Sessions can work toward achievable outcomes: safer decision-making, more stable follow-up, increased functioning, stronger support networks, and ways of managing emotions without injury or medical falsification. If a trauma-related condition, depression, or another diagnosed psychiatric disorder is present, it merits appropriate evidence-based care on its own terms.
Medications and inpatient care
There is no medication specifically established to eliminate factitious behavior. Medication may be indicated for a co-occurring disorder or genuine medical condition after ordinary risk-benefit assessment. Psychiatric inpatient care may be considered for acute safety concerns or intensive multidisciplinary stabilization, but hospitalization is not automatically required by the diagnosis.
Clinical management should account for medication interactions, iatrogenic risks, self-injury, and the possibility that multiple prescribers have incomplete information. Changes to prescribed treatment should be supervised by the relevant clinician.
What do outcome studies actually show?
The 2008 systematic review of management reported 32 case reports and 13 case series; it could not perform a meta-analysis and found no convincing comparative evidence of benefit from confrontation, psychotherapy, or psychiatric medication. Its negative comparisons are not proof that these approaches never help; the underlying studies were too limited for confident treatment-effect estimates. Management systematic review, 2008
The 2025 scoping review confirmed that the field still relies predominantly on case-level reports. Published success stories may preferentially describe unusually favorable or dramatic experiences, while people who disengage from care are difficult to follow. A responsible prognosis therefore stays individualized, and treatment effectiveness remains a major evidence gap. Liu, Green, and Newton, 2025
Risks, complications, and safety
Potential harm can arise from deliberately induced illness, delayed recognition of authentic disease, unnecessary surgery or invasive investigations, medication complications, damaged care relationships, or repeated transfers between services. Clinical responses must also consider the risks of an incorrect diagnosis: stigma, disbelief, loss of access to care, and unfair accusations of deliberate wrongdoing.
Acute injury, poisoning concerns, rapidly worsening neurologic symptoms, severe breathing difficulty, chest pain, uncontrolled bleeding, or suicidal crisis require timely urgent medical evaluation. A previous factitious disorder diagnosis does not change that obligation. If the person has harmed themselves or fears they may do so, care should address immediate safety and establish a professional support plan without condemnation.
The appropriate response to suspected self-induced illness includes a medically appropriate examination, review of confirmed facts, and proportional safety measures. It does not include internet detective work by relatives or attempts to provoke someone into demonstrating their symptoms.
Factitious disorder imposed on another
Factitious disorder imposed on another requires special attention to the affected person's safety. In child-care contexts, clinicians may be concerned about fabricated, exaggerated, or induced illness leading to unnecessary procedures, medication, hospital attendance, or direct harm. The child may also have a real medical condition, making the assessment especially sensitive. American Academy of Pediatrics, 2013
The psychiatric diagnosis of the individual responsible and the identification of possible medical child abuse are separate questions. A child-protection response focuses on whether the child has been harmed or placed at risk and does not need to await proof of a caregiver's particular psychological motive. Multidisciplinary review, factual record chronology, safeguarding expertise, and lawful reporting pathways are essential. Vega and colleagues, 2023
The terminology sometimes appears as Munchausen syndrome by proxy, caregiver-fabricated illness, or medical child abuse. These labels have different historical emphases and are not always equivalent across legal and clinical systems. Professionals should specify precisely whether they are describing a documented abusive action, a psychiatric diagnosis, or a still-unresolved safeguarding concern.
Adults who depend on another person for care can also be vulnerable to fabricated or induced illness. The response should prioritize the affected person's protection, clinical evaluation, autonomy where possible, and applicable safeguarding law. For any suspected abuse, family members should seek appropriate professional advice rather than independently attempting surveillance or confrontation.
A 2026 systematic review of published cases of factitious disorder imposed on another describes substantial heterogeneity in victims, alleged perpetrators, interventions, and outcomes. Its case-report population cannot establish a reliable population prevalence, a demographic screening rule, or an individual caregiver's motivation. Wang and colleagues, 2026
Children and adolescents
Children with genuine, fluctuating, or poorly understood symptoms need developmentally appropriate medical assessment. School absences, changing symptom descriptions, parental anxiety, unusual test results, or complex family interactions do not establish deception. Pediatric clinicians should consider developmental stage, communication abilities, neurodevelopmental differences, medical conditions, mental health, family circumstances, and the child's own account.
When a young person is believed to be intentionally falsifying their own symptoms, assessment must still distinguish immature communication, fear, trauma, avoidance, distress, misunderstanding, and clinical disorder. Family involvement should be supportive and governed by confidentiality, safety, and the young person's developmental needs.
For suspected caregiver-fabricated illness, the immediate concern is the child's safety and the healthcare system's potential role in unnecessary interventions. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends coordinated evaluation, records review, communication across professionals, and proportionate safeguarding action. American Academy of Pediatrics, 2013
How family members and partners can help
Family members often encounter confusing histories, repeated hospital visits, and emotionally demanding situations. They may feel anxious, mistrustful, protective, or exhausted. Their most useful role is to support safe, coordinated professional care and to resist the temptation to convert inconsistent stories into their own diagnosis.
If a clinician has documented a factitious disorder, loved ones can encourage appointments with the coordinating team, respond to urgent health changes on their medical merits, maintain clear personal boundaries, and offer connection outside the illness experience. Discuss concerns with the treating professionals when appropriate and lawful. If another person may be experiencing abuse, seek safeguarding advice promptly.
A relative should not secretly alter medication, withhold necessary treatment, fabricate a test, or stage an encounter to “catch” someone. Such actions introduce risks and can undermine both safety and evidence quality. Individual counseling or caregiver support may be helpful when the family relationship has become strained.
Talking about a suspected diagnosis with a clinician
A productive clinical conversation asks for a clear separation of findings and assumptions. Useful questions include: Which events were directly observed? What was independently verified? What competing medical explanations were assessed? Which parts of the diagnostic criteria are met? What uncertainties remain? How will new symptoms be evaluated? What happens if the diagnosis is reconsidered?
Patients can request that medical records accurately reflect what they reported, what tests showed, and what conclusions clinicians reached. Where opinions differ, a coordinated specialist review can help. Seeking a second opinion is compatible with appropriate care, although repeating high-risk investigations without a clear indication may cause harm.
Prognosis and recovery
Outcomes vary with the severity and persistence of the pattern, access to integrated healthcare, concurrent illness, safety concerns, and engagement with treatment. Some case reports describe improvement; others describe recurrent episodes or difficulty maintaining follow-up. Existing research cannot supply a trustworthy universal recovery rate or predict the course for one individual. Liu, Green, and Newton, 2025
Meaningful progress can involve fewer medically unnecessary interventions, reduced self-injury, stable relationships with clinicians, better emotional functioning, and more consistent participation in everyday life. Even when diagnostic uncertainty remains, clinicians can work toward those goals while maintaining sound medical assessment.
Common questions about factitious disorder
Is factitious disorder the same as lying?
Intentional falsification is part of the diagnostic framework, but everyday dishonesty is not enough for a psychiatric diagnosis. The specific presentation of illness, evidential context, lack of obvious external rewards, and differential diagnosis matter. An allegation of lying cannot establish the disorder.
Is factitious disorder the same as Munchausen syndrome?
Munchausen syndrome is a historical term often used for severe or recurrent factitious disorder imposed on self. Modern DSM-5-TR and ICD-11 labels are more precise and should guide clinical discussion and coding.
Do people with factitious disorder know what they are doing?
The diagnostic criterion involves intentional falsification or induction in the particular behavior being assessed. That does not mean clinicians automatically understand the person's psychological motives, distress, or degree of control over a broader recurrent pattern. Those questions need individual assessment.
Can a person have an actual illness and factitious disorder at the same time?
Yes. A genuine disease and a falsified or induced episode can coexist. Each new complaint should receive an appropriate medical evaluation, and a past psychiatric label must not override warning signs.
Are repeated hospital visits or normal tests signs of factitious disorder?
Those features may appear in some reports, but they are nonspecific. Chronic disease, rare conditions, fragmented healthcare, anxiety, communication difficulties, and many other circumstances can produce similar patterns. They are not sufficient grounds for diagnosis.
Is factitious disorder a form of self-harm?
Some presentations involve self-induced injury or disease and create serious safety risks. Other presentations involve fabrication or altered reporting without physical injury. Clinicians evaluate the actual conduct and its medical consequences. The presence of self-injury alone does not establish factitious disorder.
What is the difference between factitious disorder and functional neurological disorder?
FND concerns genuine neurologic symptoms identified through an appropriate clinical neurologic assessment and positive features. Factitious disorder requires evidence of deliberate falsification or induction and the other diagnostic criteria. FND does not imply deceit.
Is factitious disorder treatable?
Supportive, coordinated psychiatric and medical care may help some people. Research has not established one reliably effective disorder-specific therapy, and published treatment outcomes are drawn mainly from case reports and series. The immediate priorities are safety, continuity, and treatment of co-occurring conditions.
What should I do if I think someone else has factitious disorder?
Avoid labeling or accusing the person based on internet descriptions. Encourage a consistent healthcare relationship, share factual concerns through appropriate clinical channels, and seek urgent help for immediate danger. When a child or dependent adult may be at risk, contact qualified safeguarding professionals or the relevant protective service.
Can I diagnose factitious disorder from a symptom list?
No. The diagnosis involves clinical judgment about verified deception, medical alternatives, psychiatric differential diagnosis, and context. Neither a checklist nor a social media account can establish it.
For broader clinical context, see Somatic Symptom and Functional Disorders: Types, Diagnosis, and Treatment.
Related Articles
A reader exploring the distinction between genuine symptom experiences and behavioral interpretations may find these existing articles useful: Physical Symptoms of Anxiety: Heart, Breathing, Stomach, Muscles, and Dizziness, and OCD vs Illness Anxiety Disorder: Health Fears, Checking, Reassurance, and Obsessions. These articles cover different diagnostic concerns and do not provide evidence that symptoms are fabricated.
References
American Academy of Pediatrics. (2013). Caregiver-fabricated illness in a child: A manifestation of child maltreatment. Pediatrics, 132(3), 590–597. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2013-2045
American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Somatic symptom and related disorders. In Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425787.x09_Somatic_Symptom_and_Related_Disorders
Bass, C., & Halligan, P. (2014). Factitious disorders and malingering: Challenges for clinical assessment and management. The Lancet, 383(9926), 1422–1432. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62186-862186-8)
Bérar, A. (2024). Factitious disorder imposed on self and Munchausen syndrome: An update. La Revue de Médecine Interne, 45(10), 649–655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.revmed.2024.04.001
Hausteiner-Wiehle, C., & Hungerer, S. (2020). Factitious disorders in everyday clinical practice. Deutsches Ärzteblatt International, 117(26), 452–459. https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.2020.0452
Liu, R. K., Green, J., & Newton, R. (2025). A scoping review of treatment for factitious disorder (imposed on self). Psychiatry Research Communications, 5(2), 100216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psycom.2025.100216
Management of factitious disorders: A systematic review. (2008). PubMed record.
Vega, S., Nienow, S. M., Huang, M. Z., et al. (2023). Medical Child Welfare Task Force: A multidisciplinary approach to identifying medical child abuse. Pediatrics, 151(2), e2022058926. American Academy of Pediatrics
Wang, D., et al. (2026). Characteristics, interventions, and outcomes of factitious disorder imposed on another: A systematic review of 455 perpetrators and 469 victims. Frontiers in Public Health. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1723415
World Health Organization. (2024). Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Requirements for ICD-11 Mental, Behavioural and Neurodevelopmental Disorders. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240077263
Yates, G. P., & Feldman, M. D. (2016). Factitious disorder: A systematic review of 455 cases in the professional literature. General Hospital Psychiatry, 41, 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2016.05.002