18
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Management of patients with persistent medically unexplained symptoms: a descriptive study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          In 2013 the Dutch guideline for management of medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) was published. The aim of this study is to assess medical care for patients with persistent MUS as recorded in their electronic medical records, to investigate if this is in line with the national guideline for persistent MUS and whether there are changes in care over time.

          Methods

          We conducted an observational study of adult primary care patients with MUS. Routinely recorded health care data were extracted from electronic medical records of patients participating in an ongoing randomised controlled trial in 30 general practices in the Netherlands. Data on general practitioners’ (GPs’) management strategies during MUS consultations were collected in a 5-year period for each patient prior. Management strategies were categorised according to the options offered in the Dutch guideline. Changes in management over time were analysed.

          Results

          Data were collected from 1035 MUS consultations (77 patients). Beside history-taking, the most frequently used diagnostic strategies were physical examination (24.5%) and additional investigations by the GP (11.1%). Frequently used therapeutic strategies were prescribing medication (24.6%) and providing explanations (11.2%). As MUS symptoms persisted, GPs adjusted medication, discussed progress and scheduled follow-up appointments more frequently. The least frequently used strategies were exploration of all complaint dimensions (i.e. somatic, cognitive, emotional, behavioural and social) (3.5%) and referral to a psychologist (0.5%) or psychiatrist (0.1%).

          Conclusions

          Management of Dutch GPs is partly in line with the Dutch guideline. Medication was possibly prescribed more frequently than recommended, whereas exploration of all complaint dimensions, shared problem definition and referral to mental health care were used less.

          Related collections

          Most cited references25

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Somatoform disorders in general practice: prevalence, functional impairment and comorbidity with anxiety and depressive disorders.

          General practitioners play a pivotal part in the recognition and treatment of psychiatric disorders. Identifying somatoform disorders is important for the choice of treatment. To quantify the prevalence of, and functional impairment associated with, somatoform disorders, and their comorbidity with anxiety/depressive disorders. Two-stage prevalence study: a set of questionnaires was completed by 1046 consecutive patients of general practitioners (aged 25-80 years), followed by a standardised diagnostic interview (SCAN 2.1). The prevalence of somatoform disorders was 16.1% (95% CI 12.8-19.4). When disorders with only mild impairment were included, the prevalence increased to 21.9%. Comorbidity of somatoform disorders and anxiety/depressive disorders was 3.3 times more likely than expected by chance. In patients with comorbid disorders, physical symptoms, depressive symptoms and functional limitations were additive. Our findings underline the importance of a comprehensive diagnostic approach to psychiatric disorders in general practice.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            The Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ): a validation study of a multidimensional self-report questionnaire to assess distress, depression, anxiety and somatization

            Background The Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ) is a self-report questionnaire that has been developed in primary care to distinguish non-specific general distress from depression, anxiety and somatization. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate its criterion and construct validity. Methods Data from 10 different primary care studies have been used. Criterion validity was assessed by comparing the 4DSQ scores with clinical diagnoses, the GPs' diagnosis of any psychosocial problem for Distress, standardised psychiatric diagnoses for Depression and Anxiety, and GPs' suspicion of somatization for Somatization. ROC analyses and logistic regression analyses were used to examine the associations. Construct validity was evaluated by investigating the inter-correlations between the scales, the factorial structure, the associations with other symptom questionnaires, and the associations with stress, personality and social functioning. The factorial structure of the 4DSQ was assessed through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The associations with other questionnaires were assessed with Pearson correlations and regression analyses. Results Regarding criterion validity, the Distress scale was associated with any psychosocial diagnosis (area under the ROC curve [AUC] 0.79), the Depression scale was associated with major depression (AUC = 0.83), the Anxiety scale was associated with anxiety disorder (AUC = 0.66), and the Somatization scale was associated with the GPs' suspicion of somatization (AUC = 0.65). Regarding the construct validity, the 4DSQ scales appeared to have considerable inter-correlations (r = 0.35-0.71). However, 30–40% of the variance of each scale was unique for that scale. CFA confirmed the 4-factor structure with a comparative fit index (CFI) of 0.92. The 4DSQ scales correlated with most other questionnaires measuring corresponding constructs. However, the 4DSQ Distress scale appeared to correlate with some other depression scales more than the 4DSQ Depression scale. Measures of stress (i.e. life events, psychosocial problems, and work stress) were mainly associated with Distress, while Distress, in turn, was mainly associated with psychosocial dysfunctioning, including sick leave. Conclusion The 4DSQ seems to be a valid self-report questionnaire to measure distress, depression, anxiety and somatization in primary care patients. The 4DSQ Distress scale appears to measure the most general, most common, expression of psychological problems.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Economics of medically unexplained symptoms: a systematic review of the literature.

              To review cost-of-illness studies (COI) and economic evaluations (EE) conducted for medically unexplained symptoms and to analyze their methods and results. We searched the databases PubMed, PsycINFO and National Health Service Economic Evaluations Database of the University of York. Cost data were inflated to 2006 using country-specific gross domestic product inflators and converted to 2006 USD purchasing power parities. We identified 5 COI and 8 EE, of which 6 were cost-minimization analyses and 2 were cost-effectiveness analyses. All studies used patient level data collected between 1980 and 2004 and were predominantly conducted in the USA (n = 10). COI found annual excess health care costs of somatizing patients between 432 and 5,353 USD in 2006 values. Indirect costs were estimated by only one EE and added up to about 18,000 USD per year. In EE, educational interventions for physicians as well as cognitive-behavioral therapy approaches for patients were evaluated. For both types of interventions, effectiveness was either shown within EE or by previous studies. Most EE found (often insignificant) cost reductions resulting from the interventions, but only two studies explicitly combined changes in costs with data on effectiveness to cost-effectiveness ratios (ratio of additional costs to additional effects). Medically unexplained symptoms cause relevant annual excess costs in health care that are comparable to mental health problems like depression or anxiety disorders and which may be reduced by interventions targeting physicians as well as patients. More extensive research on indirect costs and cost-effectiveness is needed. Copyright © 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                e.sitnikova@vumc.nl
                r.oskam@vumc.nl
                s.kersten@vumc.nl
                sleone@trimbos.nl
                h.vanmarwijk@bsms.ac.uk
                he.vanderhorst@vumc.nl
                j.vanderwouden@vumc.nl
                Journal
                BMC Fam Pract
                BMC Fam Pract
                BMC Family Practice
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2296
                18 June 2018
                18 June 2018
                2018
                : 19
                : 88
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0435 165X, GRID grid.16872.3a, Department of General Practice and Elderly Care Medicine, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, , VU University Medical Center, ; Van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT Amsterdam, the Netherlands
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0001 0835 8259, GRID grid.416017.5, Department of Public Mental Health, Trimbos Institute: Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction, ; Da Costakade 45, 3521 VS Utrecht, the Netherlands
                [3 ]ISNI 0000000121073784, GRID grid.12477.37, Division of Primary Care and Public Health, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Mayfield House, , University of Brighton, ; Falmer, Brighton, BN1 9PH UK
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7804-3797
                Article
                791
                10.1186/s12875-018-0791-9
                6006667
                29914406
                3ca24ee9-1262-4c4c-8386-26330bc85f09
                © The Author(s). 2018

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 21 February 2018
                : 8 June 2018
                Funding
                Funded by: ZonMw (NL)
                Award ID: 80-83700-98-42070
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2018

                Medicine
                disease management,general practice,medically unexplained symptoms,primary health care

                Comments

                Comment on this article