"One time I fell, but I didn't have to cry." A qualitative study on everyday physical complaints in children.

OBJECTIVE: Young children experience physical complaints, like abdominal pain or minor injuries from playing, almost every day. These experiences may shape how they deal with health issues later in life. While models exist to explain illness perception in adults, information is lacking on the perspective of young children. This qualitative study aimed to explore important themes in the experience of everyday physical complaints in four- and five-year-old children, using children as informants. STUDY DESIGN: 30 semi-structured interviews were performed in which four- and five-year-old children were questioned about their experiences with everyday physical complaints. The interviews were double coded using Atlas.ti and subsequently qualitative content analysis was used to define themes. RESULTS: All participating children were able to elaborate on their experiences with physical complaints. Three themes emerged from the interviews: causes of complaints, appraisal of complaints, and implications of complaints. In their appraisal of complaints, four- and five-year-old children made a distinction between visible and invisible complaints and real or pretended complaints. CONCLUSION: Four- and five-year-old children can already give details about their experiences with everyday physical complaints. They have developed ideas about the causes and implications of complaints and try to make an appraisal.

Explanations for medically unexplained symptoms: a qualitative study on GPs in daily practice consultations.

BACKGROUND: General practice is the centre of care for patients with medically unexplained symptoms (MUS). Providing explanations for MUS, i.e. making sense of symptoms, is considered to be an important part of care for MUS patients. However, little is known how general practitioners (GPs) do this in daily practice. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore how GPs explain MUS to their patients during daily general practice consultations. METHODS: A thematic content analysis was performed of how GPs explained MUS to their patients based on 39 general practice consultations involving patients with MUS. RESULTS: GP provided explanations in nearly all consultations with MUS patients. Seven categories of explanation components emerged from the data: defining symptoms, stating causality, mentioning contributing factors, describing mechanisms, excluding explanations, discussing the severity of symptoms and normalizing symptoms. No pattern of how GPs constructed explanations with the various categories was observed. In general, explanations were communicated as a possibility and in a patient-specific way; however, they were not very detailed. CONCLUSION: Although explanations for MUS are provided in most MUS consultations, there seems room for improving the explanations given in these consultations. Further studies on the effectiveness of explanations and on the interaction between patients and GP in constructing these explanations are required in order to make MUS explanations more suitable in daily primary care practice.

PROFSS: a screening tool for early identification of functional somatic symptoms.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a brief screening tool for predicting functional somatic symptoms (FSS) based on clinical and non-clinical information from the general practitioner referral letter, and to assess its inter-rater reliability. METHODS: The derivation sample consisted of 357 consecutive patients referred to an internal outpatient clinic by their general practitioner. Referral letters were scored for candidate predictors for the main outcome measure, which was a final diagnosis of FSS made by the internist. Logistic regression identified the following independent predictors: type of symptoms, somatic and psychiatric comorbidity, absence of abnormal physical findings by the general practitioner, previous specialist consultation, and the use of illness terminology. Temporal validation was performed in a cohort of 94 consecutive patients in whom predictors were scored by two independent raters. RESULTS: In both the derivation and validation sample, the discriminatory power of the model was good with areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves of 0.84 (95%confidence interval: 0.80-0.88) after bootstrapping and 0.82 (95%confidence interval: 0.73-0.91), respectively. Calibration of the models was excellent in both samples and the interobserver agreement in the validation sample was very good (intraclass coefficient: 0.82 (95%confidence interval: 0.75-0.88)). Based on this model, we constructed the brief screening tool PROFSS (Predicted Risk Of Functional Somatic Symptoms). PROFSS identified patient groups with risks of FSS ranging from 17% (95%CI: 10-26%) to 92% (95%CI:86-96%). CONCLUSION: The presence of FSS can be predicted with the brief screening tool PROFSS, based on a limited set of items present in the general practitioner referral letter.