Managing persistent physical symptoms when being social and active is the norm: a qualitative study among young people in Denmark.

BACKGROUND: An increasing number of young people in Western countries report persistent physical symptoms (PPS). PPS may disturb everyday activities and they may have negative consequences for later adult mental and physical health. Still little is known about how young people handle PPS in their everyday lives. This study examines how young people with PPS attempt to manage their symptoms while staying engaged in their daily activities and what is at stake in these attempts. METHODS: This qualitative study involved semi-structured interviews with 11 young people with PPS. Photo-elicitation was used to capture the participants' experiences as they occurred in their everyday lives. The data material was analysed using a thematic analysis approach, as well as theory on subjectivity and social acceleration. RESULTS: The participants employed alleviating measures and tried to find patterns between their activities and the severity of their symptoms in order to adjust their activity level. Decisions not to participate in social activities were accompanied by feelings of missing out. The participants' attempts at adjusting their activity level was challenged by norms of being social and active, and they experienced difficulty prioritizing their activities and explaining their symptoms to others. CONCLUSION: PPS shaped the participants' sense of how to act towards their bodies and social relationships in interaction with societal norms. The participants' subject formation and symptom experiences should thus be seen as a biosocial process.

Development of an eHealth programme for self-management of persistent physical symptoms: a qualitative study on user needs in general practice.

BACKGROUND: Persistent physical symptoms (PPS) are estimated to be present in 17% of patients in general practice. Hence, general practitioners (GPs) play a key role in both the diagnostic assessment and the management of PPS. However, research indicates a need to improve their strategies to support self-help in patients, and eHealth tools may serve as an opportunity. This study aimed to explore patients' and GPs' needs related to self-management of PPS. The study was designed to inform the future development of eHealth interventions in this field. METHODS: This qualitative study was based on 20 semi-structured interviews (6 GPs and 14 patients with PPS). Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim and analysed through a five-step thematic analysis approach. First, we conducted an inductive analysis to identify and explore emerging subthemes. Second, using a deductive mapping strategy, we categorised the derived subthemes according to the COM-B behaviour change model and its three domains: capability, opportunity and motivation. RESULTS: We identified eleven subthemes in the patient interviews and seven subthemes in the GP interviews. Several unmet needs emerged. First, we identified a need to consider PPS early in the illness trajectory by taking a bio-psycho-social approach. Second, both patients and GPs need better skills to manage uncertainty. Third, hope is important for the patients. Fourth, patients need guidance from their GP in how to self-manage their PPS. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides important insight into key issues and needs related to capability, opportunity and motivation that should be addressed in the design of future eHealth self-management interventions targeting patients with PPS in general practice in order to support and improve care.

General practitioners' management of patients with psychological stress: audit results from Denmark.

BACKGROUND: In western countries, psychological stress is among the most common causes of long-lasting sick leave and a frequent reason to consult the general practitioner (GP). This study aimed to investigate how GPs manage patients with psychological stress and how the management is associated with the patient's sex, the GP's assessment of causality, and coexisting mental disorders. METHODS: We conducted an audit of consecutive cases in Danish general practice. The GPs used electronic medical records to fill in a registration form for each 18-65-year-old patient with whom they had had at least one consultation regarding stress during the past 6 months. Only patients initially in the workforce were included. Age- and sex-adjusted binary regression was applied. RESULTS: Fifty-six GPs (61% women) identified 785 cases. The patients' mean age was 44 years and 70% were women. The cause of stress was considered at least partially work-related in 69% of the cases and multifactorial in a third of cases. The management included sick leave (54%), counselling (47%), pharmaceutical treatment (37%), and referral to psychologist (38%). Compared to women, stress in men was less often considered work-related (RR: 0.84, CI95%: 0.77-0.92) and men were less often sick-listed (RR: 0.83 CI95%: 0.73-0.96) but were more often prescribed tranquilizers (RR: 1.72 CI95%: 1.08-2.74). CONCLUSIONS: GPs' management of patients with stress usually involve elements of counselling, sick leave, referral to psychologist, and medication. Women and men with stress are perceived of and managed differently.

Urinary incontinence among women-which personal and professional relations are involved? A population-based study.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Urinary incontinence (UI) is frequent among women worldwide, but embarrassment and shame can prevent them from discussing symptoms with others. This study aimed to identify personal and professional relations involved by Danish women with UI. It further aimed to investigate whether age, persistence of symptoms, number of symptoms, influence on daily activities and concern about the symptoms are associated with involving personal and professional relations. METHODS: A sample of 51,090 Danish women, aged ≥ 20 years, were invited to participate in a web-based cross-sectional survey in 2012. We identified individuals with self-reported symptoms of stress incontinence, urge incontinence and UI without stress/urge and explored the involvement of personal and professional relations. Descriptive statistics and multivariate logistic regression were used for analyses. RESULTS: In total, 26,466 women completed the questionnaire. Of the 5861 (22.1%) women who had experienced a minimum of one UI symptom within the preceding 4 weeks, 71.4% did not involve any professional relations and 45.0% did not involve any personal relations. Further, 38.8% involved neither personal nor professional relations. Personal relations were most often involved, mainly those with the spouse/partner, friends and children. Involving a personal relation was associated with three to five times increased odds of involving health care professionals for all UI types. CONCLUSIONS: UI is highly prevalent, but the condition is infrequently discussed in personal and professional relations. Future research should address the quality of the contacts made and barriers to involving other people.

Prevalence of persons contacting general practice for psychological stress in Denmark.

OBJECTIVE: The prevalence of psychological stress has previously been estimated based on self-reported questionnaires. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of persons who contact the general practitioner (GP) for psychological stress and to explore associations between psychological stress and characteristics relating to the patient, the GP, and area-specific socioeconomic factors. DESIGN: Cross-sectional computer assisted journal audit. SETTING: General practice in the Region of Southern Denmark. SUBJECTS: Patients aged 18-65 years with a consultation during a six-month period that was classified with a stress-related diagnosis code. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Six months prevalence of GP-assessed psychological stress and characteristics relating to the patient, the GP, and area-specific socioeconomic factors. RESULTS: Fifty-six GPs (7% of the invited) identified 1066 patients considered to have psychological stress among 51,422 listed patients. Accordingly, a 2.1% six months prevalence of psychological stress was estimated; 69% of cases were women. High prevalence of psychological stress was associated with female sex, age 35-54 years, high education level and low population density in the municipality, but not with unemployment in the municipality or household income in the postal district. GP female sex and age <50 years, few GPs in the practice and few patients per GP were also associated with a higher prevalence of psychological stress. CONCLUSIONS: A total of 2% of the working-age population contacted the GP during a six-month period for psychological stress. The prevalence of psychological stress varies with age, sex and characteristics of both the regional area and the GP. Key points Psychological stress is a leading cause of days on sick leave, but its prevalence has been based on population surveys rather than on assessment by health care professionals. • This study found that during six months 2.1% of all working-age persons have at least one contact with the GP regarding psychological stress. • The six months prevalence of psychological stress was associated with patient age and sex, GP age and sex, practices' number of GPs and patients per GP, and area education and urbanization level.

Long-Term Outcome of Bodily Distress Syndrome in Primary Care: A Follow-Up Study on Health Care Costs, Work Disability, and Self-Rated Health.

OBJECTIVE: The upcoming International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision for primary care use suggests inclusion of a new diagnostic construct, bodily (di)stress syndrome (BDS), for individuals with medically unexplained symptoms. We aimed to explore the long-term outcome of BDS in health care costs, work disability, and self-rated health. METHODS: Consecutive patients consulting their family physician for a new health problem were screened for physical and mental symptoms by questionnaires (n = 1785). A stratified subsample was examined with a standardized diagnostic interview (n = 701). Patients with single-organ BDS (n = 124) and multiorgan BDS (n = 35), and a reference group with a family physician-verified medical condition (n = 880) were included. All included patients completed a questionnaire at 3, 12, and 24 months of follow-up. Register data on health care costs and work disability were obtained after 2 and 10 years of follow-up, respectively. RESULTS: Patients with BDS displayed poorer self-rated health and higher illness worry at index consultation and throughout follow-up than the reference group (p ≤ .001). The annual health care costs were higher in the BDS groups (2270 USD and 4066 USD) than in the reference group (1392 USD) (achieved significance level (ASL) ≤ 0.001). Both BDS groups had higher risk of sick leave during the first 2 years of follow-up (RRsingle-organ BDS = 3.0; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.8-5.0; RRmultiorgan BDS = 3.4; 95% CI = 1.5-7.5) and substantially higher risk of newly awarded disability pension than the reference group (HRsingle-organ BDS = 4.9; 95% CI = 2.8-8.4; HRmultiorgan BDS = 8.7; 95% CI = 3.7-20.7). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with BDS have poor long-term outcome of health care costs, work disability, and subjective suffering. These findings stress the need for adequate recognition and management of BDS.

Primary care physicians' use of the proposed classification of common mental disorders for ICD-11.

Background: The World Health Organization is revising the classification of common mental disorders in primary care for ICD-11. Major changes from the ICD-10 primary care version have been proposed for: (i) mood and anxiety disorders; and (ii) presentations of multiple somatic symptoms (bodily stress syndrome). This three-part field study explored the implementation of the revised classification by primary care physicians (PCPs) in five countries. Methods: Participating PCPs in Brazil, China, Mexico, Pakistan and Spain were asked to use the revised classification, first in patients that they suspected might be psychologically distressed (Part 1), and second in patients with multiple somatic symptoms causing distress or disability not wholly attributable to a known physical pathology, or with high levels of health anxiety (Part 2). Patients referred to Part 1 or Part 2 underwent a structured diagnostic interview. Part 3 consisted of feedback from PCPs regarding the classification. Results: In Part 1, anxious depression was the most common disorder among referred patients. PCPs assigned the highest severity ratings to anxious depression, and the next highest to current depression; current anxiety was rated as least severe. Considerable overlap was found between bodily stress syndrome (BSS) and health anxiety (HA). The psychiatric interview recorded higher rates of mood and anxiety disorders diagnoses among patients with BSS than did PCPs. PCPs' satisfaction with the revised classification was high. Conclusions: Results generally supported the inclusion of the new categories of anxious depression, BSS and HA for ICD-11 PHC and suggested that PCPs could implement these categories satisfactorily.

"Medically unexplained" symptoms and symptom disorders in primary care: prognosis-based recognition and classification.

BACKGROUND: Many patients consult their GP because they experience bodily symptoms. In a substantial proportion of cases, the clinical picture does not meet the existing diagnostic criteria for diseases or disorders. This may be because symptoms are recent and evolving or because symptoms are persistent but, either by their character or the negative results of clinical investigation cannot be attributed to disease: so-called "medically unexplained symptoms" (MUS). MUS are inconsistently recognised, diagnosed and managed in primary care. The specialist classification systems for MUS pose several problems in a primary care setting. The systems generally require great certainty about presence or absence of physical disease, they tend to be mind-body dualistic, and they view symptoms from a narrow specialty determined perspective. We need a new classification of MUS in primary care; a classification that better supports clinical decision-making, creates clearer communication and provides scientific underpinning of research to ensure effective interventions. DISCUSSION: We propose a classification of symptoms that places greater emphasis on prognostic factors. Prognosis-based classification aims to categorise the patient's risk of ongoing symptoms, complications, increased healthcare use or disability because of the symptoms. Current evidence suggests several factors which may be used: symptom characteristics such as: number, multi-system pattern, frequency, severity. Other factors are: concurrent mental disorders, psychological features and demographic data. We discuss how these characteristics may be used to classify symptoms into three groups: self-limiting symptoms, recurrent and persistent symptoms, and symptom disorders. The middle group is especially relevant in primary care; as these patients generally have reduced quality of life but often go unrecognised and are at risk of iatrogenic harm. The presented characteristics do not contain immediately obvious cut-points, and the assessment of prognosis depends on a combination of several factors. CONCLUSION: Three criteria (multiple symptoms, multiple systems, multiple times) may support the classification into good, intermediate and poor prognosis when dealing with symptoms in primary care. The proposed new classification specifically targets the patient population in primary care and may provide a rational framework for decision-making in clinical practice and for epidemiologic and clinical research of symptoms.

Symptoms as the main problem: a cross- sectional study of patient experience in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Symptoms are common in primary care. Besides providing thorough assessment of possible severe disease, the general practitioner (GP) must ensure good health care to all patients, irrespective of diagnoses. We aimed to explore patient satisfaction with the provided care and how well expectations in patients were met when no diagnosis was made during the consultation. METHOD: Cross-sectional study based on a questionnaire survey conducted in 2008-2009 among 377 GPs and their patients in the Central Denmark Region. A total of 2286 patients completed a questionnaire after the consultation (response rate: 54 %). The questionnaire included four satisfaction items from the EUROPEP instrument and a question about unmet expectations. For each patient, the GP answered a one-page registration form including information about the main problem in the consultation, chronic disorders and assessment of prognosis. Statistical analyses were adjusted for patient characteristics and GP clustering. RESULTS: A higher proportion of patients reported illness worry (20 vs. 17 %, p-value: 0.005), unmet expectations (17 vs. 13 %, p-value: 0.019) and dissatisfaction with their GP after the consultation when no diagnosis was made. Dissatisfaction was primarily related to the medical examination (adjusted OR 1.30; 95 % CI: 1.06-1.60) and GP explanations (adjusted OR 1.40; 95 % CI: 1.14-1.71). Exploratory analyses revealed an association between dissatisfaction with examination and the GP assessment that symptoms were unrelated to biomedical disease. This association was found both in patients with 'symptoms only' and patients given a specific diagnosis. CONCLUSION: GPs are challenged by patients presenting symptoms that do not fit the patterns of biomedical diagnoses. The current study demonstrates more illness worry, unmet expectations and dissatisfaction with the consultation in these patients compared to patients receiving a diagnosis. This trend is true for all patients assessed as having 'symptoms only' at the end of a consultation and not only for the minority group with 'medically unexplained symptoms'. As primary care is the frontline of the health-care system, symptoms are managed as the main problem in almost one in three consultations. It is about time that we take the same professional approach to symptoms as we have done for years to biomedical disease.

Multiple somatic symptoms in primary care patients: a cross-sectional study of consultation content, clinical management strategy and burden of encounter.

BACKGROUND: Consultations involving patients with multiple somatic symptoms may be considered as challenging and time-consuming by general practitioners (GPs). Yet, little is known about the possible links between consultation characteristics and GP-experienced burden of encounter. We aimed to explore consultation content, clinical management strategies, time consumption and GP-experienced burden of encounters with patients suffering from multiple somatic symptoms as defined by the concept of bodily distress syndrome (BDS). METHODS: Cross-sectional study of patient encounters in primary care from December 2008 to December 2009; 387 GPs participated (response rate: 44.4 %). Data were based on a one-page registration form completed by the GP and a patient questionnaire including the 25-item BDS checklist for somatic symptoms. Using logistic regression analyses, we compared patients who met the BDS criteria with patients who did not. RESULTS: A total of 1505 patients were included (response rate: 55.6 %). Health problems were less frequently reported as 'new' in patients with BDS (odds ratio (OR) = 0.73, 95 % confidence interval (CI): 0.54; 0.97). Medical prescriptions and referral rates were comparable in the two patient groups. Consultations focusing on mainly biomedical aspects were less frequent among patients with BDS (OR = 0.31, 95 % CI: 0.22; 0.43), whereas additional biomedical and psychosocial problems were more often discussed. GPs were more likely to ensure continuity of care in BDS patients by watchful waiting strategies (OR = 2.32, 95 % CI: 1.53; 3.52) or scheduled follow-up visits (OR = 1.61, 95 % CI: 1.09; 2.37). Patients with BDS were found to be more time-consuming (OR = 1.77, 95 % CI: 1.26; 2.48) and burdensome (OR = 2.54, 95 % CI: 1.81; 3.55) than patients without BDS. However, after adjustments for biomedical and psychosocial content of the consultation, the identified differences for time consumption and burden were no longer statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with BDS represent higher care complexity in terms of biomedical and psychosocial needs. GPs seem to allow space and time for discussing these issues and to aim at ensuring continuity in care through watchful waiting or scheduled follow-up consultations. However, the reported GP-experienced burden call for professional development.

Bodily distress syndrome: A new diagnosis for functional disorders in primary care?

BACKGROUND: Conceptualisation and classification of functional disorders appear highly inconsistent in the health-care system, particularly in primary care. Numerous terms and overlapping diagnostic criteria are prevalent of which many are considered stigmatising by general practitioners and patients. The lack of a clear concept challenges the general practitioner's decision-making when a diagnosis or a treatment approach must be selected for a patient with a functional disorder. This calls for improvements of the diagnostic categories. Intense debate has risen in connection with the release of the fifth version of the 'Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders' and the current revision of the 'International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems'. We aim to discuss a new evidence based diagnostic proposal, bodily distress syndrome, which holds the potential to change our current approach to functional disorders in primary care. A special focus will be directed towards the validity and utility criteria recommended for diagnostic categorisation. DISCUSSION: A growing body of evidence suggests that the numerous diagnoses for functional disorders listed in the current classifications belong to one family of closely related disorders. We name the underlying phenomenon 'bodily distress'; it manifests as patterns of multiple and disturbing bodily sensations. Bodily distress syndrome is a diagnostic category with specific criteria covering this illness phenomenon. The category has been explored through empirical studies, which in combination provide a sound basis for determining a symptom profile, the diagnostic stability and the boundaries of the condition. However, as bodily distress syndrome embraces only the most common symptom patterns, patients with few but impairing symptoms are not captured. Furthermore, the current lack of treatment options may also influence the acceptance of the proposed diagnosis. Bodily distress syndrome is a diagnostic category with notable validity according to empirical studies. Nevertheless, knowledge is sparse on the utility in primary care. Future intervention studies should investigate the translation of bodily distress syndrome into clinical practice. A particular focus should be directed towards the acceptability among general practitioners and patients. Most importantly, it should be investigated whether the new category may provide the basis for better treatment and improved clinical outcome.

Symptoms as the main problem in primary care: A cross-sectional study of frequency and characteristics.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to study symptoms managed as the main problem by the general practitioner (GP) and to describe the frequencies and characteristics of presented symptoms when no specific diagnosis could be made. DESIGN: Cross- sectional study. SETTING: General practices in the Central Denmark Region. SUBJECTS: In total, 397 GPs included patients with face-to-face contacts during one randomly assigned day in 2008-2009; 7008 patients were included and 5232 presented with a health problem. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: GPs answered a questionnaire after each patient contact. Symptoms and specific diagnoses were subsequently classified using the International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC). Symptom frequency, comorbidity, consultation length, and GP-assessed final outcome and burden of consultations were analysed. RESULTS: The GPs could not establish a specific diagnosis in 36% of patients with health problems. GPs expected that presented symptoms would not result in a future specific diagnosis for half of these patients. Musculoskeletal (lower limb and back) and respiratory (cough) symptoms were most frequent. More GPs had demanding consultations when no specific diagnosis could be made. Higher burden was associated with age, comorbidity, and GP expectancy of persistent symptoms when no diagnosis could be made. CONCLUSION: Interpretation and management of symptoms is a key task in primary care. As symptoms are highly frequent in general practice, symptoms without a specific diagnosis constitute a challenge to GPs. Nevertheless, symptoms have been given little priority in research. More attention should be directed to evidence-based management of symptoms as a generic phenomenon to ensure improved outcomes in the future.

Towards a clinically useful diagnosis for mild-to-moderate conditions of medically unexplained symptoms in general practice: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Symptoms that cannot be attributed to any known conventionally defined disease are highly prevalent in general practice. Yet, only severe cases are captured by the current diagnostic classifications of medically unexplained symptoms (MUS). This study explores the clinical usefulness of a proposed new diagnostic category for mild-to-moderate conditions of MUS labelled 'multiple symptoms'. METHODS: A mixed methods approach was used. For two weeks, 20 general practitioners (GPs) classified symptoms presented in consecutive consultations according to the International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC) supplemented with the new diagnostic category 'multiple symptoms'. The GPs' experiences were subsequently explored by focus group interviews. Interview data were analysed according to ethnographic principles. RESULTS: In 33% of patients, GPs classified symptoms as medically unexplained, but applied the category of 'multiple symptoms' only in 2.8%. The category was described as a useful tool for promoting communication and creating better awareness of patients with MUS; as such, the category was perceived to reduce the risk of unnecessary tests and referrals of these patients. Three main themes were found to affect the clinical usefulness of the diagnostic category of 'multiple symptoms': 1) lack of consensus on categorisation practices, 2) high complexity of patient cases and 3) relational continuity (i.e. continuity in the doctor-patient relationship over time). The first two were seen as barriers to usefulness, the latter as a prerequisite for application. The GPs' diagnostic classifications were found to be informed by the GPs' subjective pre-formed concepts of patients with MUS, which reflected more severe conditions than actually intended by the new category of 'multiple symptoms'. CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrated possible clinical benefits of the category of 'multiple symptoms', such as GPs' increased awareness and informational continuity in partnership practices. The use of the category was challenged by the GPs' conceptual understanding of MUS and was applied only to a minority of patients. The study demonstrates a need for addressing these issues if sub-threshold categories for MUS are to be applied in routine care. The category of 'multiple symptoms' may profitably be used in the future as a risk indicator rather than a diagnostic category.

Self-help interventions for persistent physical symptoms: a systematic review of behaviour change components and their potential effects.

Persistent physical symptoms (PPS) remain a challenge in the healthcare system due to time-constrained consultations, uncertainty and limited specialised care capacity. Self-help interventions may be a cost-effective way to widen the access to treatment. As a foundation for future interventions, we aimed to describe intervention components and their potential effects in self-help interventions for PPS. A systematic literature search was made in PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CENTRAL. Fifty-one randomised controlled trials were included. Interventions were coded for effect on outcomes (standardised mean difference ≥0.2) related to symptom burden, anxiety, depression, quality of life, healthcare utilisation and sickness absence. The Behaviour Change Technique (BCT) Taxonomy v1 was used to code intervention components. An index of potential was calculated for each BCT within an outcome category. Each BCT was assessed as 'potentially effective' or 'not effective' based on a two-sided test for binomial random variables. Sixteen BCTs showed potential effect as treatment components. These BCTs represented the themes: goals and planning, feedback and monitoring, shaping knowledge, natural consequences, comparison of behaviour, associations, repetition and substitution, regulation, antecedents and identity. The results suggest that specific BCTs should be included in new PPS self-help interventions aiming to improve the patients' physical and mental health.

Multiple physical symptoms and coping strategies over the last decade - Knowledge from two Danish population-based cross-sectional studies in 2012 and 2022.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the prevalence of multiple physical symptoms, coping scores, and associations between multiple physical symptoms and coping in two population-based surveys within a 10-year interval. METHODS: A nationwide study on symptoms and healthcare-seeking, the Danish Symptom Cohort, was carried out in 2012 and repeated in 2022. For each survey, 100,000 randomly selected individuals were invited, and individuals aged 20-64 years were eligible for inclusion. Multiple physical symptoms were identified using the 25-item Bodily Distress Syndrome checklist, and coping was assessed with the Brief Approach/Avoidance Coping Questionnaire. Statistical analyses included multinomial and logistic regressions. RESULTS: A total of 35,877 were included in 2012 and 18,330 in 2022. Overall, 35.1% reported multiple physical symptoms in 2022 compared with 23.8% in 2012. The mean sum score for approach was lower in 2022 than in 2012 with a statistically significant mean difference of -1.27 (Cohen's d = -0.34), while diversion and resignation scores were significantly higher in 2022 with mean differences of 0.34 (Cohen's d = 0.11) and 0.52 (Cohen's d = 0.17), respectively. Regression analyses showed that lower approach scores and higher diversion and resignation scores were associated with an increased probability of having multiple physical symptoms in 2022, thereby confirming the results from 2012. CONCLUSION: Over the decade, symptom reporting may have increased while coping strategies may have changed towards a slightly higher use of avoidance and lower use of approach. It seems relevant to identify modifiable contributing factors in society to prevent an acceleration of symptom reporting and avoidant behavior.

Enhanced care by generalists for functional somatic symptoms and disorders in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Patients with medically unexplained or functional somatic symptoms are common in primary care. Previous reviews have reported benefit from specialised interventions such as cognitive behavioural therapy and consultation letters, but there is a need for treatment models which can be applied within the primary care setting. Primary care studies of enhanced care, which includes techniques of reattribution or cognitive behavioural therapy, or both, have shown changes in healthcare professionals' attitudes and behaviour. However, studies of patient outcome have shown variable results and the value of enhanced care on patient outcome remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the clinical effectiveness of enhanced care interventions for adults with functional somatic symptoms in primary care. The intervention should be delivered by professionals providing first contact care and be compared to treatment as usual. The review focused on patient outcomes only. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group Specialised Register (CCDANCTR-Studies and CCDANCTR-References) (all years to August 2012), together with Ovid searches (to September 2012) on MEDLINE (1950 - ), EMBASE (1980 - ) and PsycINFO (1806 - ). Earlier searches of the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE), CINAHL, PSYNDEX, SIGLE, and LILACS were conducted in April 2010, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in October 2009. No language restrictions were applied. Electronic searches were supplemented by handsearches of relevant conference proceedings (2004 to 2012), reference lists (2011) and contact with authors of included studies and experts in the field (2011). SELECTION CRITERIA: We limited our literature search to randomised controlled trials (RCTs), primary care, and adults with functional somatic symptoms. Subsequently we selected studies including all of the following: 1) a trial arm with treatment as usual; 2) an intervention using a structured treatment model which draws on explanations for symptoms in broad bio-psycho-social terms or encourages patients to develop additional strategies for dealing with their physical symptoms, or both; 3) delivery of the intervention by primary care professionals providing first contact care; and 4) assessment of patient outcome. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened identified study abstracts. Disagreements about trial selections were resolved by a third review author. Data from selected publications were independently extracted and risk of bias assessed by two of three authors, avoiding investigators reviewing their own studies. We contacted authors from included studies to obtain missing information. We used continuous outcomes converted to standardised mean differences (SMDs) and based analyses on changes from baseline to follow-up, adjusted for clustering. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven studies from the literature search, but only six provided sufficient data for analyses. Included studies were European, cluster RCTs with adult participants seeing their usual doctor (in total 233 general practitioners and 1787 participants). Methodological quality was only moderate as studies had no blinding of healthcare professionals and several studies had a risk of recruitment and attrition bias. Studies were heterogeneous with regard to selection of patient populations and intensity of interventions. Outcomes relating to physical or general health (physical symptoms, quality of life) showed substantial heterogeneity between studies (I(2) > 70%) and post hoc analysis suggested that benefit was confined to more intensive interventions; thus we did not calculate a pooled effect. Outcomes relating to mental health showed less heterogeneity and we conducted meta-analyses, which found non-significant overall effect sizes with SMDs for changes at 6 to 24 months follow-up: mental health (3 studies) SMD -0.04 (95% CI -0.18 to 0.10), illness worry (3 studies) SMD 0.09 (95% CI -0.04 to 0.22), depression (4 studies) SMD 0.07 (95% CI -0.05 to 0.20) and anxiety (2 studies) SMD -0.07 (95% CI -0.38 to 0.25). Effects on sick leave could not be estimated. Three studies of patient satisfaction with care all showed positive but non-significant effects, and measures were too heterogeneous to allow meta-analysis. Results on healthcare utilisation were inconclusive. We analysed study discontinuation and found that both short term and long term discontinuation occurred more often in patients allocated to the intervention group, RR of 1.25 (95% CI 1.08 to 1.46) at 12 to 24 months. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence does not answer the question whether enhanced care delivered by front line primary care professionals has an effect or not on the outcome of patients with functional somatic symptoms. Enhanced care may have an effect when delivered per protocol to well-defined groups of patients with functional disorders, but this needs further investigation. Attention should be paid to difficulties including limited consultation time, lack of skills, the need for a degree of diagnostic openness, and patient resistance towards psychosomatic attributions. There is some indication from this and other reviews that more intensive interventions are more successful in changing patient outcomes.

Multiple perspectives on symptom interpretation in primary care research.

BACKGROUND: Assessment and management of symptoms is a main task in primary care. Symptoms may be defined as 'any subjective evidence of a health problem as perceived by the patient'. In other words, symptoms do not appear as such; symptoms are rather the result of an interpretation process. We aim to discuss different perspectives on symptom interpretation as presented in the disciplines of biomedicine, psychology and anthropology and the possible implications for our understanding of research on symptoms in relation to prevalence and diagnosis in the general population and in primary care. DISCUSSION: Symptom experiences are embedded in a complex interplay between biological, psychological and cultural factors. From a biomedical perspective, symptoms are seen as possible indicators of disease and are characterized by parameters related to seriousness (e.g. appearance, severity, impact and temporal aspects). However, such symptom characteristics are rarely unambiguous, but merely indicate disease probability. In addition, the GP's interpretation of presenting symptoms will also be influenced by other factors. From a psychological perspective, factors affecting interpretation are in focus (e.g. internal frame of reference, attention to sensations, illness perception and susceptibility to suggestion). These individual factors cannot stand alone either, but are influenced by the surroundings. Anthropological research suggests that personal experiences and culture form a continuous feedback relationship which influence when and how sensations are understood as symptoms of disease and acted upon. SUMMARY: The different approaches to symptom interpretation imply that we need to be cautious and conscious when interpreting survey findings that are based on symptom prevalence in the general population or in primary care. These findings will reflect a variety of interpretations of sensations, which are not equivalent to expressions of underlying disease. Furthermore, if diagnosis of disease is based exclusively on the presence of specific symptom characteristics, we may risk reinforcing a dualistic approach, including medicalisation of normal phenomena and devaluation of medically unexplained symptoms. Future research in primary care could gain from exploring symptoms as a generic phenomenon and raised awareness of symptom complexity.

Psychological and social problems in primary care patients - general practitioners' assessment and classification.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the frequency of psychological and social classification codes employed by general practitioners (GPs) and to explore the extent to which GPs ascribed health problems to biomedical, psychological, or social factors. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey based on questionnaire data from GPs. Setting. Danish primary care. SUBJECTS: 387 GPs and their face-to-face contacts with 5543 patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: GPs registered consecutive patients on registration forms including reason for encounter, diagnostic classification of main problem, and a GP assessment of biomedical, psychological, and social factors' influence on the contact. RESULTS: The GP-stated reasons for encounter largely overlapped with their classification of the managed problem. Using the International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC-2-R), GPs classified 600 (11%) patients with psychological problems and 30 (0.5%) with social problems. Both codes for problems/complaints and specific disorders were used as the GP's diagnostic classification of the main problem. Two problems (depression and acute stress reaction/adjustment disorder) accounted for 51% of all psychological classifications made. GPs generally emphasized biomedical aspects of the contacts. Psychological aspects were given greater importance in follow-up consultations than in first-episode consultations, whereas social factors were rarely seen as essential to the consultation. CONCLUSION: Psychological problems are frequently seen and managed in primary care and most are classified within a few diagnostic categories. Social matters are rarely considered or classified.

Sick-leave decisions for patients with severe subjective health complaints presenting in primary care: a cross-sectional study in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark.

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this study was to explore whether general practitioners (GPs) in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark make similar or different decisions regarding sick leave for patients with severe subjective health complaints (SHC). The secondary objective was to investigate if patient diagnoses, the reasons attributed for patient complaints, and GP demographics could explain variations in sick leave decisions. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study. METHOD: Video vignettes of GP consultations with nine different patients. SUBJECTS: 126 GPs in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. SETTING: Primary care in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Sick leave decisions made by GPs. RESULTS: "Psychological" diagnoses in Sweden were related to lower odds ratio (OR) of granting sick leave than in Norway (OR = 0.07; 95% CI = 0.01-0.83) Assessments of patient health, the risk of deterioration, and their ability to work predicted sick leave decisions. Specialists in general medicine grant significantly fewer sick leaves than non-specialists. CONCLUSION: Sick-leave decisions made by GPs in the three countries were relatively similar. However, Swedish GPs were more reluctant to grant sick leave for patients with "psychological" diagnoses. Assessments regarding health-related factors were more important than diagnoses in sick-leave decisions. Specialist training may be of importance for sick-leave decisions.

Designing and Developing an eHealth Program for Patients With Persistent Physical Symptoms: Usability Study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with persistent physical symptoms presenting in primary care are often affected by multiple symptoms and reduced functioning. The medical and societal costs of these patients are high, and there is a need for new interventions tailored to both the patients and health care system. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine the usability of an unguided, self-help treatment program, "My Symptoms," developed to assist patients and general practitioners in symptom management. METHODS: In all, 11 users (4 patients with persistent physical symptoms and 7 laypeople) participated in web-based thinking-aloud interviews involving the performance of predefined tasks in the program. Thematic analysis was used to categorize the severity of usability issues. General usability heuristics were cross-referenced with the usability issues. RESULTS: The analysis identified important usability issues related to functionality, navigation, and content. The study shows how therapeutic knowledge in some cases was lost in the translation of face-to-face therapy to a digital format. The user testing helped uncover how the functionality of the digital elements and general navigation of the program played a huge part in locating and accessing the needed treatment. Examples of redesign to mediate the therapeutic value in the digital format involving health care professionals, web developers, and users are provided. The study also highlights the differences of involving patients and laypeople in the interviews. CONCLUSIONS: Taking the experience of common symptoms as a point of departure, patients and laypeople contributed to finding usability issues on program functionality, navigation, and content to improve the program and make the treatment more accessible to users.