Disability, distress and unemployment in neurology outpatients with symptoms 'unexplained by organic disease'.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the disability, distress and employment status of new neurology outpatients with physical symptoms unexplained by organic disease and to compare them with patients with symptoms explained by organic disease. METHODS: As part of a cohort study (the Scottish Neurological Symptoms Study) neurologists rated the extent to which each new patient's symptoms were explained by organic disease. Patients whose symptoms were rated as 'not at all' or only 'somewhat' explained by disease were considered cases, and those whose symptoms were 'largely' or 'completely' explained by disease were considered controls. All patients completed self-ratings of disability, health status (Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 12-Item Scale (SF-12)) and emotional distress (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) and also reported their employment and state financial benefit status. RESULTS: 3781 patients were recruited: 1144 (30%) cases and 2637 (70%) controls. Cases had worse physical health status (SF-12 score 42 vs 44; difference in means 1.7 (95% CI -2.5 to 0.9)) and worse mental health status (SF-12 score 43 vs 47; difference in means -3.5 (95% CI -4.3 to to 2.7)). Unemployment was similar in cases and controls (50% vs 50%) but cases were more likely not to be working for health reasons (54% vs 37% of the 50% not working; OR 2.0 (95% CI 1.6 to 2.4)) and also more likely to be receiving disability-related state financial benefits (27% vs 22%; (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.1 to 1.6)). CONCLUSIONS: New neurology patients with symptoms unexplained by organic disease have more disability-, distress- and disability-related state financial benefits than patients with symptoms explained by disease.

Neurology out-patients with symptoms unexplained by disease: illness beliefs and financial benefits predict 1-year outcome.

BACKGROUND: Patients whose symptoms are 'unexplained by disease' often have a poor symptomatic outcome after specialist consultation, but we know little about which patient factors predict this. We therefore aimed to determine predictors of poor subjective outcome for new neurology out-patients with symptoms unexplained by disease 1 year after the initial consultation. METHOD: The Scottish Neurological Symptom Study was a 1-year prospective cohort study of patients referred to secondary care National Health Service neurology clinics in Scotland (UK). Patients were included if the neurologist rated their symptoms as 'not at all' or only 'somewhat explained' by organic disease. Patient-rated change in health was rated on a five-point Clinical Global Improvement (CGI) scale ('much better' to 'much worse') 1 year later. RESULTS: The 12-month outcome data were available on 716 of 1144 patients (63%). Poor outcome on the CGI ('unchanged', 'worse' or 'much worse') was reported by 482 (67%) out of 716 patients. The only strong independent baseline predictors were patients' beliefs [expectation of non-recovery (odds ratio [OR] 2.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.40-2.96), non-attribution of symptoms to psychological factors (OR 2.22, 95% CI 1.51-3.26)] and the receipt of illness-related financial benefits (OR 2.30, 95% CI 1.37-3.86). Together, these factors predicted 13% of the variance in outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Of the patients, two-thirds had a poor outcome at 1 year. Illness beliefs and financial benefits are more useful in predicting poor outcome than the number of symptoms, disability and distress.