Multiple physical symptoms and individual characteristics - A cross-sectional study of the general population.

OBJECTIVE: Multiple physical symptoms not attributable to known organic disease are common in all medical fields and associated with major personal and social consequences. This study investigated multiple physical symptoms according to the construct of bodily distress syndrome (BDS) and associated individual characteristics in the general adult population. METHODS: A nationwide, population-based study of 100,000 randomly selected individuals aged 20 years and older, conducted in 2012. A web-based questionnaire formed the basis of the study and was combined with Danish national registry data on socioeconomic factors and medication and healthcare use. RESULTS: 49,706 individuals completed the questionnaire. After exclusion of women indicating pregnancy, respondents reporting chronic disease and respondents over 65 years of age, 23,331 remained for analysis. Of these 23,331 individuals, 15.5% fulfilled the criteria for BDS. BDS positives were more often younger (20-40 years) and female. Self-rated health and self-reported functional capacity were impaired among these individuals. Fulfilling the BDS criteria was significantly associated with current or former smoking, overweight and obesity, low educational level and income, and unemployment. Moreover, individuals with BDS were more often from ethnic minorities and had higher use of healthcare and medication. CONCLUSION: Multiple physical symptoms, as captured by the concept of BDS, are common in the general adult population, especially among younger women. Fulfilling the BDS criteria is associated with substantial negative impact on self-perceived health and socioeconomic parameters. Fulfilling BDS criteria is positively associated with health risk behaviors (smoking, overweight and obesity) and higher use of healthcare and medication.

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.

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.

Sick leave and work disability in primary care patients with recent-onset multiple medically unexplained symptoms and persistent somatoform disorders: a 10-year follow-up of the FIP study.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to explore patient characteristics and 10-year outcome of sick leave and work disability for patients with recent-onset multiple medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) and persistent somatoform disorders (SD). METHOD: Consecutive patients consulting their family physician (FP) completed a preconsultation questionnaire on symptoms and mental illness (n=1785). The main problem was categorized by the FP after the consultation, and a stratified subsample was examined using a standardized diagnostic interview (n=701). Patients were grouped into three cohorts: recent onset of multiple MUS (n=84); Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, persistent SD (n=183); and reference group with well-defined physical disease according to FP (n=833). Register data on sick leave and disability pension were obtained. RESULTS: At index consultation, disability pension was received by 8.3% (n=7) in the recent-onset multiple MUS group, 19.1% (n=35) in the SD group and 3.5% (n=29) in the reference group. Both the recent-onset multiple MUS group [hazard ratio (HR)=2.28, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.14-4.55] and the SD group (HR=3.26, 95% CI:1.93-5.51) had increased risk of new disability pension awards. Furthermore, the SD group had increased risk of sick leave. CONCLUSIONS: Both recent-onset and persistent MUS have significant long-term impact on patient functioning in regard to working life; this calls for early recognition and adequate management of MUS in primary care.

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.

A randomized controlled trial of brief training in the assessment and treatment of somatization in primary care: effects on patient outcome.

OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to evaluate the effect of an educational program designed to improve care for somatizing patients in primary care. METHOD: Evaluation was performed during routine clinical care in a cluster randomized controlled trial. Patients were included consecutively, and those with a high score on rating scales for somatization were selected for follow-up (n=911). Follow-up was conducted 3 months (response rate=0.74) and 12 months (response rate=0.69) after inclusion using questionnaires measuring quality of life (Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form), disability days (WHO's Disability Assessment Schedule), somatization (Whiteley-7 and Symptom Checklist Somatic Symptom Scale) and patient satisfaction (European Project on Patient Evaluation of General Practice Care). We analyzed differences from baseline to follow-up and compared these for intervention and control groups. RESULTS: Self-reported health improved in both intervention and control groups during follow-up for patients with a high score for somatization, but changes were small. We could not demonstrate any difference between the control group and the intervention group with regard to our primary outcome 'physical functioning.' Patients in the intervention group tended to be more satisfied at 12-month follow-up than those in the control group, but this difference fell short of statistical significance. CONCLUSION: Training of primary care physicians showed no statistically significant effect on clinical outcome and showed nonsignificant improvement in patient satisfaction with care for patients with a high score for somatization.

A randomised controlled trial of brief training in assessment and treatment of somatisation: effects on GPs' attitudes.

BACKGROUND: Somatising patients frequently present in primary care but GPs often express frustration in dealing with them. A negative attitude may result in missed diagnoses and ineffective treatment. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of a novel, multifaceted training programme on GPs' attitudes towards somatisation. METHODS: The study was performed as a cluster randomised controlled trial with practices as randomisation unit and with a follow-up period of 12 months. Forty-three GPs from 27 practices in Vejle County, Denmark participated. The intervention consisted of a cognitive-oriented educational programme on assessment, treatment and management of somatisation (The Extended Reattribution and Management Model). Outcome measures were GPs' attitudes toward somatoform disorder and somatisation in general measured by the means of questionnaires at baseline and follow-up. The primary outcome was a change in response. RESULTS: Baseline values confirmed previous findings that GPs find it difficult to deal with somatising patients. Compared with the control doctors, intervention doctors' attitudes towards patients with somatoform disorders had changed significantly 12 months after training on the parameters enjoyment (P = 0.008) and anxiety (P = 0.002). Doctors also felt more comfortable in dealing with somatising patients in general (P = 0.002). Attitudes about other parameters related to the doctors feelings, aetiology and course of somatisation changed in the expected direction, but these changes were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: A brief multifaceted training programme focussing on somatisation was accompanied by a significant change in GPs' attitude towards patients with somatoform disorders.