4.2 Article

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: a survey of GPs' attitudes and knowledge

Journal

FAMILY PRACTICE
Volume 22, Issue 4, Pages 389-393

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/fampra/cmi019

Keywords

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome; practice guidelines; health knowledge/attitudes/practice; questionnaires

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. GPs need evidence and guidance to help them diagnose and manage Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS)/ME appropriately. Objectives. The aim of this survey was to obtain baseline data and identify the factors associated with GPs' attitudes to and knowledge of CFS/ME. The attitude of GPs to the condition is an important indicator of likely prognosis. Methods. A postal questionnaire was sent to 1054 GPs served by Taunton, Bristol and Gloucester laboratories. GPs' attitudes to nine statements about CFS/ME were assessed and the factors associated with positive or negative responses were determined. Knowledge of the clinical features was also assessed. Results. 811 GPs (77%) returned the questionnaire. 48% of GPs did not feel confident with making a diagnosis of CFS/ME and 41% did not feel confident in treatment. 72% of GPs accepted CFS/ME as a recognisable clinical entity and those GPs had significantly more positive attitudes. Three other key factors that were significantly, positively associated with GPs' attitudes were knowing someone socially with CFS/ME, being male and seeing more patients with the condition in the last year. Conclusion. Despite the publication of guidance for GPs on CFS/ME, confidence with making a diagnosis and management was found to be low. Educational initiatives and guidance for GPs should stress the importance of accepting CFS/ME as a recognisable clinical entity, as this is linked to having a positive attitude and could lead to improved confidence to make a diagnosis and treat CFS/ME patients.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available