4.5 Article

Medically unexplained symptoms - An epidemiological study in seven specialities

Journal

JOURNAL OF PSYCHOSOMATIC RESEARCH
Volume 51, Issue 1, Pages 361-367

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3999(01)00223-9

Keywords

medically unexplained symptoms; somatization; somatoform disorders; prevalence; illness behavior

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: This study aimed to estimate the prevalence and risk factors for medically unexplained symptoms across a variety of specialities. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted at two general hospitals in southeast London between 1995 and 1997. Eight hundred and ninety consecutive new patients from seven outpatient clinics were included. Demographic and clinical characteristic variables were assessed. Results: Five hundred eighty-two (65%) of the subjects surveyed returned completed questionnaires. A final diagnosis was available in 550 (62%). Two hundred twenty-eight (52%) fulfilled criteria for medically unexplained symptoms. The highest prevalence was in the gynaecology clinic (66%). After adjustment for confounders. medically unexplained symptoms were associated with being female, younger, and currently employed. Psychiatric morbidity per se was not associated with the presence of medically unexplained symptoms, but was more likely in those complaining of multiple symptoms. Those with medically unexplained symptoms were less disabled, but more likely to use alternative treatment in comparison with those whose symptoms were medically explained. Patients with medically unexplained symptoms were more likely to attribute their illness to physical causes as opposed to lifestyle factors. Conclusions: Medically unexplained symptoms are common across general/internal medicine and represent the most common diagnosis in some specialities. Medical behavior, training, and management need to take this into account. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available