4.5 Article

Association of costs with somatic symptom severity in patients with medically unexplained symptoms

期刊

JOURNAL OF PSYCHOSOMATIC RESEARCH
卷 75, 期 4, 页码 370-375

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2013.08.011

关键词

Medically unexplained symptoms; Somatoform disorder; Somatic symptom severity; Direct cost; Indirect cost

资金

  1. German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) [01GK0601]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To analyse the association of direct and indirect costs in patients with medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) with somatic symptom severity (SSS). Methods: A cross-sectional cost analysis for retrospective 6 months was conducted in 294 primary care patients with MUS. Health care utilisation and loss of productivity were measured by questionnaires. SSS was measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire 15 (PHQ-15). Direct and indirect costs and the association of costs with SSS were analysed via multiple linear regression analysis. Results: Patients with MUS had average 6-month direct costs of 1098 EUR and indirect costs of 7645 EUR. For direct costs, outpatient physician visits were the most expensive single cost category (36%), followed by pharmaceuticals (25%) and hospital stays (19%). Indirect costs were predominantly caused by productivity reduction at work (56%) followed by early retirement (29%) and acute sickness absence (14%). As compared to mild SSS, moderate SSS was not significantly associated with direct, but with indirect costs (+ 2948 EUR; p < .001); severe SSS was associated with increased direct cost (+ 658 EUR; p = .001) and increased indirect costs (+4630 EUR; p < .001). Age was positively associated with direct cost (+ 15 EUR for each additional year; p = .015) as well as indirect cost (+104 EUR for each additional year; p < .001). Conclusions: MUS are associated with relevant direct and even much higher indirect costs that strongly depend on SSS. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据