4.7 Article

Risk factors for continued illness among Gulf War veterans: a cohort study

期刊

PSYCHOLOGICAL MEDICINE
卷 34, 期 4, 页码 747-754

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0033291703001016

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. There are no prospective cohort studies of prognostic factors on the outcome of Gulf War veterans. We aimed to test the hypotheses that Gulf War veterans who were older; had more severe symptoms; had more exposures during deployment; had increased psychological distress and believed they had 'Gulf War syndrome' would experience greater fatigue and poorer physical functioning at follow-up. Method. Gulf War veterans who responded to an earlier retrospective cohort Study were followed with a postal Survey. More symptomatic individuals were oversampled. Outcome was measured on the Chalder fatigue questionnaire, the General Health Questionnaire and the Medical Outcome Study Short-Form 36. Results. Of those Surveyed, 73.8% responded. We found some evidence for four of the five hypotheses. More self-reported exposures at baseline were not associated with poorer outcome, but older people, those with more severe symptoms at baseline, those with psychological distress and who believed they were suffering from 'Gulf War syndrome' had more fatigue at follow-up. Officer status was associated with a better outcome. A similar lack of association was found for exposures and physical functioning and GHQ-12 score. 'Gulf War syndrome' attribution was associated with a worse outcome for GHQ-12 and physical functioning even after controlling for severity of symptoms at baseline. Conclusions. This study suggests that while multiple vaccination and military exposures are important risk factors for the onset of symptoms in Gulf War veterans, these are not important risk factors for persistence of such symptoms. Instead the severity of the initial symptoms; psychological distress and attributions may be more important determinants of outcome.

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

4.7
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