No abstract

The two five-item screening scales for anxiety and depression provide a practical way for PCPs to evaluate the likelihood of mood and anxiety disorders without paper and pencil measures that are not feasible in many settings. These scales may provide substantially improved case detection as compared to current primary care practice and a realistic alternative to complex diagnostic algorithms used by specialist mental health professionals.

No abstract

There is an immediate need for a common language and a theoretical framework of understanding of functional symptoms and disorders across medical specialties, clinically and scientifically. Any names that presuppose a mind-body dualism (such as somatization, medically unexplained) ought to be abolished. The overall ambition for treatment is to offer patients with functional somatic symptoms the same quality of professional healthcare as we offer any other patient.

A precondition for an appropriate management of patients with functional somatic symptoms is a valid taxonomy common for all medical specialties facilitating cooperative care. Classification systems as outlined in this paper may be a candidate for such a system, but it should be subject to further evaluation in research.

BackgroundConceptualisation and classification of functional disorders appear highly inconsistent in the health-care system, particularly in primary care. Numerous terms and overlapping diagnostic criteria are prevalent of which many are considered stigmatising by general practitioners and patients. The lack of a clear concept challenges the general practitioner’s decision-making when a diagnosis or a treatment approach must be selected for a patient with a functional disorder. This calls for improvements of the diagnostic categories. Intense debate has risen in connection with the release of the fifth version of the ‘Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders’ and the current revision of the ‘International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems’. We aim to discuss a new evidence based diagnostic proposal, bodily distress syndrome, which holds the potential to change our current approach to functional disorders in primary care. A special focus will be directed towards the validity and utility criteria recommended for diagnostic categorisation.DiscussionA growing body of evidence suggests that the numerous diagnoses for functional disorders listed in the current classifications belong to one family of closely related disorders. We name the underlying phenomenon ‘bodily distress’; it manifests as patterns of multiple and disturbing bodily sensations. Bodily distress syndrome is a diagnostic category with specific criteria covering this illness phenomenon. The category has been explored through empirical studies, which in combination provide a sound basis for determining a symptom profile, the diagnostic stability and the boundaries of the condition. However, as bodily distress syndrome embraces only the most common symptom patterns, patients with few but impairing symptoms are not captured. Furthermore, the current lack of treatment options may also influence the acceptance of the proposed diagnosis.SummaryBodily distress syndrome is a diagnostic category with notable validity according to empirical studies. Nevertheless, knowledge is sparse on the utility in primary care. Future intervention studies should investigate the translation of bodily distress syndrome into clinical practice. A particular focus should be directed towards the acceptability among general practitioners and patients. Most importantly, it should be investigated whether the new category may provide the basis for better treatment and improved clinical outcome.

ObjectiveThis systematic review aims to identify generic prognostic factors for disability and sick leave in subacute pain patients.SettingGeneral practice and other primary care facilities.ParticipantsAdults (>18 years) with a subacute (≤3-month) non-malignant pain condition. Eligibility criteria were cohort studies investigating the prediction of disability or long-term sick leave in adults with a subacute pain condition in a primary care setting. 19 studies were included, referring to a total of 6266 patients suffering from pain in the head, neck, back and shoulders.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcome was long-term disability (>3 months) due to a pain condition. The secondary outcome was sick leave, defined as ‘absence from work’ or ‘return-to-work’.ResultsPubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and PEDro databases were searched from 16 January 2003 to 16 January 2014. The quality of evidence was presented according to the GRADE WG recommendations. Several factors were found to be associated with disability at follow-up for at least two different pain symptoms. However, owing to insufficient studies, no generic risk factors for sick leave were identified.ConclusionsMultiple site pain, high pain severity, older age, baseline disability and longer pain duration were identified as potential prognostic factors for disability across pain sites. There was limited evidence that anxiety and depression were associated with disability in patients with subacute pain, indicating that these factors may not play as large a role as expected in developing disability due to a pain condition. Quality of evidence was moderate, low or very low, implying that confidence in the results is limited. Large prospective prognostic factor studies are needed with sufficient study populations and transparent reporting of all factors examined.Trial registration numberCRD42014008914.

No abstract