Psychological therapists' judgments of pain and treatment decisions: The impact of 'medically unexplained symptoms'

Measuring persistent somatic symptom related stigmatisation: Development of the Persistent Somatic Symptom Stigma scale for Healthcare Professionals (PSSS-HCP)

OBJECTIVE

Persistent somatic symptoms (PSS) describe recurrent or continuously occurring symptoms such as fatigue, dizziness, or pain that have persisted for at least several months. These include single symptoms such as chronic pain, combinations of symptoms, or functional disorders such as fibromyalgia or irritable bowel syndrome. While stigmatisation by healthcare professionals is regularly reported, there are limited measurement instruments demonstrating content validity. This study develops a new instrument to measure stigmatisation by healthcare professionals, the Persistent Somatic Symptom Stigma scale for Healthcare Professionals (PSSS-HCP).

METHODS

Development was an iterative process consisting of research team review, item generation and cognitive interviewing. We generated a longlist of 60 items from previous reviews and qualitative research. We conducted 18 cognitive interviews with healthcare professionals in the United Kingdom (UK). We analysed the relevance, comprehensibility and comprehensiveness of items, including the potential for social desirability bias.

RESULTS

After research team consensus and initial feedback, we retained 40 items for cognitive interviewing. After our first round of interviews (n = 11), we removed 20 items, added three items and amended five items. After our second round of interviews (n = 7), we removed four items and amended three items. No major problems with relevance, comprehensibility, comprehensiveness or social desirability were found in remaining items.

CONCLUSIONS

The provisional version of the PSSS-HCP contains 19 items across three domains (stereotypes, prejudice, discrimination), demonstrating sufficient content validity. Our next step will be to perform a validation study to finalise item selection and explore the structure of the PSSS-HCP.

Persistent somatic symptom related stigmatisation by healthcare professionals: A systematic review of questionnaire measurement instruments

OBJECTIVE

Patients with persistent somatic symptoms (PSS) experience stigmatising attitudes and behaviours by healthcare professionals. While previous research has focussed on individual manifestations of PSS related stigma, less is known about sound ways to measure stigmatisation by healthcare professionals towards patients with PSS. This review aims to assess the quality of questionnaire measurement instruments and make recommendations about their use.

METHODS

A systematic review using six databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Open Grey and EThOS). The search strategy combined three search strings related to healthcare professionals, PSS and stigma. Additional publications were identified by searching bibliographies. Three authors independently extracted the data. Data analysis and synthesis followed COSMIN methodology for reviews of outcome measurement instruments.

RESULTS

We identified 90 publications that met the inclusion criteria using 62 questionnaire measurement instruments. Stereotypes were explored in 92% of instruments, prejudices in 52% of instruments, and discrimination in 19% of instruments. The development process of the instruments was not rated higher than doubtful. Construct validity, structural validity, internal consistency and reliability were the most commonly investigated measurement properties. Evidence around content validity was inconsistent or indeterminate.

CONCLUSION

No instrument provided acceptable evidence on all measurement properties. Many instruments were developed for use within a single publication, with little evidence of their development or establishment of content validity. This is problematic because stigma instruments should reflect the challenges that healthcare professionals face when working with patients with PSS. They should also reflect the experiences that patients with PSS have widely reported during clinical encounters.

Understanding Patient-Provider Interaction, Treatment Acceptance, and Outcomes in Medically Unexplained Symptoms

INTRODUCTION

Medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) is an umbrella term used for chronic and often disabling health symptoms and conditions that remain unexplained after standard medical examinations, testing, and/or appropriate workup. Patients with MUS tend to receive little to no treatment but remain distressed, stigmatized, and disabled by symptoms and iatrogenic factors.

METHODS

A qualitative phenomenological study was conducted to explore daily challenges and psychosocial and iatrogenic factors affecting the management of MUS.

RESULTS

The analysis of the interviews revealed that MUS could cause significant distress to patients, impairing their functioning and leading to permanent disability. Conventional healthcare cannot meet the medical needs of these patients and might be a potential source of harm to them. It should be noted that confirmation of conditions associated with clinically significant psychiatric premorbidity was not provided.

CONCLUSION

Inconsistent diagnostic criteria, lack of proper training and research, diagnostic overshadowing, and implicit bias in healthcare professionals can lead to negative patient outcomes and the overuse of alternative or non-evidence-based services. Guidance, practice-based improvement ideas, and suggestions specific to improving patient-provider relationships can be applied to generate positive health effects.

Unexplained versus explained symptoms: The difference is not in patients' language use. A quantitative analysis of linguistic markers

OBJECTIVE

Patients with medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) are believed to have a deviant way of talking about complaints. This study systematically compared linguistic markers in symptom presentations of patients with MUS and medically explained symptoms (MES).

METHODS

This content analysis (cross-sectional study) conceptualized relevant linguistic markers based on previous research about MUS communication. Linguistic markers included negations ("not"), intensifiers ("very"), diminishers ("a little"), first or third person subject ("I" vs. "my body"), subjectivity markers ("I think") and abstraction ("I'm gasping for breath" vs. "I'm short of breath"). We also coded valence, reference to physical or mental states, and consultation phase. We compared 41 MUS and 41 MES transcribed video-recorded general practice consultations. Data were analyzed with binary random intercepts models.

RESULTS

We selected and coded 2752 relevant utterances. Patients with MUS used less diminishers compared to patients with MES, but this main effect disappeared when consultation phase was included as predictor. For all other linguistic variables, the analyses did not reveal any variation in language use based on whether patients had MUS or MES. Importantly, utterances' valence and reference to physical or mental state did predict the use of linguistic markers.

CONCLUSION

We observed no systematic variations in linguistic markers for patients who suffered from MUS compared to MES. Patients varied their language use based on utterances' valence and reference to physical or mental states. Current ideas about deviant patient communication may be based on stigmatized perceptions of how patients with MUS communicate, rather than actual differences in their talk.