General practitioners' perceptions of irritable bowel syndrome: a Q-methodological study

Prevalence of irritable bowel syndrome and functional dyspepsia after acute gastroenteritis: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Disorders of gut-brain interaction may arise after acute gastroenteritis. Data on the influence of pathogen type on the risk of postinfection IBS (PI-IBS), as on postinfection functional dyspepsia (PI-FD), are limited. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine prevalence of PI-IBS or PI-FD after acute gastroenteritis.

DESIGN

We included observational studies recruiting ≥50 adults and reporting prevalence of IBS or FD after acute gastroenteritis with ≥3-month follow-up. A random effects model was used to estimate prevalence and ORs with 95% CIs.

RESULTS

In total, 47 studies (28 170 subjects) were eligible. Overall prevalence of PI-IBS and PI-FD were 14.5% and 12.7%, respectively. IBS persisted in 39.8% of subjects in the long-term (>5 years follow-up) after diagnosis. Individuals experiencing acute gastroenteritis had a significantly higher odds of IBS (OR 4.3) and FD (OR 3.0) than non-exposed controls. PI-IBS was most associated with parasites (prevalence 30.1%), but in only two studies, followed by bacteria (18.3%) and viruses (10.7%). In available studies, Campylobacter was associated with the highest PI-IBS prevalence (20.7%) whereas Proteobacteria and SARS-CoV-2 yielded the highest odds for PI-IBS (both OR 5.4). Prevalence of PI-FD was 10.0% for SARS-CoV-2 and 13.6% for bacteria (Enterobacteriaceae 19.4%).

CONCLUSION

In a large systematic review and meta-analysis, 14.5% of individuals experiencing acute gastroenteritis developed PI-IBS and 12.7% PI-FD, with greater than fourfold increased odds for IBS and threefold for FD. Proinflammatory microbes, including Proteobacteria and subcategories, and SARS-CoV-2, may be associated with the development of PI-IBS and PI-FD.

A comparison of Swedish IBS patients and general practitioners regarding viewpoints on IBS: a Q-methodology study

OBJECTIVES

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common functional gastrointestinal condition. A respectful patient-doctor relationship with good communication is crucial for optimal treatment. Q-methodology is a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods used to study subjectivity. The aim of this study was to compare viewpoints on IBS between patients with IBS and general practitioners (GPs).

METHODS

We conducted a Q-methodology study by including 30 patients and 30 GPs. All participants were asked to complete Q- sorting of 66 statements on IBS using an online software program. Data were processed using factor analysis. In addition, 3 patients and 3 GPs were interviewed.

RESULTS

Three factors were extracted from both groups: Patient Factor 1 'Question the diagnosis of IBS', Patient Factor 2 'Lifestyle changes for a physical disorder', Patient Factor 3 'Importance of a diagnosis', GP Factor 1 'Unknown causes of great suffering', GP Factor 2 'Lifestyle changes are important, stress makes IBS worse', GP Factor 3 'Recognized the way IBS affects patients'. There was a strong and statistically significant correlation between patient Factor 1 and GP Factor 1, with a Pearson's r of 0.81 (p < 0.001). Correlations between other factors varied.

CONCLUSIONS

There was consensus between patients and GPs that IBS is a physical and not a psychiatric disorder of unknown etiology. They also seemed to agree that IBS has a great negative impact on patients' lives and that lifestyle changes are beneficial. There were conflicting opinions regarding gender, cultural factors and the use of antidepressants.

Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders

Functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs) are an extremely common set of more than 50 disorders characterized by persistent and recurring gastrointestinal symptoms. Most of these patients can be diagnosed and managed by primary care physicians. Treatment includes patient education and reassurance, eliminating triggers, dietary modification, and pharmacologic management. Primary care physicians should consider referral to gastroenterologists when patients exhibit red flag symptoms such as blood in stool, abnormal laboratory findings, involuntary weight loss, age of presentation greater than 50 years, or certain concerning family history.

Translational Gap between Guidelines and Clinical Medicine: The Viewpoint of Italian General Practitioners in the Management of IBS

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) guidelines are generally developed by experts, with the possibility of a translational gap in clinical medicine. The aim of our study was to assess an Italian group of general practitioners (GPs) for their awareness and use of criteria for the diagnosis and management of IBS. For this purpose, a survey was carried out involving 235 GPs, divided into two groups according to their years of activity: 65 “junior general practitioners” (JGPs) (≤10 years) and 170 “senior general practitioners” (SGPs) (>10 years). JGPs were more familiar with the Rome IV Criteria and Bristol Scale than SGPs. Abdominal pain, bowel movement frequency and bloating were the symptoms most frequently used to make a diagnosis. The most probable causes of IBS were reported to be abnormal gastrointestinal motility and psychological triggers. SGPs reported more frequently than JGPs that challenging management and patient’s request were motivations for a gastroenterological consultation. The practice of clinical medicine is still far from the guidelines provided by the specialists. Abdominal pain related to defecation and changes in bowel frequency are considered to be the more important symptoms for IBS diagnosis, but most GPs, both JGPs and SGPs, like to consider abdominal bloating as another useful symptom. Involving both gastroenterologists and GPs in developing shared guidelines would be highly desirable in order to improve IBS management strategies in everyday clinical practice.

A scoping review of Q-methodology in healthcare research

BACKGROUND

Q-methodology is an approach to studying complex issues of human 'subjectivity'. Although this approach was developed in the early twentieth century, the value of Q-methodology in healthcare was not recognised until relatively recently. The aim of this review was to scope the empirical healthcare literature to examine the extent to which Q-methodology has been utilised in healthcare over time, including how it has been used and for what purposes.

METHODS

A search of three electronic databases (Scopus, EBSCO-CINAHL Complete, Medline) was conducted. No date restriction was applied. A title and abstract review, followed by a full-text review, was conducted by a team of five reviewers. Included articles were English-language, peer-reviewed journal articles that used Q-methodology (both Q-sorting and inverted factor analysis) in healthcare settings. The following data items were extracted into a purpose-designed Excel spreadsheet: study details (e.g., setting, country, year), reasons for using Q-methodology, healthcare topic area, participants (type and number), materials (e.g., ranking anchors and Q-set), methods (e.g., development of the Q-set, analysis), study results, and study implications. Data synthesis was descriptive in nature and involved frequency counting, open coding and the organisation by data items.

RESULTS

Of the 2,302 articles identified by the search, 289 studies were included in this review. We found evidence of increased use of Q-methodology in healthcare, particularly over the last 5 years. However, this research remains diffuse, spread across a large number of journals and topic areas. In a number of studies, we identified limitations in the reporting of methods, such as insufficient information on how authors derived their Q-set, what types of analyses they performed, and the amount of variance explained.

CONCLUSIONS

Although Q-methodology is increasingly being adopted in healthcare research, it still appears to be relatively novel. This review highlight commonalities in how the method has been used, areas of application, and the potential value of the approach. To facilitate reporting of Q-methodological studies, we present a checklist of details that should be included for publication.

Functional gastrointestinal disorders: advances in understanding and management

Gastrointestinal symptoms are highly prevalent, but many people who have them will have no organic explanation for their symptoms. Most of these people will be labelled as having a functional gastrointestinal disorder, such as irritable bowel syndrome, functional dyspepsia, or functional constipation. These conditions affect up to 40% of people at any one point in time, and two-thirds of these people will have chronic, fluctuating symptoms. The pathophysiology of functional gastrointestinal disorders is complex, but involves bidirectional dysregulation of gut-brain interaction (via the gut-brain axis), as well as microbial dysbiosis within the gut, altered mucosal immune function, visceral hypersensitivity, and abnormal gastrointestinal motility. Hence, nomenclature refers to the conditions as disorders of gut-brain interaction. Psychological comorbidity is common; however, whether or not this predates, or is driven by, symptoms is not clear. Patients with functional gastrointestinal disorders can feel stigmatised, and often this diagnosis is not communicated effectively by physicians, nor is education provided. Prompt identification and treatment of these conditions is crucial as they have a considerable impact on health-care systems and society as a whole because of repeated consultations, unnecessary investigations and surgeries, prescriptions and over-the-counter medicine use, and impaired health-related quality of life and ability to work. Symptom-based criteria are used to make a diagnosis, with judicious use of limited investigations in some patients. The general principles of treatment are based on a biopsychosocial understanding and involve management of physical symptoms and, if present, psychological comorbidity. In the future, treatment approaches to functional gastrointestinal disorders are likely to become more personalised, based not only on symptoms but also underlying pathophysiology and psychology.

Best management of irritable bowel syndrome

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common disorder of gut-brain interaction which can have a considerable impact on quality of life. Following diagnosis, timely and evidence-based management is vital to the care of patients with IBS, aiming to improve outcomes, and enhance patient satisfaction. Good communication is paramount, and clinicians should provide a clear explanation about the disorder, with a focus on exploring the patient's own beliefs about IBS, and a discussion of any concerns they may have. It should be emphasised that symptoms are often chronic, and that treatment, while aiming to improve symptoms, may not relieve them completely. Initial management should include simple lifestyle and dietary advice, discussion of the possible benefit of some probiotics, and, if this is unsuccessful, patients can be referred to a dietician for consideration of a low FODMAP (fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides and polyols) diet. Antispasmodics and peppermint oil can be used first-line for the treatment of abdominal pain. If patients fail to respond, central neuromodulators can be used second-line; tricyclic antidepressants should be preferred. Loperamide and laxatives can be used first-line for treating diarrhoea and constipation, respectively. Patients with constipation who fail to respond to laxatives should be offered a trial of linaclotide. For patients with diarrhoea, the 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor agonists alosetron and ramosetron appear to be the most effective second-line drugs. Where these are unavailable, ondansetron is a reasonable alternative. If medical treatment is unsuccessful, patients should be referred for psychological therapy, where available, if they are amenable to this. Cognitive behavioural therapy and gut-directed hypnotherapy are the psychological therapies with the largest evidence base.

Profiles of family caregivers of patients at the end of life at home: a Q-methodological study into family caregiver' support needs

BACKGROUND

Family caregivers of patients at the end of life often experience care-related burden. To prevent caregiver burden and to enhance the capacity to provide care it is important to have insight in their support needs. The purpose of this study was to identify profiles of family caregivers who provide care to patients at the end of life at home.

METHODS

A Q-methodological study was conducted in which family caregivers ranked 40 statements on support needs and experiences with caregiving. Thereafter they explained their ranking in an interview. By-person factor analysis was used to analyse the rankings and qualitative data was used to support the choice of profiles. A set of 41 family caregivers with a variety on background characteristics who currently or recently provided care for someone at the end of life at home were included.

RESULTS

Four distinct profiles were identified; profile (1) those who want appreciation and an assigned contact person; profile (2) was bipolar. The positive pole (2+) comprised those who have supportive relationships and the negative pole (2-) those who wish for supportive relationships; profile (3) those who want information and practical support, and profile (4) those who need time off. The profiles reflect different support needs and experiences with caregiving.

CONCLUSIONS

Family caregivers of patients at the end of life have varying support needs and one size does not fit all. The profiles are relevant for healthcare professionals and volunteers in palliative care as they provide an overview of the main support needs among family caregivers of patients near the end of life. This knowledge could help healthcare professionals giving support.