Coordinated care in the management of patients with unexplained physical symptoms: depression is a key issue

Behavioural modification interventions for medically unexplained symptoms in primary care: systematic reviews and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

The term 'medically unexplained symptoms' is used to cover a wide range of persistent bodily complaints for which adequate examination and appropriate investigations do not reveal sufficiently explanatory structural or other specified pathologies. A wide range of interventions may be delivered to patients presenting with medically unexplained symptoms in primary care. Many of these therapies aim to change the behaviours of the individual who may have worsening symptoms.

OBJECTIVES

An evidence synthesis to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of behavioural modification interventions for medically unexplained symptoms delivered in primary care settings was undertaken. Barriers to and facilitators of the effectiveness and acceptability of these interventions from the perspective of patients and service providers were evaluated through qualitative review and realist synthesis.

DATA SOURCES

Full search strategies were developed to identify relevant literature. Eleven electronic sources were searched. Eligibility criteria - for the review of clinical effectiveness, randomised controlled trials were sought. For the qualitative review, UK studies of any design were included. For the cost-effectiveness review, papers were restricted to UK studies reporting outcomes as quality-adjusted life-year gains. Clinical searches were conducted in November 2015 and December 2015, qualitative searches were conducted in July 2016 and economic searches were conducted in August 2016. The databases searched included MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO and EMBASE. Updated searches were conducted in February 2019 and March 2019.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult participants meeting the criteria for medically unexplained symptoms, including somatoform disorders, chronic unexplained pain and functional somatic syndromes.

INTERVENTIONS

Behavioural interventions were categorised into types. These included psychotherapies, exercise-based interventions, multimodal therapies (consisting of more than one intervention type), relaxation/stretching/social support/emotional support, guided self-help and general practitioner interventions, such as reattribution. Evidence synthesis: a network meta-analysis was conducted to allow a simultaneous comparison of all evaluated interventions in a single coherent analysis. Separate network meta-analyses were performed at three time points: end of treatment, short-term follow-up (< 6 months since the end of treatment) and long-term follow-up (≥ 6 months after the end of treatment). Outcomes included physical and psychological symptoms, physical functioning and impact of the illness on daily activities. Economic evaluation: within-trial estimates of cost-effectiveness were generated for the subset of studies where utility values (or quality-adjusted life-years) were reported or where these could be estimated by mapping from Short Form questionnaire-36 items or Short Form questionnaire-12 items outcomes.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine studies involving 9077 patients were included in the clinical effectiveness review. There was a large degree of heterogeneity both between and within intervention types, and the networks were sparse across all outcomes. At the end of treatment, behavioural interventions showed some beneficial effects when compared with usual care, in particular for improvement of specific physical symptoms [(1) pain: high-intensity cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBTHI) standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.54 [95% credible interval (CrI) 0.28 to 0.84], multimodal SMD 0.52 (95% CrI 0.19 to 0.89); and (2) fatigue: low-intensity cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBTLI) SMD 0.72 (95% CrI 0.27 to 1.21), relaxation/stretching/social support/emotional support SMD 0.87 (95% CrI 0.20 to 1.55), graded activity SMD 0.51 (95% CrI 0.14 to 0.93), multimodal SMD 0.52 (95% CrI 0.14 to 0.92)] and psychological outcomes [(1) anxiety CBTHI SMD 0.52 (95% CrI 0.06 to 0.96); (2) depression CBTHI SMD 0.80 (95% CrI 0.26 to 1.38); and (3) emotional distress other psychotherapy SMD 0.58 (95% CrI 0.05 to 1.13), relaxation/stretching/social support/emotional support SMD 0.66 (95% CrI 0.18 to 1.28) and sport/exercise SMD 0.49 (95% CrI 0.03 to 1.01)]. At short-term follow-up, behavioural interventions showed some beneficial effects for specific physical symptoms [(1) pain: CBTHI SMD 0.73 (95% CrI 0.10 to 1.39); (2) fatigue: CBTLI SMD 0.62 (95% CrI 0.11 to 1.14), relaxation/stretching/social support/emotional support SMD 0.51 (95% CrI 0.06 to 1.00)] and psychological outcomes [(1) anxiety: CBTHI SMD 0.74 (95% CrI 0.14 to 1.34); (2) depression: CBTHI SMD 0.93 (95% CrI 0.37 to 1.52); and (3) emotional distress: relaxation/stretching/social support/emotional support SMD 0.82 (95% CrI 0.02 to 1.65), multimodal SMD 0.43 (95% CrI 0.04 to 0.91)]. For physical functioning, only multimodal therapy showed beneficial effects: end-of-treatment SMD 0.33 (95% CrI 0.09 to 0.59); and short-term follow-up SMD 0.78 (95% CrI 0.23 to 1.40). For impact on daily activities, CBTHI was the only behavioural intervention to show beneficial effects [end-of-treatment SMD 1.30 (95% CrI 0.59 to 2.00); and short-term follow-up SMD 2.25 (95% CrI 1.34 to 3.16)]. Few effects remained at long-term follow-up. General practitioner interventions showed no significant beneficial effects for any outcome. No intervention group showed conclusive beneficial effects for measures of symptom load (somatisation). A large degree of heterogeneity was found across individual studies in the assessment of cost-effectiveness. Several studies suggested that the interventions produce fewer quality-adjusted life-years than usual care. For those interventions that generated quality-adjusted life-year gains, the mid-point incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) ranged from £1397 to £129,267, but, where the mid-point ICER fell below £30,000, the exploratory assessment of uncertainty suggested that it may be above £30,000.

LIMITATIONS

Sparse networks meant that it was not possible to conduct a metaregression to explain between-study differences in effects. Results were not consistent within intervention type, and there were considerable differences in characteristics between studies of the same type. There were moderate to high levels of statistical heterogeneity. Separate analyses were conducted for three time points and, therefore, analyses are not repeated-measures analyses and do not account for correlations between time points.

CONCLUSIONS

Behavioural interventions showed some beneficial effects for specific medically unexplained symptoms, but no one behavioural intervention was effective across all medically unexplained symptoms. There was little evidence that these interventions are effective for measures of symptom load (somatisation). General practitioner-led interventions were not shown to be effective. Considerable heterogeneity in interventions, populations and sparse networks mean that results should be interpreted with caution. The relationship between patient and service provider is perceived to play a key role in facilitating a successful intervention. Future research should focus on testing the therapeutic effects of the general practitioner-patient relationship within trials of behavioural interventions, and explaining the observed between-study differences in effects within the same intervention type (e.g. with more detailed reporting of defined mechanisms of the interventions under study).

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015025520.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 46. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Quality of life in patients with severe mental illness: a cross-sectional survey in an integrated outpatient health care model

PURPOSE

This study (a) assessed quality of life (QoL) in a patient sample with severe mental illness in an integrated psychiatric care (IC) programme in selected regions in Germany, (b) compared QoL among diagnostic groups and (c) identified socio-demographic, psychiatric anamnestic and clinical characteristics associated with QoL.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study included severely mentally ill outpatients with substantial impairments in social functioning. Separate dimensions of QoL were assessed with the World Health Organisation's generic 26-item quality of life (WHOQOL-BREF) instrument. Descriptive analyses and analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were conducted for the overall sample as well as for diagnostic group.

RESULTS

A total of 953 patients fully completed the WHOQOL-BREF questionnaire. QoL in this sample was lower than in the general population (mean 34.1; 95% confidence interval (CI) 32.8 to 35.5), with the lowest QoL in unipolar depression patients (mean 30.5; 95% CI 28.9 to 32.2) and the highest in dementia patients (mean 53.0; 95% CI 47.5 to 58.5). Main psychiatric diagnosis, living situation (alone, partner/relatives, assisted), number of disease episodes, source of income, age and clinical global impression (CGI) scores were identified as potential predictors of QoL, but explained only a small part of the variation.

CONCLUSION

Aspects of health care that increase QoL despite the presence of a mental disorder are essential for severely mentally ill patients, as complete freedom from the disorder cannot be expected. QoL as a patient-centred outcome should be used as only one component among the recovery measures evaluating treatment outcomes in mental health care.

Functional Somatic Symptoms

BACKGROUND

Approximately 10% of the general population and around one third of adult patients in clinical populations suffer from functional somatic symptoms. These take many forms, are often chronic, impair everyday functioning as well as quality of life, and are cost intensive.

METHODS

The guideline group (32 medical and psychological professional societies, two patients' associations) carried out a systematic survey of the literature and ana- lyzed 3795 original articles and 3345 reviews. The aim was to formulate empirically based recommendations that were practical and user friendly.

RESULTS

Because of the variation in course and symptom severity, three stages of treatment are distinguished. In early contacts, the focus is on basic investigations, reassurance, and advice. For persistent burdensome symptoms, an extended, simultaneous and equitable diagnostic work-up of physical and psychosocial factors is recommended, together with a focus on information and self-help. In the pres- ence of severe and disabling symptoms, multimodal treatment includes further elements such as (body) psychotherapeutic and social medicine measures. Whatever the medical specialty, level of care, or clinical picture, an empathetic professional attitude, reflective communication, information, a cautious, restrained approach to diagnosis, good interdisciplinary cooperation, and above all active interventions for self-efficacy are usually more effective than passive, organ- focused treatments.

CONCLUSION

The cornerstones of diagnosis and treatment are biopsychosocial ex- planatory models, communication, self-efficacy, and interdisciplinary mangagement. This enables safe and efficient patient care from the initial presentation onwards, even in cases where the symptoms cannot yet be traced back to specific causes.

Psychosocial treatments for employees with non-specific and persistent physical symptoms associated with indoor air: A randomised controlled trial with a one-year follow-up

OBJECTIVE

Persistent physical symptoms (PPS) associated with indoor air without an adequate pathophysiological- or environmental-related explanation may lead to work disability and decreased health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We attempted to assess the effect of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) for PPS and also psychoeducation (PE) on these symptoms involving disability.

METHOD

The intention-to-treat (ITT) sample included 52 employees recruited from an occupational healthcare service randomised as either controls undergoing treatment as usual (TAU) or TAU enhanced with CBT or PE. The primary outcome was HRQoL measuring the severity of symptoms and restrictions in everyday life caused by them. Secondary outcomes included depressive, anxiety and insomnia symptoms, and intolerance to environmental factors, assessed at baseline and at 3-, 6- and 12-month follow-ups.

RESULTS

At the 12-month follow-up assessment point, no statistically significant differences between treatments emerged following adjustment for gender, age, and HRQoL before the waiting period in the ITT analysis [F(2,46)=2.89, p=.07]. The secondary analysis revealed a significant improvement in HRQoL in the combined intervention group as compared with controls [F(1,47)=5.06, p=.03, g=0.41]. In total, 15% of participants dropped out during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that CBT for PPS or PE might not have a robust effect on HRQoL in PPS associated with indoor air, but the study did not achieve the planned power. Despite difficulties during the recruitment process, the final dropout rates remained low, and participants positively evaluated CBT, suggesting that it represents an acceptable treatment to them. Trial status This study was registered at the ClinicalTrials.gov registry (NCT02069002).

Diagnosis of somatoform disorders in primary care: diagnostic agreement, predictors, and comaprisons with depression and anxiety

BACKGROUND

To investigate (a) the diagnostic agreement between diagnoses of somatoform disorders, depressive and anxiety disorders obtained from a structured clinical interview and diagnoses reported from primary care physicians (PCPs) and (b) to identify patient and PCP-related predictors for the diagnostic agreement regarding the presence of a somatoform disorder.

METHODS

Data from a cross-sectional study comprising 112 primary care patients at high risk for somatoform disorders were analyzed. Diagnoses according to International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision (ICD-10) for somatoform, depressive and anxiety disorders were obtained from the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) and compared with the diagnoses of the patients' PCPs documented in their medical records. Using multiple regression analyses, predictors for the PCPs' diagnosis of a somatoform disorder were analyzed.

RESULTS

The agreement between PCP diagnoses and CIDI diagnoses was 32.3% for somatoform disorders, 48.0% for depressive disorders and 25.0% for anxiety disorders. Multiple regression analyses revealed the likelihood of being diagnosed with a somatoform disorder by PCP increased with somatic symptom severity (OR = 1.22, 95% CI 1.03-1.44). Regarding PCP-related characteristics, a specialization in internal medicine (OR = 5.95, 95% CI 1.70-20.80) and working in a solo practice (OR = 2.92, 95% CI 1.02-8.38) increased the likelihood that patients were diagnosed with a somatoform disorder.

CONCLUSIONS

The present results indicate that the process of diagnosing somatoform disorders in primary care needs to be improved. Findings further underline the necessity to implement appropriate strategies to improve early detection of patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN ISRCTN55870770 . Registered 22 October 2014. Retrospectively registered.

A pragmatic randomized controlled trial of the Flinders Program of chronic condition management in community health care services

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the Flinders Program in improving self-management in common chronic conditions. To examine properties of the Partners in Health scale (PIH).

METHODS

Participants were randomized to usual care or Flinders Program plus usual care. Self-management competency, quality of life, and other outcomes were measured at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months.

RESULTS

Of 231 participants, 172 provided data at 6 months and 61 at 12 months. At 6 months, intention-to-treat outcomes favoured the intervention group for SF-12 physical health (p=0.043). Other pre-determined outcomes did not show significance. At 6 months intervention participants' problem severity scores reduced (p<0.001) and goal achievement scores increased (p<0.001). Only 55% of the intervention group received a Flinders Program, compromising study power. The PIH was associated with other measures at baseline and for change over time.

CONCLUSION

In a pragmatic community trial, the Flinders Program improved quality of life at 6 months. Incomplete in-practice intervention delivery limited trial power. Studies are now needed on improving delivery. The PIH has potential as a generic risk screening tool and predictive measure of change in self-management and chronic condition outcomes over time.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Better implementation including service integration is required for improved chronic disease management.

Personalised care planning for adults with chronic or long-term health conditions

BACKGROUND

Personalised care planning is a collaborative process used in chronic condition management in which patients and clinicians identify and discuss problems caused by or related to the patient's condition, and develop a plan for tackling these. In essence it is a conversation, or series of conversations, in which they jointly agree goals and actions for managing the patient's condition.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of personalised care planning for adults with long-term health conditions compared to usual care (i.e. forms of care in which active involvement of patients in treatment and management decisions is not explicitly attempted or achieved).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, ProQuest, clinicaltrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to July 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials and cluster-randomised trials involving adults with long-term conditions where the intervention included collaborative (between individual patients and clinicians) goal setting and action planning. We excluded studies where there was little or no opportunity for the patient to have meaningful influence on goal selection, choice of treatment or support package, or both.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two of three review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes were effects on physical health, psychological health, subjective health status, and capabilities for self management. Secondary outcomes included effects on health-related behaviours, resource use and costs, and type of intervention. A patient advisory group of people with experience of living with long-term conditions advised on various aspects of the review, including the protocol, selection of outcome measures and emerging findings.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 19 studies involving a total of 10,856 participants. Twelve of these studies focused on diabetes, three on mental health, one on heart failure, one on end-stage renal disease, one on asthma, and one on various chronic conditions. All 19 studies included components that were intended to support behaviour change among patients, involving either face-to-face or telephone support. All but three of the personalised care planning interventions took place in primary care or community settings; the remaining three were located in hospital clinics. There was some concern about risk of bias for each of the included studies in respect of one or more criteria, usually due to inadequate or unclear descriptions of research methods. Physical healthNine studies measured glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), giving a combined mean difference (MD) between intervention and control of -0.24% (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.35 to -0.14), a small positive effect in favour of personalised care planning compared to usual care (moderate quality evidence).Six studies measured systolic blood pressure, a combined mean difference of -2.64 mm/Hg (95% CI -4.47 to -0.82) favouring personalised care (moderate quality evidence). The pooled results from four studies showed no significant effect on diastolic blood pressure, MD -0.71 mm/Hg (95% CI -2.26 to 0.84).We found no evidence of an effect on cholesterol (LDL-C), standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.01 (95% CI -0.09 to 0.11) (five studies) or body mass index, MD -0.11 (95% CI -0.35 to 0.13) (four studies).A single study of people with asthma reported that personalised care planning led to improvements in lung function and asthma control. Psychological healthSix studies measured depression. We were able to pool results from five of these, giving an SMD of -0.36 (95% CI -0.52 to -0.20), a small effect in favour of personalised care (moderate quality evidence). The remaining study found greater improvement in the control group than the intervention group.Four other studies used a variety of psychological measures that were conceptually different so could not be pooled. Of these, three found greater improvement for the personalised care group than the usual care group and one was too small to detect differences in outcomes. Subjective health statusTen studies used various patient-reported measures of health status (or health-related quality of life), including both generic health status measures and condition-specific ones. We were able to pool data from three studies that used the SF-36 or SF-12, but found no effect on the physical component summary score SMD 0.16 (95% CI -0.05 to 0.38) or the mental component summary score SMD 0.07 (95% CI -0.15 to 0.28) (moderate quality evidence). Of the three other studies that measured generic health status, two found improvements related to personalised care and one did not.Four studies measured condition-specific health status. The combined results showed no difference between the intervention and control groups, SMD -0.01 (95% CI -0.11 to 0.10) (moderate quality evidence). Self-management capabilitiesNine studies looked at the effect of personalised care on self-management capabilities using a variety of outcome measures, but they focused primarily on self efficacy. We were able to pool results from five studies that measured self efficacy, giving a small positive result in favour of personalised care planning: SMD 0.25 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.43) (moderate quality evidence).A further five studies measured other attributes that contribute to self-management capabilities. The results from these were mixed: two studies found evidence of an effect on patient activation, one found an effect on empowerment, and one found improvements in perceived interpersonal support. Other outcomesPooled data from five studies on exercise levels showed no effect due to personalised care planning, but there was a positive effect on people's self-reported ability to carry out self-care activities: SMD 0.35 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.52).We found no evidence of adverse effects due to personalised care planning.The effects of personalised care planning were greater when more stages of the care planning cycle were completed, when contacts between patients and health professionals were more frequent, and when the patient's usual clinician was involved in the process.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Personalised care planning leads to improvements in certain indicators of physical and psychological health status, and people's capability to self-manage their condition when compared to usual care. The effects are not large, but they appear greater when the intervention is more comprehensive, more intensive, and better integrated into routine care.

Non-specific, functional, and somatoform bodily complaints

BACKGROUND

4-10% of the general population and 20% of primary care patients have what are called "non-specific, functional, and somatoform bodily complaints." These often take a chronic course, markedly impair the sufferers' quality of life, and give rise to high costs. They can be made worse by inappropriate behavior on the physician's part.

METHODS

The new S3 guideline was formulated by representatives of 29 medical and psychological specialty societies and one patient representative. They analyzed more than 4000 publications retrieved by a systematic literature search and held two online Delphi rounds and three consensus conferences.

RESULTS

Because of the breadth of the topic, the available evidence varied in quality depending on the particular subject addressed and was often only of moderate quality. A strong consensus was reached on most subjects. In the new guideline, it is recommended that physicians should establish a therapeutic alliance with the patient, adopt a symptom/coping-oriented attitude, and avoid stigmatizing comments. A biopsychosocial diagnostic evaluation, combined with sensitive discussion of signs of psychosocial stress, enables the early recognition of problems of this type, as well as of comorbid conditions, while lowering the risk of iatrogenic somatization. For mild, uncomplicated courses, the establishment of a biopsychosocial explanatory model and physical/social activation are recommended. More severe, complicated courses call for collaborative, coordinated management, including regular appointments (as opposed to ad-hoc appointments whenever the patient feels worse), graded activation, and psychotherapy; the latter may involve cognitive behavioral therapy or a psychodynamic-interpersonal or hypnotherapeutic/imaginative approach. The comprehensive treatment plan may be multimodal, potentially including body-oriented/non-verbal therapies, relaxation training, and time-limited pharmacotherapy.

CONCLUSION

A thorough, simultaneous biopsychosocial diagnostic assessment enables the early recognition of non-specific, functional, and somatoform bodily complaints. The appropriate treatment depends on the severity of the condition. Effective treatment requires the patient's active cooperation and the collaboration of all treating health professionals under the overall management of the patient's primary-care physician.

Collaborative care for depression and anxiety problems

BACKGROUND

Common mental health problems, such as depression and anxiety, are estimated to affect up to 15% of the UK population at any one time, and health care systems worldwide need to implement interventions to reduce the impact and burden of these conditions. Collaborative care is a complex intervention based on chronic disease management models that may be effective in the management of these common mental health problems.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of collaborative care for patients with depression or anxiety.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases to February 2012: The Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group (CCDAN) trials registers (CCDANCTR-References and CCDANCTR-Studies) which include relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from MEDLINE (1950 to present), EMBASE (1974 to present), PsycINFO (1967 to present) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, all years); the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal (ICTRP); ClinicalTrials.gov; and CINAHL (to November 2010 only). We screened the reference lists of reports of all included studies and published systematic reviews for reports of additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of collaborative care for participants of all ages with depression or anxiety.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent researchers extracted data using a standardised data extraction sheet. Two independent researchers made 'Risk of bias' assessments using criteria from The Cochrane Collaboration. We combined continuous measures of outcome using standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We combined dichotomous measures using risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs. Sensitivity analyses tested the robustness of the results.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seventy-nine RCTs (including 90 relevant comparisons) involving 24,308 participants in the review. Studies varied in terms of risk of bias.The results of primary analyses demonstrated significantly greater improvement in depression outcomes for adults with depression treated with the collaborative care model in the short-term (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.41 to -0.27; RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.43), medium-term (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.41 to -0.15; RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.48), and long-term (SMD -0.35, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.24; RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.41). However, these significant benefits were not demonstrated into the very long-term (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.27).The results also demonstrated significantly greater improvement in anxiety outcomes for adults with anxiety treated with the collaborative care model in the short-term (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -0.44 to -0.17; RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.87), medium-term (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.19; RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.69), and long-term (SMD -0.20, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.06; RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.42). No comparisons examined the effects of the intervention on anxiety outcomes in the very long-term.There was evidence of benefit in secondary outcomes including medication use, mental health quality of life, and patient satisfaction, although there was less evidence of benefit in physical quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Collaborative care is associated with significant improvement in depression and anxiety outcomes compared with usual care, and represents a useful addition to clinical pathways for adult patients with depression and anxiety.

Associations of physical and mental health problems with chronic cough in a representative population cohort

BACKGROUND

Although chronic cough is a common problem in clinical practice, data on the prevalence and characteristics of cough in the general population are scarce. Our aim was to determine the prevalence of chronic cough that is not associated with diagnosed respiratory conditions and examine the impact on health status and psychological health, in a representative adult population cohort

METHODS

North West Adelaide Health Study (n stage 1 = 4060, stage 2 = 3160) is a representative population adult cohort. Clinical assessment included spirometry, anthropometry and skin tests. Questionnaires assessed demographics, lifestyle risk factors, quality of life, mental health and respiratory symptoms, doctor diagnosed conditions and medication use.

RESULTS

Of the 3355 people without identified lung disease at baseline, 18.2% reported chronic cough. In multiple logistic regression models, at follow-up, dry chronic cough without sputum production was significantly more common in males (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.1, 1.9), current smokers (OR 4.9, 95% CI 3.4, 7.2), obesity (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.3, 2.9), use of ACE inhibitors (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.1, 2.9), severe mental health disturbance (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.4, 3.1) and older age (40-59 years OR 1.7 95% CI 1.2, 2.4; > or = 60 years OR 2.1 95% CI 1.3, 3.5). Among non-smokers only, all cough was significantly more common in men, those with severe mental health disturbance and obesity.

CONCLUSIONS

Chronic cough is a major cause of morbidity. Attention to cough is indicated in patients with obesity, psychological symptoms or smokers. Inquiring about cough in those with mental health problems may identify reversible morbidity.

Quality of life and neurotic disorders in general healthcare

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review recent findings on the relationship between neurotic disorders (specifically depression, anxiety and somatization) and function and quality of life (QoL) in patients with complex clinical presentations, and to consider the clinical and public health implications.

RECENT FINDINGS

The high prevalence of comorbid depression and anxiety among patients with general medical disorders is well known. The impact of the comorbidity on function in these patients is documented extensively. The study of their QoL is an emerging area of work, though its interpretation is controversial. The impact of somatization on function and QoL is less well studied. Recent findings emphasize the value of a common measure for QoL across health conditions.

SUMMARY

Depression, anxiety and somatization are a significant burden in the general population and failure to recognize and manage these problems in general healthcare contributes to delayed recovery. A holistic approach to symptom, disability and QoL assessment, done in awareness of possible measurement redundancy, is likely to assist better recognition and management of these conditions. Further research is needed on the effects on QoL of depression and anxiety in patients with general medical disorders and early detection and treatment of somatization.