Explaining persistent physical symptoms to patients in general practice: can tests to measure central sensitisation add value? A mixed-methods study.

IF 2 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Carine den Boer, Zola Krak, Berend Terluin, Johannes C van der Wouden, Annette H Blankenstein, Henriëtte E van der Horst
{"title":"Explaining persistent physical symptoms to patients in general practice: can tests to measure central sensitisation add value? A mixed-methods study.","authors":"Carine den Boer, Zola Krak, Berend Terluin, Johannes C van der Wouden, Annette H Blankenstein, Henriëtte E van der Horst","doi":"10.1186/s12875-024-02686-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>General practitioners (GPs) often face challenges in explaining to patients with persistent physical symptoms (PPS) why their symptoms persist. Providing an explanation of the central sensitisation (CS) mechanism to patients could be helpful, yet GPs do not routinely test for signs of CS in these patients. The aim of this study was to explore the value of applying a test to assess CS in enhancing explanations provided to patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this prospective study, 25 GPs applied three tests, selected through a Delphi study, to assess CS-related symptoms: (1) the Central Sensitisation Inventory (CSI); (2) an algometer for measuring pressure pain thresholds (PPT); and (3) a monofilament for assessing temporal summation. Following the tests, both the GP and the patient completed a short questionnaire. Subsequently, GPs shared their experiences in focus groups and interviews, while a sample of patients was interviewed individually. The questionnaires were analysed quantitatively, and the focus groups and interviews were analysed qualitatively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>GPs reported that all tests were feasible to perform during consultations; testing took less than 5 min in 25% of cases and between 5 and 10 min in 60% of cases. In approximately 50% of cases, an additional consultation was required to perform the test. The results of the CSI confirmed CS-related symptoms more frequently (74%) than the algometer (46%) and the monofilament (43%). Consequently, many GPs preferred the CSI. Patients did not show a preference for any specific test; two-third found the tests valuable and approximately 50% reported that the explanation of CS was clearer when a test was used.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Testing during the consultation was feasible, although an additional consultation was required in 50% of the cases. GPs preferred the CSI because its results confirmed CS-related symptoms more frequently than those from the algometer and monofilament.</p>","PeriodicalId":72428,"journal":{"name":"BMC primary care","volume":"25 1","pages":"439"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11673602/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC primary care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-024-02686-w","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: General practitioners (GPs) often face challenges in explaining to patients with persistent physical symptoms (PPS) why their symptoms persist. Providing an explanation of the central sensitisation (CS) mechanism to patients could be helpful, yet GPs do not routinely test for signs of CS in these patients. The aim of this study was to explore the value of applying a test to assess CS in enhancing explanations provided to patients.

Methods: In this prospective study, 25 GPs applied three tests, selected through a Delphi study, to assess CS-related symptoms: (1) the Central Sensitisation Inventory (CSI); (2) an algometer for measuring pressure pain thresholds (PPT); and (3) a monofilament for assessing temporal summation. Following the tests, both the GP and the patient completed a short questionnaire. Subsequently, GPs shared their experiences in focus groups and interviews, while a sample of patients was interviewed individually. The questionnaires were analysed quantitatively, and the focus groups and interviews were analysed qualitatively.

Results: GPs reported that all tests were feasible to perform during consultations; testing took less than 5 min in 25% of cases and between 5 and 10 min in 60% of cases. In approximately 50% of cases, an additional consultation was required to perform the test. The results of the CSI confirmed CS-related symptoms more frequently (74%) than the algometer (46%) and the monofilament (43%). Consequently, many GPs preferred the CSI. Patients did not show a preference for any specific test; two-third found the tests valuable and approximately 50% reported that the explanation of CS was clearer when a test was used.

Conclusions: Testing during the consultation was feasible, although an additional consultation was required in 50% of the cases. GPs preferred the CSI because its results confirmed CS-related symptoms more frequently than those from the algometer and monofilament.

向全科医生解释持续性躯体症状:测量中枢敏感性的测试能否增加价值?一项混合方法研究。
简介:全科医生(全科医生)经常面临的挑战,向患者解释持续性身体症状(PPS)为什么他们的症状持续。为患者提供中枢致敏(CS)机制的解释可能是有帮助的,但全科医生并没有在这些患者中常规检测CS的迹象。本研究的目的是探讨应用测试来评估CS的价值,以加强向患者提供的解释。方法:在这项前瞻性研究中,25名全科医生采用三种测试方法,通过德尔菲研究选择,评估cs相关症状:(1)中央致敏量表(CSI);(2)测量压痛阈值的测定仪(PPT);(3)用于评估时间总和的单丝。在测试之后,全科医生和患者都完成了一份简短的问卷调查。随后,全科医生在焦点小组和访谈中分享了他们的经验,同时对一些患者进行了单独访谈。对问卷进行定量分析,对焦点小组和访谈进行定性分析。结果:全科医生报告说,在会诊期间进行的所有检查都是可行的;25%的病例的检测时间少于5分钟,60%的病例的检测时间在5到10分钟之间。在大约50%的病例中,需要进行额外的咨询才能进行测试。CSI的结果证实cs相关症状的频率(74%)高于血清计(46%)和单丝(43%)。因此,许多普通合伙人更喜欢CSI。患者没有表现出对任何特定测试的偏好;三分之二的人认为测试很有价值,大约50%的人报告说,当使用测试时,对CS的解释更清楚。结论:在会诊期间进行检测是可行的,尽管50%的病例需要额外的会诊。全科医生更倾向于CSI,因为CSI的结果比algometer和单丝的结果更频繁地证实cs相关症状。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信