当病人做出(错误的?

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Romain Lutaud, Pierre Verger, Patrick Peretti-Watel, Carole Eldin
{"title":"当病人做出(错误的?","authors":"Romain Lutaud, Pierre Verger, Patrick Peretti-Watel, Carole Eldin","doi":"10.1093/fampra/cmac116","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Media coverage of Lyme disease (LD) has led to an increase in consultations for presumed LD in Europe. However, LD is confirmed in only 10%-20% of patients, with a significant number remaining in a diagnostic dead-end.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To reach a deeper understanding of how patients themselves contribute to the diagnostic process. To describe the genesis of the LD hypothesis in care pathways.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In 2019, 30 patients from a prospective cohort consulting in the infectious diseases department at University Hospital in Marseille for presumed LD were recruited for semistructured interviews. The inclusion criteria were: suffering from subjective symptoms for 6 months, no clinical or paraclinical argument suggesting current LD. The patients' medical trajectories were collected using a biographical approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The diagnosis of LD was primarily triggered by identification with personal testimonies found on the Internet. Most of patients were leading their own diagnostic investigation. The majority of participants were convinced they had LD despite the lack of medical evidence and the scepticism of their referring GP.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>GPs should first systematically explore patients' aetiologic representations in order to improve adherence to the diagnosis especially in the management of medically unexplained symptoms. Long COVID-19 syndrome challenge offers an opportunity to promote active patient involvement in diagnosis.</p>","PeriodicalId":12209,"journal":{"name":"Family practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9619758/pdf/cmac116.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"When the patient is making the (wrong?) diagnosis: a biographical approach to patients consulting for presumed Lyme disease.\",\"authors\":\"Romain Lutaud, Pierre Verger, Patrick Peretti-Watel, Carole Eldin\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/fampra/cmac116\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Media coverage of Lyme disease (LD) has led to an increase in consultations for presumed LD in Europe. However, LD is confirmed in only 10%-20% of patients, with a significant number remaining in a diagnostic dead-end.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To reach a deeper understanding of how patients themselves contribute to the diagnostic process. To describe the genesis of the LD hypothesis in care pathways.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In 2019, 30 patients from a prospective cohort consulting in the infectious diseases department at University Hospital in Marseille for presumed LD were recruited for semistructured interviews. The inclusion criteria were: suffering from subjective symptoms for 6 months, no clinical or paraclinical argument suggesting current LD. The patients' medical trajectories were collected using a biographical approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The diagnosis of LD was primarily triggered by identification with personal testimonies found on the Internet. Most of patients were leading their own diagnostic investigation. The majority of participants were convinced they had LD despite the lack of medical evidence and the scepticism of their referring GP.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>GPs should first systematically explore patients' aetiologic representations in order to improve adherence to the diagnosis especially in the management of medically unexplained symptoms. Long COVID-19 syndrome challenge offers an opportunity to promote active patient involvement in diagnosis.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12209,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Family practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9619758/pdf/cmac116.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Family practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmac116\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Family practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmac116","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在欧洲,媒体对莱姆病(Lyme disease,LD)的报道导致因推测患有莱姆病而就诊的人数增加。然而,只有 10%-20%的患者能确诊为莱姆病,还有相当多的患者处于诊断的死胡同中:更深入地了解患者自身如何促进诊断过程。描述护理路径中 LD 假设的起源:2019年,从马赛大学医院传染病科就诊的前瞻性队列中招募了30名假定患有LD的患者,对他们进行了半结构化访谈。纳入标准为:主观症状持续 6 个月,无临床或辅助临床论据表明目前患有 LD。采用传记法收集了患者的医疗轨迹:结果:对 LD 的诊断主要源于对互联网上个人证词的认同。大多数患者都是自己进行诊断调查。尽管缺乏医学证据,转诊全科医生也持怀疑态度,但大多数参与者坚信自己患有 LD:全科医生应首先系统地探索患者的病因表象,以提高诊断的依从性,尤其是在处理医学上无法解释的症状时。漫长的 COVID-19 综合征挑战为促进患者积极参与诊断提供了机会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
When the patient is making the (wrong?) diagnosis: a biographical approach to patients consulting for presumed Lyme disease.

Background: Media coverage of Lyme disease (LD) has led to an increase in consultations for presumed LD in Europe. However, LD is confirmed in only 10%-20% of patients, with a significant number remaining in a diagnostic dead-end.

Objectives: To reach a deeper understanding of how patients themselves contribute to the diagnostic process. To describe the genesis of the LD hypothesis in care pathways.

Methods: In 2019, 30 patients from a prospective cohort consulting in the infectious diseases department at University Hospital in Marseille for presumed LD were recruited for semistructured interviews. The inclusion criteria were: suffering from subjective symptoms for 6 months, no clinical or paraclinical argument suggesting current LD. The patients' medical trajectories were collected using a biographical approach.

Results: The diagnosis of LD was primarily triggered by identification with personal testimonies found on the Internet. Most of patients were leading their own diagnostic investigation. The majority of participants were convinced they had LD despite the lack of medical evidence and the scepticism of their referring GP.

Conclusion: GPs should first systematically explore patients' aetiologic representations in order to improve adherence to the diagnosis especially in the management of medically unexplained symptoms. Long COVID-19 syndrome challenge offers an opportunity to promote active patient involvement in diagnosis.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Family practice
Family practice 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
9.10%
发文量
144
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Family Practice is an international journal aimed at practitioners, teachers, and researchers in the fields of family medicine, general practice, and primary care in both developed and developing countries. Family Practice offers its readership an international view of the problems and preoccupations in the field, while providing a medium of instruction and exploration. The journal''s range and content covers such areas as health care delivery, epidemiology, public health, and clinical case studies. The journal aims to be interdisciplinary and contributions from other disciplines of medicine and social science are always welcomed.
×
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