Medically Unexplained Symptoms (MUS): What Do Current Trainee Psychologists, Neurologists and Psychiatrists Believe? (original) (raw)
Related papers
Patients’ experiences of living with medically unexplained symptoms (MUS): a qualitative study
BMC Family Practice, 2018
Background: Patients with medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) are common in primary care, and pose a communicative and therapeutic challenge to GPs. Although much has been written about GPs' frustration and difficulties while dealing with these patients, research presenting the patients' perspectives on MUS still seems to be scarce. Existing studies have demonstrated the patients' desire to make sense of symptoms, addressed the necessity for appropriate and acceptable explanation of MUS, and revealed stigmatization of patients with symptoms of mental origin. Treatment in primary care should focus on the patient's most essential needs and concerns. The objective of this paper is to explore Polish patients' perspectives on living with MUS. Methods: A qualitative content analysis of 20 filmed, semi-structured interviews with patients presenting MUS (8 men and 12 women, aged 18 to 57) was conducted. All patients were diagnosed with distinctive somatoform disorders (F45), and presented the symptoms for at least 2 years. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed independently by two researchers. Results: Four major themes emerged: (1) experiences of symptoms; (2) explanations for symptoms; (3) coping; (4) expectations about healthcare. Within the first theme, the patients identified the following sub-themes: persistence of symptoms or variability, and negative emotions. Patients who observed that their symptoms had changed over time were better disposed to accept the existence of a relationship between the symptoms and the mind. The second theme embraced the following sub-themes: (1) personal explanations; (2) social explanations; (3) somatic explanations. The most effective coping strategies the patients mentioned included: the rationalization of the symptoms, self-development and ignoring the symptoms. The majority of our respondents had no expectations from the healthcare system, and stated they did not use medical services; instead, they admitted to visiting psychologists or psychiatrists privately. Conclusion: Patients with MUS have their own experiences of illness. They undertake attempts to interpret their symptoms and learn to live with them. The role of the GP in this process is significant, especially when access to psychological help is restricted. Management of patients with MUS in the Polish healthcare system can be improved, if access to psychologists and psychotherapists is facilitated and increased financial resources are allocated for primary care. Patients with MUS can benefit from a video/filmed consultation with a follow-up analysis with their GP.
Insight Medically Unexplained Symptoms
ABSTRACT Medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) are symptoms without any objective physical or pathological cause. Several studies underlay the link among MUS and mental dysfunctions as anxiety and depression. The exact causes of MUS have not been found yet. Moreover a scientist cannot recommend a specific treatment for this disease. Medications and psychotherapy, or a combination of both, are still under consideration and more research is needed.
Social Science and Medicine, 2012
Persistent medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) e including the many syndromes that fall under this umbrella e involve a discrepancy between professional knowledge and lay experience and are often associated with latent or explicit dynamics of conflict. Although this conflictual dimension has been amply documented, little critical attention has been paid to how nomenclature and classification feed into the conflictual dynamic and are informed by it in turn. In this paper I engage with this question from a social-theoretical perspective informed by the concept of performativity. The paper offers a critical review of debates around the medical terminology in use, and a discussion of the alternative terminology developed by social scientists. Based on these, I argue that medical and social scientific discourse unwittingly collude in a disavowal of the psychological dimension of 'MUS'. I then discuss the paradoxical character of this disavowal and suggest that it tends to perpetuate polemical modes of engagement around 'MUS'. I conclude with suggestions on how further research might counteract this tendency.
What do patients with medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS) think? A qualitative study
Mental health in family medicine, 2013
Context Medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS) are frequently encountered in family medicine, and lead to disability, discomfort, medicalisation, iatrogenesis and economic costs. They cause professionals to feel insecure and frustrated and patients to feel dissatisfied and misunderstood. Doctors seek answers for rather than with the patient. Objectives This study aimed to explore patients' explanations of the medically unexplained physical symptoms that they were experiencing by eliciting their own explanations for their complaints, their associated fears, their expectations of the consultation, changes in their ideas of causality, and the therapeutic approach that they considered would be useful. Methodology A qualitative analysis was under-taken of interviews with 15 patients with MUPS in a family medicine unit, 6 months after diagnosis. Results Experience is crucial in construction of the meaning of symptoms and illness behaviour. Many patients identify psychosocial c...
Evaluation and management of medically unexplained physical symptoms
The neurologist, 2004
Background: Medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS) and related syndromes are common in medical care and the general population, are associated with extensive morbidity, and have a large impact on functioning. Much of medical practice emphasizes specific pharmacological and surgical intervention for discrete disease states. Medical science, with its emphasis on identifying etiologically meaningful diseases comprised of homogeneous groups of patients, has split MUPS into a number of diagnostic entities or syndromes, each with its own hypothesized pathogenesis. However, research suggests these syndromes may be more similar than different, sharing extensive phenomenological overlap and similar risk factors, treatments, associated morbidities, and prognoses. Examples of syndromes consisting of MUPS include chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, multiple chemical sensitivities, somatoform disorders, and 'Gulf War Syndrome.' Review Summary: This paper is a narrative review of the increasing body of evidence suggesting that MUPS and related syndromes are common, disabling, and costly. It emphasizes that MUPS occur along a continuum of symptom count, severity, and duration and may be divided into acute, subacute (or recurrent), and chronic types. Predisposing, precipitating, and perpetuating factors influence the natural history of MUPS. Conclusion: Effective symptom management involves collaborative doctor-patient approaches for identification of problems based on a combination of medical importance and patient readiness to initiate behavioral change, negotiated treatment goals and outcomes, gradual physical activation and exercise prescription. Additionally, efforts should be made to teach and support active rather than passive coping with the symptoms.
Are medically unexplained symptoms and functional disorders predictive for the illness course?
Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 2011
Objective: To investigate whether the general practitioners' (GP) diagnosis of medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) and/or the diagnosis functional disorders (FD) can predict the patients' 2-year outcome in relation to physical and mental health and health care utilisation. Furthermore, to identify relevant clinical factors which may help the GP predict the patient's outcome. Method: The study included 38 GPs and 1785 consecutive patients who presented a new health problem. The GPs completed a questionnaire on diagnosis for each patient. Patients completed the Common Mental Disorder Questionnaire (CMDQ) and the SF-36 questionnaire at baseline and after 24 months. A stratified sample of 701 patients was diagnosed with a psychiatric research interview. Data on health cost was obtained from national registers. Results: A FD diagnosis following the research interview was associated with a decline in physical health (OR 3.27(95%CI 1.84-5.81)), but this was not the case with MUS diagnosed by the GP. MUS was associated with a poor outcome on mental health (OR 2.16 (95%CI 1.07-4.31)). More than 4 symptoms were associated with a poor outcome on physical health (OR 5.35 (95%CI 2.28-12.56)) and on mental health (OR 2.17(95%CI 1.02-4.59)). Neither FD nor MUS were associated with higher total health care use. However, FD (OR 2.31 (95%CI 1.24-4.31)) and MUS (OR 1.98(95%CI 1.04-3.75)) was associated with increased cost in primary care. Conclusion: Our current diagnoses of MUS show limitations in their prediction of the patients' illness course. Although, the ICD-10 diagnoses of functional disorders was not developed for the primary care setting, our results indicate that some of its elements would be useful to bring in when rethinking the diagnosis for MUS in primary care, elements that are easily obtainable for the GP in a normal consultation. Our results may contribute to the construction of a more useful diagnostic for these patients in primary care.