PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-2 (2)
 

Clipboard (0)
None

Select a Filter Below

Journals
Authors
more »
Year of Publication
Document Types
1.  Primary Care Consultations About Medically Unexplained Symptoms: How Do Patients Indicate What They Want? 
Background
Patients with medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUS) are often thought to deny psychological needs when they consult general practitioners (GPs) and to request somatic intervention instead. We tested predictions from the contrasting theory that they are transparent in communicating their psychological and other needs.
Objective
To test predictions that what patients tell GPs when they consult about MUS is related transparently to their desire for (1) emotional support, (2) symptom explanation and (3) somatic intervention.
Design
Prospective naturalistic study. Before consultation, patients indicated what they wanted from it using a self-report questionnaire measuring patients’ desire for: emotional support, explanation and reassurance, and physical investigation and treatment. Their speech during consultation was audio-recorded, transcribed and coded utterance-by-utterance. Multilevel regression analysis tested relationships between what patients sought and what they said.
Participants
Patients (N = 326) consulting 33 GPs about symptoms that the GPs designated as MUS.
Results
Patients who wanted emotional support spoke more about psychosocial problems, including psychosocial causes of symptoms and their need for psychosocial help. Patients who wanted explanation and reassurance suggested more physical explanations, including diseases, but did not overtly request explanation. Patients’ wish for somatic intervention was associated only with their talk about details of such interventions and not with their requests for them.
Conclusions
In general, patients with medically unexplained symptoms provide many cues to their desire for emotional support. They are more indirect or guarded in communicating their desire for explanation and somatic intervention.
doi:10.1007/s11606-008-0898-0
PMCID: PMC2659147  PMID: 19165548
primary care consultation; medically unexplained symptoms (MUS); psychological needs
2.  Protocol of a prospective cohort study of the effect of different methods of drainage of neuropathic bladder on occurrence of symptomatic urinary infection, and adverse events related to the urinary drainage system in spinal cord injury patients 
BMC Urology  2001;1:2.
Background
To present a protocol of a prospective, cohort study in which four groups of spinal cord injury (SCI) patients will participate. (Patients with indwelling urethral catheter; patients who perform intermittent catheterisation without wearing a penile sheath; patients who perform intermittent catheterisation and wear penile sheath as well; and patients with penile sheath drainage).
Objectives
(1) What is the incidence of symptomatic urinary infection in men with spinal cord injury who use different types of bladder drainage? (2) Which are predisposing factors for the occurrence of symptomatic urinary infection in men with spinal cord injury who practise different methods of bladder drainage? (3) What is the incidence of catheter and urinary drainage system-related adverse events in the four groups of SCI patients?
Patients
The criteria for inclusion are as follow: (1) Male patients with neuropathic bladder due to spinal cord injury, who are registered with the Regional Spinal Injuries Centre, Southport, England. (2) Age: 18 years or above. (3) Patients who are willing to give informed consent for participation in the study. (4) Patients willing to be contacted every two weeks by a staff of the spinal unit for 36 months. (5) Patients who are willing to maintain an accurate record of adverse events related to urinary catheter and urinary drainage system and predisposing factors for the occurrence of symptomatic urinary infection. (6) Patients, who are stabilised in a particular method of bladder drainage, and therefore, unlikely to make a permanent change in the method of bladder drainage (e.g. from penile sheath drainage to the use of long-term indwelling catheter) during a foreseeable future.
Methods
The participants will be observed for a period of 36 months. A staff of the spinal injuries unit will contact the participants by telephone every two weeks on a mutually agreed day and time. The information obtained during this standardised telephonic interview conducted once in two weeks will be entered in a database. When a participant develops symptom(s) suggestive of urinary infection, he will undergo urine and blood tests, and imaging studies of the urinary tract.
Conclusion
This study will provide information regarding the occurrence of symptomatic urinary infection, predisposing factors for development of urinary infection, and adverse events related to urinary catheter and urinary drainage system in SCI patients using different methods of bladder drainage.
doi:10.1186/1471-2490-1-2
PMCID: PMC60970  PMID: 11734072

Results 1-2 (2)