Encouraging clinicians to work effectively with people with medically unexplained symptoms - is a change in underlying attitudes required?

Medically unexplained symptoms are defined as physical symptoms for which there is no clear diagnosis of organic pathology, including after relevant investigations. Several other terms are also used to describe such symptoms and will be briefly described, although none is ideal. The present paper summarizes the current research, illustrating how patients consulting clinicians in both primary and secondary care often present with symptoms which, while undoubtedly distressing for the patient, do not link with any clear organic pathology. This raises difficult issues for clinicians in terms of how much they should investigate and how to manage the patient’s problems in a way which will be helpful and mean they will feel their symptoms have been appropriately recognised and addressed. Failure to do this can lead to many negative consequences, including a breakdown in trust between patients and clinicians, over-investigation or inappropriate treatments, a loss of normal function for the patient and significant costs to the health service and economy. Despite this, the evidence is that doctors receive very little if any training about how to manage such symptoms at either the undergraduate or postgraduate level. This paper will focus on the attitudes of both junior and more senior doctors across a range of specialities to working with people with unexplained symptoms and how these may affect their management. The implications for clinical practice and recommendations for future training will be discussed and in particular the need to consider the psychosocial as well as the biomedical aspects of patients’ presentations from the outset

Physio4FMD: protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial of specialist physiotherapy for functional motor disorder.

BACKGROUND: Patients with functional motor disorder (FMD) experience persistent and disabling neurological symptoms such as weakness, tremor, dystonia and disordered gait. Physiotherapy is usually considered an important part of treatment; however, sufficiently-powered controlled studies are lacking. Here we present the protocol of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) that aims to evaluate the clinical and cost effectiveness of a specialist physiotherapy programme for FMD. // METHODS/DESIGN: The trial is a pragmatic, multicentre, single blind parallel arm randomised controlled trial (RCT). 264 Adults with a clinically definite diagnosis of FMD will be recruited from neurology clinics and randomised to receive either the trial intervention (a specialist physiotherapy protocol) or treatment as usual control (referral to a community physiotherapy service suitable for people with neurological symptoms). Participants will be followed up at 6 and 12 months. The primary outcome is the Physical Function domain of the Short Form 36 questionnaire at 12 months. Secondary domains of measurement will include participant perception of change, mobility, health-related quality of life, health service utilisation, anxiety and depression. Health economic analysis will evaluate the cost impact of trial and control interventions from a health and social care perspective as well as societal perspective. // DISCUSSION: This trial will be the first adequately-powered RCT of physical-based rehabilitation for FMD

The effects of implementing a point-of-care electronic template to prompt routine anxiety and depression screening in patients consulting for osteoarthritis (the Primary Care Osteoarthritis Trial): A cluster randomised trial in primary care

Background This study aimed to evaluate whether prompting general practitioners (GPs) to routinely assess and manage anxiety and depression in patients consulting with osteoarthritis (OA) improves pain outcomes. Methods and findings We conducted a cluster randomised controlled trial involving 45 English general practices. In intervention practices, patients aged ≥45 y consulting with OA received point-of-care anxiety and depression screening by the GP, prompted by an automated electronic template comprising five questions (a two-item Patient Health Questionnaire–2 for depression, a two-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder–2 questionnaire for anxiety, and a question about current pain intensity [0–10 numerical rating scale]). The template signposted GPs to follow National Institute for Health and Care Excellence clinical guidelines for anxiety, depression, and OA and was supported by a brief training package. The template in control practices prompted GPs to ask the pain intensity question only. The primary outcome was patient-reported current pain intensity post-consultation and at 3-, 6-, and 12-mo follow-up. Secondary outcomes included pain-related disability, anxiety, depression, and general health. During the trial period, 7,279 patients aged ≥45 y consulted with a relevant OA-related code, and 4,240 patients were deemed potentially eligible by participating GPs. Templates were completed for 2,042 patients (1,339 [31.6%] in the control arm and 703 [23.1%] in the intervention arm). Of these 2,042 patients, 1,412 returned questionnaires (501 [71.3%] from 20 intervention practices, 911 [68.0%] from 24 control practices). Follow-up rates were similar in both arms, totalling 1,093 (77.4%) at 3 mo, 1,064 (75.4%) at 6 mo, and 1,017 (72.0%) at 12 mo. For the primary endpoint, multilevel modelling yielded significantly higher average pain intensity across follow-up to 12 mo in the intervention group than the control group (adjusted mean difference 0.31; 95% CI 0.04, 0.59). Secondary outcomes were consistent with the primary outcome measure in reflecting better outcomes as a whole for the control group than the intervention group. Anxiety and depression scores did not reduce following the intervention. The main limitations of this study are two potential sources of bias: an imbalance in cluster size (mean practice size 7,397 [intervention] versus 5,850 [control]) and a difference in the proportion of patients for whom the GP deactivated the template (33.6% [intervention] versus 27.8% [control]). Conclusions In this study, we observed no beneficial effect on pain outcomes of prompting GPs to routinely screen for and manage comorbid anxiety and depression in patients presenting with symptoms due to OA, with those in the intervention group reporting statistically significantly higher average pain scores over the four follow-up time points than those in the control group. Trial registration ISRCTN registry ISRCTN4072198

Tavistock Adult Depression Study (TADS): a randomised controlled trial of psychoanalytic psychotherapy for treatment-resistant/treatment-refractory forms of depression

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Long-term forms of depression represent a significant mental health problem for which there is a lack of effective evidence-based treatment. This study aims to produce findings about the effectiveness of psychoanalytic psychotherapy in patients with treatment-resistant/treatment-refractory depression and to deepen the understanding of this complex form of depression. METHODS: INDEX GROUP: Patients with treatment resistant/treatment refractory depression. DEFINITION & INCLUSION CRITERIA: Current major depressive disorder, 2 years history of depression, a minimum of two failed treatment attempts, [greater than or equal to]14 on the HRSD or [greater than or equal to]21 on the BDI, plus complex personality and/or psycho-social difficulties. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Moderate or severe learning disability, psychotic illness, bipolar disorder, substance dependency or receipt of test intervention in the previous two years. DESIGN: Pragmatic, randomised controlled trial with qualitative and clinical components. TEST INTERVENTION: 18 months of weekly psychoanalytic psychotherapy, manualised and fidelity-assessed using the Psychotherapy Process Q-Sort. CONTROL CONDITION: Treatment as usual, managed by the referring practitioner. RECRUITMENT: GP referrals from primary care. RCT MAIN OUTCOME: HRSD (with [less than or equal to]14 as remission). SECONDARY OUTCOMES: depression severity (BDI-II), degree of co-morbid disorders Axis-I and Axis-II (SCID-I and SCID-II-PQ), quality of life and functioning (GAF, CORE, Q-les-Q), object relations (PROQ2a), Cost-effectiveness analysis (CSRI and GP medical records). FOLLOW-UP: 2 years. Plus: a). Qualitative study of participants' and therapists' problem formulation, experience of treatment and of participation in trial. (b) Narrative data from semi-structured pre/post psychodynamic interviews to produce prototypes of responders and non-responders. (c) Clinical case-studies of sub-types of TRD and of change. DISCUSSION: TRD needs complex, long-term intervention and extended research follow-up for the proper evaluation of treatment outcome. This pushes at the limits of the design of randomised therapeutic trials,. We discuss some of the consequent problems and suggest how they may be mitigated. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN40586372

A qualitative study of the experiences and perceptions of patients with functional motor disorder.

BACKGROUND: Patients with functional motor disorder are perceived as difficult by health care professionals, but we know very little about the patients' perspective. Understanding the experiences and perceptions of patients could help to improve clinical services and patient outcomes. PURPOSE: To explore the experiences and perspectives of patients with functional motor disorder using qualitative research methods. METHODS: This qualitative study was embedded within a feasibility study of specialist physiotherapy. Eleven patients with functional motor disorder participated in semi-structured qualitative interviews prior to receiving treatment. The interview transcripts were subjected to an inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: The data were arranged into six themes: (1) the burden of living with functional motor disorder; (2) nobody knew what was wrong; (3) dissatisfaction with psychological explanations; (4) patients feel abandoned; (5) iatrogenic harm; and (6) powerlessness. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The study participants experienced substantial physical and emotional burdens associated with functional motor disorder. They were generally dissatisfied with psychological explanations for their symptoms and commonly felt misunderstood and abandoned by health care professionals, which appeared to leave them vulnerable to iatrogenic harm. A lack of understanding of functional motor disorder left participants feeling unable to help themselves. This research highlights a number of inadequacies within current clinical services for patients with functional motor disorder. Implications for rehabilitation Careful communication is required to help patients understand and accept the diagnosis of functional motor disorder. It is important to listen to the patient's narrative in order to help them make sense of their illness experience. A nuanced biopsychosocial explanatory model is needed to help patients understand how psychological factors can be relevant to physical symptoms and symptoms that are often perceived to be precipitated by a physical event. A lack of understanding and acceptance of the diagnosis may leave patients vulnerable to iatrogenic harm and powerless to help themselves

Randomised feasibility study of physiotherapy for patients with functional motor symptoms.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial of a specialist physiotherapy intervention for functional motor symptoms (FMS). METHODS: A randomised feasibility study was conducted recruiting patients with a clinically established diagnosis of FMS from a tertiary neurology clinic in London, UK. Participants were randomised to the intervention or a treatment as usual control. Measures of feasibility and clinical outcome were collected and assessed at 6 months. RESULTS: 60 individuals were recruited over a 9-month period. Three withdrew, leaving 29 intervention and 28 controls participants in the final analysis. 32% of patients with FMS met the inclusion criteria, of which 90% enrolled. Acceptability of the intervention was high and there were no adverse events. At 6 months, 72% of the intervention group rated their symptoms as improved, compared to 18% in the control group. There was a moderate to large treatment effect across a range of outcomes, including three of eight Short Form 36 (SF36) domains (d=0.46-0.79). The SF36 Physical function was found to be a suitable primary outcome measure for a future trial; adjusted mean difference 19.8 (95% CI 10.2 to 29.5). The additional quality adjusted life years (QALY) with intervention was 0.08 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.13), the mean incremental cost per QALY gained was £12 087. CONCLUSIONS: This feasibility study demonstrated high rates of recruitment, retention and acceptability. Clinical effect size was moderate to large with high probability of being cost-effective. A randomised controlled trial is needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02275000; Results