ArticleScandinavian journal of primary health care2009
General practitioners' experiences with provision of healthcare to patients with self-reported multiple chemical sensitivity.
Article in Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Multiple chemical sensitivity scoping review protocol: overview of research and MCS construct.BMJ open · 2023Article
- General anesthetic management of a patient with multiple chemical sensitivity for oral surgery: a case report.JA clinical reports · 2019Article
- The search for reliable biomarkers of disease in multiple chemical sensitivity and other environmental intolerances.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2011Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo describe general practitioners' (GPs') evaluation of and management strategies in relation to patients who seek medical advice because of multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS).
designA nationwide cross-sectional postal questionnaire survey. The survey included a sample of 1000 Danish GPs randomly drawn from the membership list of GPs in the Danish Medical Association.
settingDenmark.
resultsCompleted questionnaires were obtained from 691 GPs (69%). Within the last 12 months 62.4% (n = 431) of the GPs had been consulted by at least one patient with MCS. Of these, 55.2% of the GPs evaluated the patients' complaints as chronic and 46.2% stated that they were rarely able to meet the patients' expectations for healthcare. The majority, 73.5%, had referred patients to other medical specialties. The cause of MCS was perceived as multi-factorial by 64.3% of the GPs, as somatic/biologic by 27.6%, and as psychological by 7.2%. Partial or complete avoidance of chemical exposures was recommended by 86.3%. Clinical guidelines, diagnostic tools, or more insight in the pathophysiology were requested by 84.5% of the GPs.
conclusionDespite the lack of formal diagnostic labelling the patient with MCS is well known by GPs. The majority of the GPs believed that MCS primarily has a multi-factorial explanation. However, perceptions of the course of the condition and management strategies differed, and many GPs found it difficult to meet the patients' expectations for healthcare. The majority of the GPs requested more knowledge and clinical guidelines for the management of this group of patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.