ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2013
A spiritual problem? Primary care physicians' and psychiatrists' interpretations of medically unexplained symptoms.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Directive counsel and morally controversial medical decision-making: findings from two national surveys of primary care physicians.Journal of general internal medicine · 2014Trial
- Incorporating Spirituality in Primary Care.Journal of religion and health · 2016Review
- How psychiatrists think about religious and spiritual beliefs in clinical practice: findings from a university hospital in São Paulo, Brazil.Revista brasileira de psiquiatria (Sao Paulo, Brazil : 1999)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatients commonly present to their physicians with medically unexplained symptoms (MUS), and there is no consensus about how physicians should interpret or treat such symptoms.
objectiveTo examine how variations in physicians' interpretations of MUS are associated with physicians' religious characteristics and with physician specialty (primary care vs. psychiatry). DESIGN AND
participantsA national survey of a stratified random sample of 1,504 primary care physicians and 512 psychiatrists in 2009-2010. MAIN MEASURES: The extent to which physicians believe MUS reflect a root problem that is spiritual in nature or result from conditions that scientific research will eventually explain, and whether such patients would benefit from attention to their relationships, attention to their spiritual life, taking medications, and/or treatment by physicians. KEY
resultsResponse rate was 63 % (1,208/1,909). More religious/spiritual physicians were more likely to believe that MUS reflect a spiritual problem (55 % for high vs. 24 % for low spirituality; OR = 2.8, 1.7-4.5) and that these patients would benefit from paying attention to their spiritual life (79 % for high vs. 55 % for low spirituality; OR = 3.1, 1.8-5.3). Psychiatrists were more likely to believe that scientific research will one day explain MUS (66 % vs. 52 %; OR = 1.9, 1.4-2.5) and that these symptoms will improve with treatment by a physician (54 % vs. 35 %; OR = 2.4, 1.8-3.3). They were less likely to believe that MUS reflect a spiritual problem (23 % vs. 38 %; OR = 0.5, 0.4-0.8).
conclusionsPhysicians' interpretations of MUS vary widely, depending in part on physicians' religious characteristics and specialty. One in three physicians believes that patients with MUS have root problems that are spiritual in nature. Physicians who are more religious or spiritual are more likely to think of MUS as stemming from spiritual concerns. Psychiatrists are more optimistic that these patients will get better with treatment by physicians.
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.