The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Trial of the Effect of a Standardized Psychiatric Consultation on Health Outcomes and Costs in Somatizing Patients
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients who somatize but who do not meet criteria for somatization disorder are common in the community. Virtually no research has been conducted to determine how to treat these patients. METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled clinical trial of a psychiatric consultation intervention we had previously shown to improve the management of somatization disorder. The study population included 51 physicians treating 56 somatizing patients who had a history of seeking help for six to 12 lifetime unexplained physical symptoms. At the onset of the experiment, physicians randomized to the treatment condition received a consultation letter recommending a specific management approach; physicians randomized to the control/crossover condition received the consultation letter after 12 months. Data on health outcomes and charges were collected every 4 months for 2 years after randomization for 96% of subjects who entered the study. RESULTS: Patients of physicians who received the intervention reported significantly increased physical functioning, an improvement that remained stable during the year after the intervention. The intervention reduced annual medical care charges by $289 (95% confidence interval, $40 to $464) in 1990 constant dollars, which equates to a 32.9% reduction in the annual median cost of their medical care. CONCLUSIONS: Somatizing patients with a lifetime history of six to 12 unexplained physical symptoms reported better physical functioning after their primary care physician was provided appropriate treatment recommendations via a psychiatric consultation. Such a consultation is cost-effective because it reduces subsequent charges for medical care, while improving health outcomes in a chronically impaired population.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Robins, L. N. (1981) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1981.01780290015001 · Cited by 5,219
ESCOBAR, J. I., RUBIO-STIPEC, M., CANINO, G., & KARNO, M. (1989) · The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease · doi:10.1097/00005053-198903000-00003 · Cited by 380
Cited by
Psychological Mechanisms of Medically Unexplained Symptoms: An Integrative Conceptual Model.
Brown, R. J. (2004) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.130.5.793 · Cited by 498
Kroenke, K., & Swindle, R. (2000) · Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics · doi:10.1159/000012395 · Cited by 478
Efficacy of treatment for somatoform disorders: a review of randomized controlled trials
Kroenke, K. (2007) · Psychosomatic Medicine · doi:10.1097/psy.0b013e31815b00c4 · Cited by 450
Attachment and Interpersonal Communication in Somatization
Stuart, S., & Noyes, R. (1999) · Psychosomatics · doi:10.1016/s0033-3182(99)71269-7 · Cited by 238
Kroenke, K., Taylor-Vaisey, A., Dietrich, A. J., & Oxman, T. E. (2000) · Psychosomatics · doi:10.1016/s0033-3182(00)71172-8 · Cited by 164
Metadata
- Authors
- Smith, G. R.
- Venue
- Archives of General Psychiatry
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 1995-03-01
- Volume
- 52
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 238
- ISSN
- 0003-990X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2078158729
- Cited by
- 305
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 12.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.