A spiritual problem? Primary care physicians' and psychiatrists' interpretations of medically unexplained symptoms
Open accessAbstract
Background Patients commonly present to their physicians with medically unexplained symptoms (MUS), and there is no consensus about how physicians should interpret or treat such symptoms.Objective To examine how variations in physicians' interpretations of MUS are associated with physicians' religious characteristics and with physician specialty (primary care vs. psychiatry).Design and participants A 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 results Response 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).Conclusions Physicians' 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.
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
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The religious characteristics and beliefs of physicians, including psychiatrists, are directly related to their attitudes and behaviors regarding R/S in clinical practice.
“The evidence suggests that the religious characteristics and beliefs of physicians (including psychiatrists) are directly related to their attitudes and behaviors regarding R/S in clinical practice.13,17-20”
From How psychiatrists think about religious and spiritual beliefs in clinical practice: findings from a university hospital in São Paulo, Brazil (2019) · cites this paper as [19]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 36 · Cited by 15
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Wolfe F. Fibromyalgia wars. J Rheumatol. 2009;36(4):671-8.
- Sykes R. Medically unexplained symptoms and the siren "Psychogenic inference." Philos Psychiatr Psychol. 2010;17(4):289-99. Available at: http://muse.jhu.edu/ . Accessed July 30, 2012.
- Authors
- Shin, J. H., Yoon, J. D., Rasinski, K. A., Koenig, H. G., Meador, K. G., & Curlin, F. A.
- Affiliations
- Westminster Seminary California (US)
- University of Chicago (US)
- King Abdulaziz University (SA)
- Vanderbilt University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Curlin, Farr A.
- Venue
- Journal of General Internal Medicine
- Published
- 2012-10-05
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 392-398
- ISSN
- 0884-8734 (ISSN-L)
- 1525-1497
- PMC
- PMC3579975
- OpenAlex
- W2085465291
- Cited by
- 15
- References
- 36
- Citations by year
- 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 2
- FWCI
- 1.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Journal of General Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- John Templeton Foundation
- National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine
- National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (K23AT002749)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
- Social Sciences › Health › Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Medicine, History, and Philosophy
- Keywords
- medically unexplained symptoms, physician beliefs, spirituality, primary care physicians, psychiatrists, physician specialty differences, treatment expectations
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Attitude of Health Personnel, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Physician-Patient Relations, Psychiatry, Religion, Religion and Psychology, Somatoform Disorders, United States, Spirituality, Physicians, Primary Care
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