Cited by 41Psychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsFibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome ResearchChronic Disease Management Strategies

The prognosis of bodily distress syndrome: a cohort study in primary care

Open access
Budtz-Lilly, Anna, Vestergaard, Mogens, Fink, Per, Carlsen, Anders Helles, Rosendal, Marianne·2015·General Hospital Psychiatry

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Bodily distress syndrome (BDS) is a newly proposed diagnosis for functional disorders. The diagnosis is based on empirical research, but little is known about the course of the disease. We aimed to study the prognosis in terms of diagnosis stability over time. METHOD: A longitudinal study of 1356 primary care patients with 2-year follow-up was conducted in the Central Denmark Region. Data were obtained from family physician registration forms, patient questionnaires (including a BDS checklist) and nationwide registries. Complete data were available for 1001 patients (73.8%). RESULTS: Overall, 146 persons [14.6%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 12.5-16.9] fulfilled the criteria for BDS at baseline and 142 persons (14.2%, CI: 12.1-16.5) at follow-up. Among study participants with BDS at baseline, 56.8% (CI: 48.4-65.0) also had BDS at follow-up. Multiorgan BDS tended to be more persistent (81.8%, CI: 48.2-97.7) than single-organ BDS (54.8%, CI: 46.0-63.4). Patients with BDS had fewer socioeconomic resources, experienced more emotional distress, and used more opioids and medical services. CONCLUSIONS: BDS is a common clinical condition being prone to chronicity; one in seven primary care patients met the criteria for BDS, and more than half of these patients still suffered from BDS 2 years later.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2015.08.002

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Budtz-Lilly, A., Vestergaard, M., Fink, P., Carlsen, A. H., & Rosendal, M.
Affiliations
  • Aarhus University (DK)
  • Aarhus University Hospital (DK)
Corresponding author
Budtz-Lilly, Anna
Venue
General Hospital Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-11
Volume
37
Issue
6
Pages
560-566
ISSN
0163-8343 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2127479911
Cited by
41
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 8 · 2015: 1
FWCI
4.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • General Hospital Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Danish Research Foundation for General Practice
  • Committee for Quality Improvement and Continuing Medical Education in the Central Denmark Region
  • Primary Health Care Foundation of the Central Denmark Region
  • Health Research Fund of the Central Denmark Region
  • TrygFonden
  • Lundbeck Foundation (R155-2012-11280)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Chronic Disease Management Strategies
Keywords
bodily distress syndrome, prognosis, functional disorders, chronicity, primary care patients, socioeconomic resources, emotional distress, opioid use, health care utilization
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Denmark, Female, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Middle Aged, Primary Health Care, Prognosis, Surveys and Questionnaires, Somatoform Disorders, Young Adult, Checklist

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