The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A new questionnaire to identify bodily distress in primary care: the 'BDS checklist
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Functional symptoms and disorders are common in primary care. Bodily distress syndrome (BDS) is a newly proposed clinical diagnosis for functional disorders. The BDS diagnosis is based on empirical research, and the symptoms stated in the BDS criteria have been translated into a self-report questionnaire called the BDS checklist. The aim of the present study was to investigate the psychometric properties of the checklist and to test the construct of BDS. METHOD: The 30-item BDS checklist was completed by 2480 adult primary care patients in a cross-sectional study on contact and disease patterns in Danish general practice. We performed (internal) validation analyses of the collected checklist data. We also performed factor and latent class analyses to identify both BDS symptom groups and BDS patient groups. RESULTS: Internal validation analyses revealed acceptable and usable psychometric properties of the BDS checklist. The factor analyses identified the four distinct determining factors for BDS: cardiopulmonary, gastrointestinal, musculoskeletal and general symptoms. Results from factor and multi-trait analyses suggested a shortening of the BDS checklist (from 30 to 25 items). The latent class analyses resulted in three severity levels (no, moderate and severe BDS); the best fit index was found for a threshold of ≥4 symptoms in a symptom group. CONCLUSION: The results provide empirical support for the previously described construct of BDS with four symptom groups and three patient groups. The BDS checklist is a self-report instrument that may be used for case finding in both clinical practice and in research.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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.
Citations
Cites
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
Williams, J. B. W., & First, M. B. (2013) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780199975839.013.104 · Cited by 109,845
Nylund, K. L., Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. O. (2007) · Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1080/10705510701575396 · Cited by 11,415
Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires
Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D. M., de Boer, M. R., van der Windt, D. A. W. M., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J., Bouter, L. M., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2007) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012 · Cited by 10,764
Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use
Streiner, D. L., Norman, G. R., & Cairney, J. (1989) · Cited by 9,595
Reporting Structural Equation Modeling and Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results: A Review
Schreiber, J. B., Nora, A., Stage, F. K., Barlow, E. A., & King, J. (2006) · The Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.3200/joer.99.6.323-338 · Cited by 6,937 · cited 2×
“[29,30]): Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA); b0.”
MethodStatistics notes: Cronbach's alpha: Table 1
Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.314.7080.572 · Cited by 5,300
The Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL): A self-report symptom inventory
Derogatis, L. R., Lipman, R. S., Rickels, K., Uhlenhuth, E. H., & Covi, L. (1974) · Behavioral Science · doi:10.1002/bs.3830190102 · Cited by 4,604
The PHQ-15: Validity of a New Measure for Evaluating the Severity of Somatic Symptoms
Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. W. (2002) · Psychosomatic Medicine · doi:10.1097/00006842-200203000-00008 · Cited by 3,415
SCAN: Schedules fonr Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry
Wing, J. K. (1990) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1990.01810180089012 · Cited by 2,517
Quality of Life: The assessment, analysis and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes
Fayers, P. M., & Machin, D. (2007) · Cited by 1,419
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Management of functional somatic syndromes and bodily distress
Henningsen, P., Zipfel, S., Sattel, H., & Creed, F. (2018) · Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics · doi:10.1159/000484413 · Cited by 335
Watson, D., Levin‐Aspenson, H. F., Waszczuk, M. A., Conway, C. C., Dalgleish, T., Dretsch, M. N., Eaton, N. R., Forbes, M. K., Forbush, K. T., Hobbs, K. A., et al. (2022) · World Psychiatry · doi:10.1002/wps.20943 · Cited by 311
Petersen, M. W., Schröder, A., Jørgensen, T., Ørnbøl, E., Meinertz Dantoft, T., Eliasen, M., Benros, M. E., & Fink, P. (2020) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-020-60318-6 · Cited by 170
Rief, W., Burton, C., Frostholm, L., Henningsen, P., Kleinstäuber, M., Kop, W. J., Löwe, B., Martin, A., Malt, U., Rosmalen, J., et al. (2017) · Psychosomatic Medicine · doi:10.1097/psy.0000000000000502 · Cited by 129
“The Bodily Distress Syndrome Checklist has been validated as a screening tool for bodily distress syndrome (28), but its sensitivity to assess change needs further evaluation.”
MethodBodily distress syndrome: a new diagnosis for functional disorders in primary care?
Budtz-Lilly, A., Schröder, A., Rask, M. T., Fink, P., Vestergaard, M., & Rosendal, M. (2015) · BMC Family Practice · doi:10.1186/s12875-015-0393-8 · Cited by 115
“…or molecular character No studies found Additional validator Study The patients must be sampled from representative populations Fink et al. (2007) [2] Budtz-Lilly et al. (2015) [42] Budtz-Lilly et al. (2015) [43] Rask et al. (2015) [44] Results should be confirmed in crossvalidation…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Budtz-Lilly, A., Fink, P., Ørnbøl, E., Vestergaard, M., Moth, G., Christensen, K. S., & Rosendal, M.
- Affiliations
- Aarhus University (DK)
- Aarhus University Hospital (DK)
- Corresponding author
- Budtz-Lilly, Anna
- Venue
- Journal of Psychosomatic Research
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2015-06
- Volume
- 78
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 536-545
- ISSN
- 0022-3999 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2086815936
- Cited by
- 129
- References
- 38
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 4
- FWCI
- 6.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- pure.au.dk
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Psychosomatic Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Health Research Fund of the Central Denmark Region (1-5-72-4-09)
- Committee for Quality Improvement and Continuing Medical Education in the Central Denmark Region (1-30-72-270-08)
- Lundbeck Foundation (R155-2012-11280)
- TrygFonden (FL-48)
- 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 › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
- Keywords
- bodily distress syndrome, functional symptoms, functional disorders, psychometric validation, questionnaire development, symptom groups, case finding, primary care patients, general practice, symptom severity classification, cardiopulmonary symptoms, gastrointestinal symptoms, musculoskeletal symptoms
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Cardiovascular System, Cross-Sectional Studies, Denmark, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Musculoskeletal System, Primary Health Care, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Respiratory System, Syndrome, Reproducibility of Results, Gastrointestinal Tract, Checklist, General Practice
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
