Cited by 19Psychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsChronic Disease Management StrategiesPrimary Care and Health Outcomes

Screening for High Utilizing Somatizing Patients Using a Prediction Rule Derived From the Management Information System of an HMO: A Preliminary Study

Smith, Robert C., Gardiner, Joseph C., Armatti, Stacey, Johnson, Monica, Lyles, Judith S., Given, Charles W., Lein, Catherine, Given, Barbara +4 more·2001·Medical Care

Abstract

Background Somatization is a common, costly problem with great morbidity, but there has been no effective screening method to identify these patients and target them for treatment. Objectives We tested a hypothesis that we could identify high utilizing somatizing patients from a management information system (MIS) by total number of visits and what we termed "somatization potential," the percentage of visits for which ICD-9 primary diagnosis codes represented disorders in the musculoskeletal, nervous, or gastrointestinal systems or ill-defined complaints. Methods We identified 883 high users from the MIS of a large staff model HMO as those having six or more visits during the year studied (65th percentile). A physician rater, without knowledge of hypotheses and predictors, then reviewed the medical records of these patients and identified somatizing patients (n = 122) and nonsomatizing patients (n = 761). In two-thirds of the population (the derivation set), we used logistic regression to refine our hypothesis and identify predictors of somatization available from the MIS: demographic data, all medical encounters, and primary diagnoses made by usual care physicians (ICD-9 codes). We then tested our prediction model in the remaining one-third of the population (the validation set) to validate its usefulness. Results The derivation set contained the following significant correlates of somatization: gender, total number of visits, and percent of visits with somatization potentia…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00005650-200109000-00007

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Smith, R. C., Gardiner, J. C., Armatti, S., Johnson, M., Lyles, J. S., Given, C. W., Lein, C., Given, B., Goddeeris, J., Korban, E., Haddad, R., & Kanj, M.
Affiliations
Michigan State University (US)
Corresponding author
  • Smith, Robert C.
  • Lyles, Judith S.
  • Haddad, Robert
  • Kanj, Mohammed
Venue
Medical Care
Published
2001-09
Volume
39
Issue
9
Pages
968-978
ISSN
0025-7079 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2331007593
Cited by
19
References
3
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Medical Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Chronic Disease Management Strategies
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
Keywords
somatization, chronic pain, screening, prediction model, management information systems, ICD-9 codes, health maintenance organizations, primary care utilization, musculoskeletal disorders, gastrointestinal diseases, neurological disorders, gender differences
MeSH terms
Adult, Chronic Disease, Female, Gastrointestinal Diseases, Health Maintenance Organizations, Humans, Male, Management Information Systems, Medical Records, Middle Aged, Musculoskeletal Diseases, Nervous System Diseases, Office Visits, Sensitivity and Specificity, Somatoform Disorders, United States, Utilization Review, Logistic Models

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