Gender differences in the reporting of physical and somatoform symptoms
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Women have consistently been shown to report greater numbers of physical symptoms. Our aim in this study was to assess gender differences for specific symptoms and to assess how much of these differences were attributable to psychiatric comorbidity. METHOD: Data from the PRIME-MD 1000 study (1000 patients from four primary case sites evaluated with the Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders interview) were analyzed to determine gender differences in the reporting of 13 common physical symptoms. The effect of gender on symptom reporting was assessed by multivariate analysis, adjusting for depressive and anxiety disorders as well as age, race, education, and medical comorbidity. RESULTS: All symptoms except one were reported more commonly by women, with the adjusted odds ratios (typically in the 1.5-2.5 range) showing statistically significant differences for 10 of 13 symptoms. Somatoform (ie, physically unexplained) symptoms were also more frequent in women. Although depressive and anxiety disorders were the strongest correlate of symptom reporting, gender had an independent effect that persisted even after adjusting for psychiatric comorbidity. Gender was the most important demographic factor associated with symptom reporting, followed by education. CONCLUSIONS: Most physical symptoms are typically reported at least 50% more often by women than by men. Although mental disorders are also more prevalent in women, gender influences symptom reporting in patients whether or not there is psychiatric comorbidity.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Catastrophizing mediates sex differences in pain-related outcomes, clinical pain, and experimental pain.
“catastrophizing has been shown to mediate the sex differences in pain-related outcomes, clinical pain, and experimental pain 162, 205, 206.”
From Evaluating psychosocial contributions to chronic pain outcomes (2018) · cites this paper as [206]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 31 · Cited by 559
- Authors
- Kroenke, K., & Spitzer, R. L.
- Affiliations
- Regenstrief Institute (US)
- Venue
- Psychosomatic Medicine
- Published
- 1998
- Volume
- 60
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 150-155
- ISSN
- 0033-3174 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2075045070
- Cited by
- 559
- References
- 31
- Citations by year
- 2026: 15 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 27 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 27
- FWCI
- 11.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Psychosomatic Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Sex and Gender in Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Research
- Keywords
- gender differences, somatic symptoms, somatoform symptoms, symptom reporting, psychiatric comorbidity, depressive disorders, anxiety disorders, primary care patients
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Analysis of Variance, Anxiety Disorders, Depressive Disorder, Female, Health Status, Health Surveys, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Primary Health Care, Regression Analysis, Sex Factors, Somatoform Disorders, United States, Comorbidity, Confounding Factors, Epidemiologic, Prevalence, Confidence Intervals, Chi-Square Distribution, Odds Ratio, Databases, Factual, Women's Health
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