Cited by 31Primary Care and Health OutcomesChronic Disease Management StrategiesPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments

The effects of interventions on quality of life, morbidity and consultation frequency in frequent attenders in primary care: A systematic review

Open access
Haroun, Dany, Smits, Frans, van Etten-Jamaludin, Faridi, Schene, Aart, van Weert, Henk, ter Riet, Gerben·2016·European Journal of General Practice

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patients visiting their GPs exceptionally often (frequent attenders, FAs) have high rates of somatic disease, emotional distress, psychiatric illnesses and social problems and require a disproportionate amount of their GPs' time. OBJECTIVES: To summarize which types of FA have been studied and what the effects of interventions were on quality of life (QoL), symptom severity of underlying illness(es) and consultation frequency. To discover when patients are considered FAs. METHODS: Systematic review of RCTs using a comprehensive search (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and EMBASE, from 1980 to August 2015) and no language restrictions. Two investigators extracted data. Results were summarized qualitatively. RESULTS: We included 17 RCTs. Heterogeneity at the level of populations, interventions and outcomes precluded statistical pooling. In-depth analysis by GPs assessing a patient's reasons for frequent attendance decreased consultation frequency by four to six per year. A small effect on symptom severity was noted in depressed FAs, although this finding was not replicated in a recent trial. Multi-component therapy and medication in FAs with medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) improved QoL (SF36 odds ratio: 1.92; 95%CI: 1.08-3.40) and morbidity (CES-D 3.17; 95%CI: 1.27-5.08). CONCLUSION: RCTs on intervention effects in frequent attenders to primary care used different patient populations, interventions, comparators and outcome measures. Consistent evidence on the effects of particular interventions in specific patient domains is lacking. A tailored approach based on in-depth analysis among GPs of potential reasons for frequent attendance may decrease consultation frequency. Research involving the screening and treating for FAs with MUS may be useful in future trials.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3109/13814788.2016.1161751

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Gill D, Sharpe M. Frequent consulters in general prac- tice: a systematic review of studies of prevalence, associations and outcome. J Psychosom Res. 1999;47:115-130.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Haroun, D., Smits, F., van Etten-Jamaludin, F., Schene, A., van Weert, H., & ter Riet, G.
Affiliations
  • University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • Medical Library, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;
  • Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • Department of General Practice, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;
Corresponding author
Haroun, Dany
Venue
European Journal of General Practice
Published
2016-04-02
Volume
22
Issue
2
Pages
71-82
ISSN
  • 1381-4788 (ISSN-L)
  • 1751-1402
OpenAlex
W2343707852
Cited by
31
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 1
FWCI
0.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Journal of General Practice (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Figshare (cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Chronic Disease Management Strategies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Keywords
frequent attenders, primary care, quality of life, consultation frequency, morbidity, medically unexplained symptoms, depression, intervention effects
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Humans, Office Visits, Primary Health Care, Quality of Life, Severity of Illness Index, Somatoform Disorders, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, 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