Advertisement

Medical and social prognoses of non-specific building-related symptoms (Sick Building Syndrome): a follow-up study of patients previously referred to hospital

  • B. EdvardssonEmail author
  • B. Stenberg
  • J. Bergdahl
  • N. Eriksson
  • G. Lindén
  • L. Widman
Original Article

Abstract

Objectives

The aim of this study was to describe and analyse the medical and social prognoses of patients with non-specific building-related symptoms.

Methods

A follow-up questionnaire focusing on current medical and social status, care, treatment, other actions taken and personality traits was sent to 239 patients with non-specific building-related symptoms assessed during the period between1986 and 1998 at University Hospital in Umeå, Sweden. The response rate was 79%.

Results

Fatigue, irritation of the eyes, and facial erythema were the most common weekly symptoms reported at follow-up. As females constituted 92% of the respondents, statistical analyses were restricted to women. The level and severity of symptoms decreased over time, although nearly half of the patients claimed that symptoms were more or less unchanged after 7 years or more, despite actions taken. Twenty-five percent of the patients were on the sick-list, and 20% drew disability pension due to persistent symptoms at follow-up. The risk of having no work capabilities at follow-up was significantly increased if the time from onset to first visit at the hospital clinic was more than 1 year. This risk was also significantly higher if the patient at the first visit had five or more symptoms. All risk assessments were adjusted for length of follow-up. Symptoms were often aggravated by different situations in everyday life.

Conclusions

Long-lasting symptoms aggravated by environmental factors exist within this group of patients. The results support that early and comprehensive measures for rehabilitation are essential for the patients.

Keywords

Disability pension Gender Symptoms Triggering factors Work capability 

References

  1. Åhman M, Lundin A, Musabasic V, Söderman E (2000) Improved health after intervention in a school with moisture problems. Indoor Air 10:57–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Apter A, Bracker A, Hodgson M, Sidman J, Leung WY (1994) Epidemiology of the sick building syndrome. J Allergy Clin Immunol 94:277–288PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnetz BB (1999) Model development and research vision for the future of multiple chemical sensitivity. Scand J Work Environ Health 25:569–573PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bourbeau J, Brisson C, Allaire S (1997) Prevalence of the sick building syndrome symptoms in office workers before and six months and three years after being exposed to a building with an improved ventilation system. Occup Environ Med 54:49–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brasche S, Bullinger M, Morfeld M, Gebhardt HJ, Bischof W (2001) Why do women suffer from sick building syndrome more often than men?—subjective higher sensitivity versus objective causes. Indoor Air 11:17–22Google Scholar
  6. Eriksson NM, Stenberg BG (2006) Baseline prevalence of symptoms related to indoor environment. Scand J Public Health 34:387–396PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kipen HM, Fiedler N (2002) The role of environmental factors in medically unexplained symptoms and related syndromes: conference summary and recommendations. Environ Health Perspect 110(Suppl 4):591–595PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Menzies D, Bourbeau J (1997) Building-related illnesses. N Engl J Med 337:1524–1531PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Nethercott JR, Davidoff LL, Curbow B, Abbey H (1993) Multiple chemical sensitivities syndrome: toward a working case definition. Arch Environ Health 48:19–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Norbäck D, Edling C (1991) Environmental, occupational, and personal factors related to the prevalence of sick building syndrome in the general population. Br J Ind Med 48:451–462PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Pommer L, Fick J, Sundell J, Nilsson C, Sjöström M, Stenberg B, Andersson B (2004) Class separation of buildings with high and low prevalence of SBS by principal component analysis. Indoor Air 14:16–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Redlich CA, Sparer J, Cullen MR (1997) Sick-building syndrome. Lancet 349:1013–1036PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Rudblad S, Andersson K, Stridh G, Bodin L, Juto JE (2002) Slowly decreasing mucosal hyperreactivity years after working in a school with moisture problems. Indoor Air 12:138–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Sen G, Georg A, Östlin P (2002) The case for gender equity in health research. J Health Manage 4:99–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Skyberg K, Skulberg KR, Eduard W, Skaret E, Levy F, Kjuus H (2003) Symptoms prevalence among office employees and associations to building characteristics. Indoor Air 13:246–252PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Stenberg B, Wall S (1995) Why do women report ‘sick building symptoms’ more often than men? Soc Sci Med 40:491–502PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Stenberg B, Hansson-Mild K, Sandström M, Sundell J, Wall S (1993) A prevalence study of the Sick Building Syndrome (SBS) and facial skin symptoms in office workers. Indoor Air 3:71–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Stenberg B, Eriksson N, Höög J, Sundell J, Wall S (1994) The Sick Building Syndrome (SBS) in office workers. A case-referent study of personal, psychosocial and building-related risk indicators. Int J Epidemiol; 23:1190–1197PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Stenberg B, Bergdahl J, Edvardsson B, Eriksson N, Linden G, Widman L (2002) Medical and social prognosis for patients with perceived hypersensitivity to electricity and skin symptoms related to the use of visual display terminals. Scand J Work Environ Health 28:349–357PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. WHO (1983) Indoor air pollutants: exposure and health effects. EURO Reports and Studies 78, World Health Organization, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. Edvardsson
    • 1
    Email author
  • B. Stenberg
    • 2
  • J. Bergdahl
    • 3
    • 4
  • N. Eriksson
    • 5
  • G. Lindén
    • 6
  • L. Widman
    • 6
  1. 1.Family Medicine, Department of Public Health and Clinical MedicineUmeå UniversityUmeåSweden
  2. 2.Dermatology & Venereology and Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Clinical MedicineUmeå UniversityUmeåSweden
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyUmeå UniversityUmeåSweden
  4. 4.Institute of Clinical DentistryUniversity of TromsöTromsöNorway
  5. 5.Department of SociologyUmeå UniversityUmeåSweden
  6. 6.Department of Occupational and Environmental MedicineUniversity HospitalUmeåSweden

Personalised recommendations