Somatisatie of SOLK? Herkenning van somatisatie bij verzuimende werknemers

  • R. Hoedeman
  • P. C. Koopmans
  • J. W. Groothoff
Onderzoek

SAMENVATTING

Doel van dit onderzoek was om te inventariseren in welke mate de duiding somatisatie van de bedrijfsarts ertoe bijdroeg om arbeidsongeschikte werknemers met veel somatisch onvoldoende verklaarde lichamelijke klachten (SOLK) te herkennen. Tevens werd onderzocht wat de invloed van werknemers- en bedrijfsartskenmerken op deze duiding was. In dit onderzoek namen 43 bedrijfsartsen van vijf groepspraktijken van twee grote arbodiensten deel. Er werden gegevens van 489 arbeidsongeschikte deelnemers verkregen. Qua duiding somatisatie was er geen significant verschil bij de twee groepen werknemers met een PHQ-score ≥ 15 en < 15. Uit de multilevelanalyse bleek een grote variatie in de duiding somatisatie, waarbij het geslacht en de bevlogenheid van de bedrijfsarts een rol speelden en daarnaast de attributie van de werknemer. Conclusie is dat het concept somatisatie niet aansluit op werknemers met veel SOLK en niet eenduidig door bedrijfsartsen wordt gebruikt. Het verdient aanbeveling bij werknemers met SOLK de diagnostiek en begeleiding vorm te geven volgens de multidisciplinaire richtlijn SOLK en somatoforme stoornissen.

SOLK SOMATISATIE ARBEIDS-ONGESCHIKTHEID 

SUMMARY

Somatization or MUPS? Recognizing somatization in sick-listed employees

The objective of this study was to examine the degree in which the recognition of somatization by occupational physicians contributes towards the identification of disabled employees with multiple medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS). The influence of the characteristics of employees and occupational physicians on the recognition of somatization was also examined. 43 Occupational physicians from five group practices of two large occupational health and safety services participated in this cross-sectional study. Data were collected on 489 disabled clients.

There was no significant difference in the recognition of somatization between the groups of employees with a PHQ score ≥ 15 and < 15. Multilevel analysis showed a large variation in the recognition of somatization, influenced by gender and engagement of the occupational physicians as well as by symptom attribution by the employees. The conclusion is that the concept of somatization does not pertain to employees with serious MUPS and that it is used ambiguously by the occupational physicians. It is recommended to design the diagnostic process and counselling for employees with MUPS in accordance with the 2010 multidisciplinary guideline on MUPS and somatoform disorders.

LITERATUUR

  1. 1.
    Hoedeman R, Krol B, Blankenstein AH, et al. Prevalence and recognition of somatisation in a sick listed population: associations with psychiatric morbidity, distress, health anxiety and functional impairment. BMC Publ Health 2009; 9: 440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Eriksen HR, Svendsrod R, Ursin G, Ursin H. Prevalence of subjective health complaints in the Nordic European countries in 1993. Eur J Public Health 1998; 8: 294–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Windi A. Determinants of complaints symptoms in a Swedish health care practice – result of a questionnaire survey. J Psychosom Res 2004; 57: 307–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hansen A, Edlund C, Bränholm I-B. Significant resources needed for return to work after sick leave. Work 2005; 25: 231–240.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Norrmén G, Svärdsudd K, Andersson DKG. How primary health care physicians make sick listing decisions: The impact of medical factors and functioning. BMC Fam Pract 2008; 9: 3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hoedeman R, Blankenstein AH, Krol B, et al. The contribution of high levels of somatic symptom severity to sickness absence duration, disability and discharge. J Occup Rehab 2010; 20: 264–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Multidisciplinaire richtlijn Somatisch onvoldoende verklaarde lichamelijke klachten en somatoforme stoornissen. Utrecht: CBO en Trimbos-instituut, 2010.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hahn SR. Physical symptoms and physician-experienced difficulty in the physician-patient relationship. Ann Intern Med 2001; 134: 897–904.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dowrick CF, Ring A, Humphris M, Salmon P. Normalisation of unexplained symptoms by general practitioners: a functional typology. Br J Gen Pract 2004; 54: 165–170.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Löfgren A, Hagberg J, Arrelöv B, et al. Frequence and nature of problems associated with sickness certification tasks: A cross-sectional questionnaire study of 5455 physicians. Scand J Prim Health Care 2007; 25:178–185.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Söderberg E, Alexanderson K. Sickness certification practices of physicians: a review of the literature. Scand J Public Health 2003; 31: 460–474.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shiels C, Gabbay MB. Patient, clinician, and general practice factors in long-term certified sickness. Scand J Publ Health 2007; 35: 250–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB. The PHQ-15: Validity of a new measure for evaluation of the severity of somatic symptoms. Psychosom Med 2002; 64: 258–266.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Interian A, Allen LA, Gara MA, et al. Somatic complaints in primary care: Further examining the validity of the Patiënt Health Questionnaire (PHQ-15). Psychosomatics 2006; 47: 392–398.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Löwe B, Spitzer RL, Gräfe K, et al. Comparative validity of three screening questionnaires for DSM-IV depressive disorders and physicians diagnoses. J Affect Disord 2004; 78: 131–140.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Löwe B, Gräfe K, Zipfel S, et al. Detecting panic disorder in medical and psychosomatic outpatiënts: comparative validation of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, the Patiënt Health Questionnaire, a screening question, and physicians diagnosis. J Psychosom Res 2003; 55: 515–519.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pilowsky I. Dimensions of hypochondriasis. Br J Psychiatry 1967; 113: 39–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Speckens AEM, Spinhoven P, Sloekers PPA, et al. A validation study of the Whitely Index, the Illness Attitude Scales, and the Somatosensory Amplification Scale in general medical and general practice patiënts. J Psychosom Res 1996; 40(1): 95–104.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Terluin B, Rhenen W van, Schaufeli WB, Haan M de. The Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ): measuring distress and other mental health problems in a working population. Work Stress 2004; 18: 187–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Terluin B, Marwijk HWJ van, Ader HJ, et al. The Four- Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ): a validation study of a multidimensional self-report questionnaire to assess distress, depression, anxiety and somatization. BMC Psychiatry 2006; 6: 34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schaufeli WB, Dierendonck D van. Handleiding van de Utrechtse Burnout Schaal (UBOS). Lisse: Swet Test Services, 2000.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB. Utrecht Work Engagement Scale: Preliminary Manual. Utrecht: Universiteit Utrecht, afdeling Occupational Health Psychology, 2003.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rabash J, Steele F, Browne W, Prosser B. A User’s Guide to MLWIN. Version 2.10. Bristol: University of Bristol, Centre for Multilevel Modeling, 2008.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Merlo J, Chaix B, Ohlsson H, et al. A brief conceptual tutorial of multilevel analysis in social epidemiology: using measures of clustering in multilevel logistic regression to investigate contextual phenomena. J Epidem Com Health 2006; 60: 290–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Spiegelhalter DJ, Best NG, Carlin BP, Linde A van der. Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. J R Stat Soc 2002; Ser B, Statist Methodol: 583–639.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jackson J, Fiddler, Kapur N, et al. Number of bodily symptoms predicts outcome more accurately than health anxiety in patiënts attending neurology, cardiology and gastroenterology clinics. J Psychosom Res 2006; 60: 357–363.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Smith GR, Rost K, Kashner TM. A trial on the effect of a standardized psychiatric consultation on health outcomes and costs in somatizing patients. Arch Gen Psych 1995; 52: 238–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Epstein RM, Hadee T, Caroll J, et al. ‘Could this be something serious?’ Reassurance, uncertainty, and empathy in response to patiënts’ expression of worry. J Gen Med 2007; 22: 1731–1739.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Bohn, Stafleu van Loghum 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Hoedeman
    • 1
  • P. C. Koopmans
    • 1
  • J. W. Groothoff
    • 1
  1. 1.

Personalised recommendations