Author
Listed:
- De Rijk, Angelique E.
- Schreurs, Karlein M. G.
- Bensing, Jozien M.
Abstract
In this paper general practitioners' (GPs') somatic-psychosocial attributions of fatigue are examined. The attribution process during medical consultations was studied by relating the GPs' judgements of the somatic-psychosocial character of their patients' fatigue to patient-related characteristics, on the one hand, and medical-consultation characteristics on the other hand. The study was based on 2097 contact registrations from the Dutch National Study of Morbidity and Intervention in General Practice by the NIVEL (Netherlands Institute of Primary Health Care). In order to explain the GPs' attributions, patient-related characteristics were added stepwise in a multiple regression analysis. Socio-demographic characteristics explained only 1.8% of the variance. Other complaints explained an additional 14.3% with psychosocial complaints being most influential. Knowledge of an underlying disease/problem explained an additional 9.9% of the variance. All of the characteristics together explained 26.0% of the attributions by the GPs. More psychosocially-attributed fatigue was found to correlate with consultations characterized by less physical examination, more diagnostic procedures to reassure, fewer diagnostic procedures to discover underlying pathology, more counselling, less medical treatment, less prescription and a longer duration than consultations with more somatically attributed fatigue. It is concluded that GPs do not discriminate between social groups when attributing fatigue to either somatic or psychosocial causes. The presence and character of other complaints and underlying diseases/problems, rather, relate to the GPs' somatic-psychosocial attributions, which are then associated with particular aspects of the consultation.
Suggested Citation
De Rijk, Angelique E. & Schreurs, Karlein M. G. & Bensing, Jozien M., 1998.
"General practitioners' attributions of fatigue,"
Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 47(4), pages 487-496, August.
Handle:
RePEc:eee:socmed:v:47:y:1998:i:4:p:487-496
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:47:y:1998:i:4:p:487-496. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.