Randomised controlled trial of a collaborative care model with psychiatric consultation for persistent medically unexplained symptoms in general practice. The somatization in primary care study: a tale of three diagnoses. Psychiatric consultation in somatization disorder. A randomized controlled study. A trial of the effect of a standardized psychiatric consultation on health outcomes and costs in somatizing patients. An analysis of panel data. The impact of a psychiatric consultation letter on the expenditures and outcomes of care for patients with somatization disorder. A randomized trial of psychiatric consultation with distressed high utilizers.
Patients with persistent medically unexplained symptoms often exhibit general dysfunction and psychiatric comorbidity and frequently resist psychiatric referral. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a collaborative care model including training for general practitioners (GPs) and a psychiatric consultation model for patients with persistent medically unexplained symptoms in general practice.
                Randomised controlled trial. Cluster randomisation at GP practices and multilevel analysis were performed. A total of 81 patients from 36 general practices completed the study. A collaborative care model of training and psychiatric consultation in general practice in the presence of the GP was compared with training plus care as usual by the GP. Outcome assessment on the patients' well-being, functioning and utilisation of health care services was performed 6 weeks and 6 months later.
                All the patients had somatoform disorders (Whitely Index 7.46), and 86% had comorbid psychiatric disorders. In the intervention group, the severity of the main medically unexplained symptoms decreased by 58%. The patients' social functioning improved. The utilization of health care was lower than in the care as usual group.
                A collaborative care model combining training with psychiatric consultation in the general practice setting is an effective intervention in the treatment of persistent medically unexplained symptoms. Anxiety and depressive disorders are highly comorbid in this group. The findings warrant a larger study. Somatization is a common phenomenon that has been defined in many ways. The two most widely used diagnoses, Somatization Disorder (SD) and Abridged Somatization Disorder (ASD), are based on lifetime unexplained symptoms. However, reports indicate instability in lifetime symptom recall among somatizing patients. Multisomatoform disorder (MSD) is a new diagnosis based on current unexplained symptoms. To understand how knowledge about SD and ASD translates to MSD, we examined the diagnostic concordance, impairment and health care utilization of these groups in a sample from the Somatization in Primary Care Study. The diagnostic concordance was high between MSD and SD, but lower between MSD and ASD. All three groups reported considerable physical impairment (measured using the PCS subscale of the SF-36). The mental health (MCS) scores for the three groups were only slightly lower than those of the general population. Over the course of one year, physical functioning fell significantly for all three groups. Mental functioning did not change significantly for any of the three groups over this period. Utilization patterns were very similar for the three groups. The high prevalence, serious impairment, and worsening physical functioning over the course of one year suggest the importance of developing interventions in primary care to alleviate the impaired physical functioning and reduce utilization in somatizing patients. MSD should be a useful diagnosis for targeting these interventions because it identifies a sizable cohort of somatizing patients reporting impairment of comparable severity to full SD, using a more efficient diagnostic algorithm based on current symptoms. The per capita expenditure for health care of patients with multiple physical symptoms but no apparent physical disease (somatization disorder) is up to nine times the average per capita amount. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to determine whether psychiatric consultation would reduce the medical costs of these patients, without effecting a substantial change in patient outcome. Thirty-eight patients were randomly assigned to treatment or control groups and studied prospectively for 18 months. Treatment consisted of a psychiatric consultation and suggestions on management given to primary physicians. After nine months, the control group was crossed over to receive treatment with the same intervention. After the psychiatric consultation, the quarterly health care charges in the treatment group declined by 53 percent (P less than 0.05). In contrast, the charges in the control group showed wide variations but no overall change. The quarterly charges in the control group were significantly higher than those in the treatment group (P less than 0.05). After the control group was crossed over to receive treatment, their quarterly charges declined by 49 percent (P less than 0.05). The reductions in expenditures in both groups were due largely to decreases in hospitalization. We conclude that psychiatric consultation in the care of patients with somatization disorder reduced subsequent health care expenditures without inducing changes in health status or patients' satisfaction with their health care. Patients who somatize but who do not meet criteria for somatization disorder are common in the community. Virtually no research has been conducted to determine how to treat these patients.
                We conducted a randomized controlled clinical trial of a psychiatric consultation intervention we had previously shown to improve the management of somatization disorder. The study population included 51 physicians treating 56 somatizing patients who had a history of seeking help for six to 12 lifetime unexplained physical symptoms. At the onset of the experiment, physicians randomized to the treatment condition received a consultation letter recommending a specific management approach; physicians randomized to the control/crossover condition received the consultation letter after 12 months. Data on health outcomes and charges were collected every 4 months for 2 years after randomization for 96% of subjects who entered the study.
                Patients of physicians who received the intervention reported significantly increased physical functioning, an improvement that remained stable during the year after the intervention. The intervention reduced annual medical care charges by $289 (95% confidence interval, $40 to $464) in 1990 constant dollars, which equates to a 32.9% reduction in the annual median cost of their medical care.
                Somatizing patients with a lifetime history of six to 12 unexplained physical symptoms reported better physical functioning after their primary care physician was provided appropriate treatment recommendations via a psychiatric consultation. Such a consultation is cost-effective because it reduces subsequent charges for medical care, while improving health outcomes in a chronically impaired population. In this study, the cost and health outcomes of a psychiatric consultation letter to primary care physicians caring for a sample of patients diagnosed with somatization disorder, a psychiatric condition associated with multiple, unexplained medical complaints, was assessed. To accommodate the small sample size of 73 patients, outcome effects were calculated using panel analysis. Study patients were randomized to a consultation or noconsultation group, and were repeatedly assessed at equal time intervals. Data were analyzed using parsimonious regression models derived from economic theory. During the 1-year follow-up period, a psychiatric consultation letter was associated with a 12% reduction in health care costs ($455 per patient within first year), with no evidence of deterioration in physical, mental, or general health. Less powerful t-test comparisons between treated and control groups lead to different conclusions. Reasons for these differences are discussed. This study reports the results of a randomized trial of a psychiatric consultation intervention with distressed, high utilizing patients of 18 physicians in two primary care clinics. Psychiatric consultation was associated with a significant increase in the use of antidepressants in intervention patients compared with controls in the first 6 months after intervention. Intervention patients were also significantly more likely to continue antidepressant treatment than control patients. The primary care physicians receiving psychiatric consultations increased the rate of prescribing antidepressant medications in their practice from 32 prescriptions filled per 1,000 visits before their participation in four consultations to 44 new prescriptions per 1,000 visits in the 12-month period after. There were no significant differences between intervention patients and controls at 6 and 12 months after randomization in psychiatric distress, functional disability, or utilization of health care (ambulatory visits, radiographic and laboratory testing services, admissions to inpatient medical care).
There is limited evidence that a CL is effective in terms of medical costs and improvement of physical functioning for patients with MUPS in primary care. The results are even less pronounced in patients with clinically less severe, but more meaningful, forms of MUPS and the results vary for other patient-related outcomes. All studies, except one, were performed in the United States and therefore the results can not be generalized directly to countries with other healthcare systems. Furthermore all studies were small and of only moderate quality. There is very limited evidence that a joint consultation with the patient by a psychiatrist in the presence of the physician, together with the provision of a CL, reduces severity of somatization symptoms and medical consumption.