Search

OBJECTIVE: For patients with painful functional bowel disorders (FBD), physicians frequently make diagnostic and treatment decisions based on the severity of the pain reported; patients with severe painful complaints may receive extensive diagnostic tests and treatments. Therefore, it would be important to determine what clinical factors contribute to the judgment of severity among patients with FBD. The aim of this study was to identify the psychosocial, behavioral, and physiological (visceral sensitivity) factors that predicted severity in patients with moderate to severe FBD. METHODS: Two hundred eleven female patients with moderate or severe FBD, as determined by the Functional Bowel Disorder Severity Index, entered a multicenter treatment trial at the University of North Carolina and the University of Toronto. Patients filled out diary cards and were given questionnaires and physiological testing (rectal sensitivity using barostat). Analysis of covariance and logistic regression adjusting for demographic factors were performed to determine which factors distinguished patients at study entry with moderate from those with severe FBD. RESULTS: Patients with severe FBD were characterized by greater depression and psychological distress, poorer physical functioning and health-related quality of life, more maladaptive coping strategies, and greater health care utilization. There was a trend for patients with severe FBD to have lower rectal sensation thresholds. Regression analysis indicated that severity was best predicted by behavioral features: poorer daily physical function, difficulties related to eating, more phone calls to the physician, and more days in bed for GI symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that patient illness behaviors are best correlated with severity in FBD. The use of psychopharmacological agents (e.g., antidepressants) and psychological treatments to treat psychiatric comorbidity and to improve behavioral coping styles is recommended. Training to help medical physicians identify and respond to psycho-social and behavioral features of these conditions is likely to improve patient satisfaction with their care and the clinical outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background & Aims: Satisfaction with care is an important measure of quality, from the patients' perspective, and could also affect outcomes. However, there is no standard measure of patient satisfaction for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) care; a multi-item, condition-specific instrument is needed., Methods: Using standard qualitative methods, we conducted focus groups to identify items that patients associated with satisfaction in their care for IBS. These and additional items identified by experts were placed into a preliminary questionnaire, which was refined through pilot testing and cognitive debriefing by additional patients, as well as standard statistical methods. The resulting instrument and several external validation measures were administered to 300 adult US patients with IBS. Factor analysis was performed to identify clinically relevant subscales and then psychometric properties were assessed., Results: We developed an IBS satisfaction with care scale (IBS-SAT) that has 38 items from 5 clinically relevant subscales (connection with provider, education, benefits of visit, office attributes, and access to care). This IBS-SAT had a high level of internal consistency (Crohnbach's α = .96). Convergent validity was established by correlations between the IBS-SAT and a single, global satisfaction with care question (r = 0.68; P < .001), and a generic, multi-item satisfaction scale (physician satisfaction questionnaire-18) (r = 0.75, P < .001). Discriminant validity (among known groups) was established across groups that were stratified based on IBS-quality of life (r = 0.34; P < .0001), IBS severity (functional bowel disorders severity index) (r = -0.21; P < .001), and number of unmet expectations (r = -0.38; P < .0001)., Conclusions: The IBS-SAT is a validated measure of patient satisfaction with IBS care. As a new, condition-specific instrument, it is likely to be a useful tool for quality measurement, health services research, and clinical trials., (Copyright © 2011 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)