OBJECTIVE: To measure the levels of fatigue in the general population, and to examine how disease and sociodemographic factors influence fatigue. DESIGN: Cross sectional questionnaire study in the Danish general population. SUBJECTS: A random, age stratified sample of 1608 people aged 20-77 with an equal gender distribution (response rate 67%). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Five fatigue scales from the questionnaire Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory: General Fatigue, Physical Fatigue, Reduced Activity, Reduced Motivation and Mental Fatigue. RESULTS: Fatigue scores were skewed towards absence of fatigue. The General Fatigue and Physical Fatigue scales showed the highest fatigue levels while the Reduced Motivation scale showed lowest levels. Gender differences in fatigue scores were small, but the variability among women was higher-that is, more women had high scores. A multiple linear regression analysis showed that respondents of low social status and respondents with a depression had high fatigue scores on all scales, independent of other factors. Chronic somatic disease had an independent direct effect on Mental Fatigue, but for the rest of the scales, the effect of somatic disease depended on age, gender and/or whether the person was living alone. For example, General and Physical Fatigue decreased with age among healthy people, whereas scores on these scales increased with age among those with a somatic disease. CONCLUSIONS: Physical and mental diseases play essential parts for the level of fatigue and as modulators of the associations between sociodemographic factors and fatigue. These interactions should be taken into account in future research on fatigue and sociodemographic factors and when data from clinical studies are compared with normative data from the general population.
OBJECTIVE: To measure the levels of fatigue in the general population, and to examine how disease and sociodemographic factors influence fatigue. DESIGN: Cross sectional questionnaire study in the Danish general population. SUBJECTS: A random, age stratified sample of 1608 people aged 20-77 with an equal gender distribution (response rate 67%). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Five fatigue scales from the questionnaire Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory: General Fatigue, Physical Fatigue, Reduced Activity, Reduced Motivation and Mental Fatigue. RESULTS:Fatigue scores were skewed towards absence of fatigue. The General Fatigue and Physical Fatigue scales showed the highest fatigue levels while the Reduced Motivation scale showed lowest levels. Gender differences in fatigue scores were small, but the variability among women was higher-that is, more women had high scores. A multiple linear regression analysis showed that respondents of low social status and respondents with a depression had high fatigue scores on all scales, independent of other factors. Chronic somatic disease had an independent direct effect on Mental Fatigue, but for the rest of the scales, the effect of somatic disease depended on age, gender and/or whether the person was living alone. For example, General and Physical Fatigue decreased with age among healthy people, whereas scores on these scales increased with age among those with a somatic disease. CONCLUSIONS: Physical and mental diseases play essential parts for the level of fatigue and as modulators of the associations between sociodemographic factors and fatigue. These interactions should be taken into account in future research on fatigue and sociodemographic factors and when data from clinical studies are compared with normative data from the general population.
Authors: B K Bennett; I B Hickie; U S Vollmer-Conna; B Quigley; C M Brennan; D Wakefield; M P Douglas; G R Hansen; A J Tahmindjis; A R Lloyd Journal: Aust N Z J Psychiatry Date: 1998-04 Impact factor: 5.744
Authors: D M Hann; P B Jacobsen; L M Azzarello; S C Martin; S L Curran; K K Fields; H Greenberg; G Lyman Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 1998-05 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Kristine A Donovan; Paul B Jacobsen; Brent J Small; Pamela N Munster; Michael A Andrykowski Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2008-05-20 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Amanda M Rach; Valerie McLaughlin Crabtree; Tara M Brinkman; Lonnie Zeltzer; Jordan Gilleland Marchak; Deokumar Srivastava; Brooklee Tynes; Jin-Shei Lai; Leslie L Robison; Gregory T Armstrong; Kevin R Krull Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2016-11-12 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Deirdre M O'Shea; Liselotte De Wit; Sarah M Szymkowicz; Molly E McLaren; Francis Talty; Vonetta M Dotson Journal: Arch Clin Neuropsychol Date: 2016-12-01 Impact factor: 2.813
Authors: K Løppenthin; B A Esbensen; M Østergaard; P Jennum; A Tolver; M Aadahl; T Thomsen; J Midtgaard Journal: Rheumatol Int Date: 2015-05-07 Impact factor: 2.631
Authors: Harriet A Ball; Sisira H Siribaddana; Athula Sumathipala; Yulia Kovas; Nick Glozier; Peter McGuffin; Matthew Hotopf Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2010-02-02 Impact factor: 3.630
Authors: B D Thombs; M Bassel; L McGuire; M T Smith; M Hudson; J A Haythornthwaite Journal: Rheumatology (Oxford) Date: 2008-08-13 Impact factor: 7.580
Authors: Jin-Mann S Lin; Dana J Brimmer; Elizabeth M Maloney; Ernestina Nyarko; Rhonda Belue; William C Reeves Journal: Popul Health Metr Date: 2009-12-15