PURPOSE: Although fatigue is a common presenting symptom in primary care and its course and outcomes often remain unclear, cohort studies among patients seeking care for fatigue are scarce. We therefore aimed to investigate patterns in the course of fatigue and relevant secondary outcomes in a large cohort of patients who sought care for a main symptom of fatigue. METHODS: We performed an observational cohort study in 147 primary care practices. Patients consulting their general practitioner for a new episode of fatigue were sent questionnaires at 1, 4, 8, and 12 months after baseline. We collected measures of fatigue, perceived health and functioning, absenteeism, psychological symptoms, and sleep using the Checklist Individual Strength, the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, the Four-Dimensional Symptoms Questionnaire, and the Pittsburgh Sleep Questionnaire Inventory. Patients were classified into 4 subgroups based on fatigue severity scores over time. We assessed patterns in the course of all outcomes in these subgroups and in the total population, and tested changes over time and differences between subgroups. RESULTS: A total of 642 patients were enrolled in the study. Response rates during follow-up ranged between 82% and 88%. For 75% of the patients, 4 distinct groups could be discerned: 26% of patients had continuously high scores for fatigue, 17% had a fast recovery, 25% had a slow recovery, and 32% initially improved but then had a recurrence of fatigue. Patterns for the secondary outcomes of symptoms and functioning were all similar to the pattern for fatigue within each of the subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study suggest a longitudinal relationship between the severity of fatigue, impaired functioning, psychological symptoms, and poor sleep. Physicians should be aware that a substantial proportion of patients seeking care for fatigue have these additional health and psychosocial problems.
PURPOSE: Although fatigue is a common presenting symptom in primary care and its course and outcomes often remain unclear, cohort studies among patients seeking care for fatigue are scarce. We therefore aimed to investigate patterns in the course of fatigue and relevant secondary outcomes in a large cohort of patients who sought care for a main symptom of fatigue. METHODS: We performed an observational cohort study in 147 primary care practices. Patients consulting their general practitioner for a new episode of fatigue were sent questionnaires at 1, 4, 8, and 12 months after baseline. We collected measures of fatigue, perceived health and functioning, absenteeism, psychological symptoms, and sleep using the Checklist Individual Strength, the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, the Four-Dimensional Symptoms Questionnaire, and the Pittsburgh Sleep Questionnaire Inventory. Patients were classified into 4 subgroups based on fatigue severity scores over time. We assessed patterns in the course of all outcomes in these subgroups and in the total population, and tested changes over time and differences between subgroups. RESULTS: A total of 642 patients were enrolled in the study. Response rates during follow-up ranged between 82% and 88%. For 75% of the patients, 4 distinct groups could be discerned: 26% of patients had continuously high scores for fatigue, 17% had a fast recovery, 25% had a slow recovery, and 32% initially improved but then had a recurrence of fatigue. Patterns for the secondary outcomes of symptoms and functioning were all similar to the pattern for fatigue within each of the subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study suggest a longitudinal relationship between the severity of fatigue, impaired functioning, psychological symptoms, and poor sleep. Physicians should be aware that a substantial proportion of patients seeking care for fatigue have these additional health and psychosocial problems.
Authors: N K Aaronson; M Muller; P D Cohen; M L Essink-Bot; M Fekkes; R Sanderman; M A Sprangers; A te Velde; E Verrips Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 1998-11 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Margot W M de Waal; Ingrid A Arnold; Philip Spinhoven; Just A H Eekhof; Albert M van Hemert Journal: J Psychosom Res Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: A L Komaroff; L R Fagioli; T H Doolittle; B Gandek; M A Gleit; R T Guerriero; R J Kornish; N C Ware; J E Ware; D W Bates Journal: Am J Med Date: 1996-09 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Marloes A van Bokhoven; Hèlen Koch; Trudy van der Weijden; Anuska H M Weekers-Muyres; Patrick J E Bindels; Richard P T M Grol; Geert-Jan Dinant Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2012-04-04 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Anthony O'Connor; Raguprakash Ratnakumaran; Lisa Warren; Debbie Pullen; Anna Errington; David J Gracie; Rebecca C Sagar; P John Hamlin; Alexander C Ford Journal: Ther Adv Chronic Dis Date: 2019-03-26 Impact factor: 5.091
Authors: Ann Vincent; Roberto P Benzo; Mary O Whipple; Samantha J McAllister; Patricia J Erwin; Leorey N Saligan Journal: Arthritis Res Ther Date: 2013 Impact factor: 5.156