Literature DB >> 23643229

GP consultations for medically unexplained physical symptoms in parents and their children: a systematic review.

Mujahed Shraim1, Christian D Mallen, Kate M Dunn.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is evidence of an association of medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS) between parents and children, but it is unclear whether this association is also present for GP consultations. AIM: To review the literature investigating the association of GP consultations for MUPS between parents and children. DESIGN OF STUDY: Systematic review.
METHOD: Systematic search of MEDLINE(®), Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases from their inception to October 2012. Observational studies examining the association of GP consultations for MUPS between parents and children were included.
RESULTS: Eight studies were included in the review. Three studies found significant associations between GP consultations for multiple MUPS between parents and children. Two studies reported significant associations between irritable bowel syndrome diagnosis in parents and multiple MUPS in children. One study showed no significant associations between multiple MUPS in mothers and functional abdominal pain in children. Two studies investigated the association of non-specific low back pain in parents and children; one study showed a significant association, whereas the other study found no significant association. Formal pooling of the results was not performed owing to a high degree of study heterogeneity.
CONCLUSION: This review provides evidence of an association between GP consultations for MUPS in parents and children, although the evidence is limited by some potential biases and study heterogeneity. GPs need to be aware of this association, which has implications for management of children presenting with MUPS. More longitudinal research focusing on all common MUPS in children, which relies on more precise sources of data, is needed to further investigate this association.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23643229      PMCID: PMC3635577          DOI: 10.3399/bjgp13X667178

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Gen Pract        ISSN: 0960-1643            Impact factor:   5.386


INTRODUCTION

Non-specific physical symptoms, such as musculoskeletal pain and headache, are widespread in the community and are among the most common reasons for visiting a GP. In the UK, recent research indicates that the annual GP consultation prevalence for musculoskeletal symptoms is 25% and for headache is about 4.4%.1,2 Many physical complaints remain medically unexplained, owing to lack of obvious cause or pathological changes on physical examination and diagnostic testing. Medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS) are defined as physical symptoms that lead the patient to seek health care, and after clinical assessment do not seem to be explained by a clearly defined cause or diagnosis of a defined medical disease.3,4 The majority of patients presenting in primary care with MUPS improve within a few weeks,5 although about one-quarter of patients experience persistent or recurrent MUPS.6 MUPS are also common among children, and persist in a considerable proportion of children.7–9 Recurrent or persistent MUPS among children are associated with excessive utilisation of healthcare services, functional impairment, and negative impact on the quality of life of children and parents.10–12 Children with MUPS are also at greater risk of developing other MUPS and psychiatric disorders later in life.9,13,14 The causes of MUPS are still poorly understood, but are likely to be multifactorial. Research evidence suggests that MUPS among children may be related to a number of factors, including stressful events related to schooling and social relationships,15,16 psychopathology,17,18 childhood abuse and neglect,19,20 pubertal development,21 and poor parental health.22,23 Several studies have demonstrated that parental health is related to the health of the child, particularly when parents experience MUPS. Parents with MUPS and/or anxiety or depression are more likely to have children with high GP attendance rates and perceive their children to have symptoms.22 Children of mothers with chronic somatisation disorder (MUPS for at least 2 years) are more likely to have health problems and more GP consultations than children of mothers with explained chronic illness or mothers without chronic illness.24 Similarly, children of mothers with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) have more disability days and GP consultations for gastrointestinal (GI) and non-GI symptoms than children of mothers without IBS.23 Some studies have focused on the associations of painful MUPS between parents and children, and reported mixed results. A few studies found no associations for any pain (musculoskeletal pain, widespread pain, and non-specific low back pain [NLBP]),25 functional abdominal pain (FAP),26 and NLBP27 between parents and children. Conversely, other studies found significant associations for back pain or headache,28–30 and FAP between parents and children.31,32

How this fits in

There is evidence of an association of medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS) between parents and children, but it is unclear whether this translates to similar patterns of GP consultations for MUPS between parents and children. This study found evidence of an association between GP consultations for MUPS in parents and their children. GPs need to be aware of this link, which has implications for the management and prevention of MUPS among children in primary care. As MUPS are a significant burden in primary care, it is important to know if the association of MUPS between parents and children is also present for GP consultations. It is important to identify and better understand possible associations of GP consultation for MUPS between parents and children. It may provide valuable insights into prevention and management strategies for patients presenting with MUPS, which could improve health outcomes, quality of life, and, ultimately, reduce healthcare costs. The primary objective of this systematic review was to identify and summarise the results of observational studies, based in primary care or community settings, examining the association of GP consultations for MUPS between parents and children.

METHOD

Search strategy

MEDLINE®, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO bibliographic databases were searched from their inception to October 2012. Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) and free-text terms on MUPS and primary care were used to identify papers. (The detailed search strategy is available on request from the authors.) Additionally, the reference lists of relevant papers were examined and their citations traced using the Social Science Citation Index. No restrictions were imposed on the language of publication. Local experts were contacted to identify additional relevant studies.

Study selection

The selection included primary care and population-based observational studies that investigated the association between GP consultations for MUPS, medical diagnosis of functional somatic syndromes, or history of treated MUPS in parents and GP consultations for MUPS in children aged 1 to 17 years. It included studies in which GP consultation data for MUPS were obtained using primary care medical records, self-reported data, or both data sources. Only studies in which physical symptoms were operationally defined as MUPS or specifically referred to as functional, somatic, or non-specific were included. Studies were included regardless of the time period over which these associations had occurred. The titles and abstracts of all studies were screened and irrelevant studies were excluded. Two reviewers assessed full-text papers to determine the eligibility of studies that appeared to meet the inclusion criteria, or when a defined decision could not be made based on the title and/or abstract alone. Any disagreements were resolved by consensus, or reconciled by a third reviewer.

Data extraction and quality assessment

Standardised forms were used for methodological quality assessment and data extraction. The following information was extracted: study setting, design, population, number of participants and their demographic characteristics, type of MUPS, data-collection methods, and outcomes of association of GP consultations for MUPS between parents and children. The association of GP consultations for MUPS between parents and children was defined and measured as the association between GP consultations for MUPS, history of treated MUPS, or medical diagnosis of functional somatic syndromes in parents and GP consultations for MUPS in children. The methodological quality of included studies was appraised using a methodological quality-assessment checklist for observational studies.33 This checklist consists of 15 items covering internal and external validity (see Appendix 1). The methodological quality for each paper was assessed independently by two reviewers. Each study was scored according to its methodological quality, using the 15-item checklist. Each item was scored positive (+) if it was satisfactorily presented, negative (−) if absent, or (na) if it was not applicable. Some items were not applicable, because of study design (no losses or dropouts in cross-sectional studies and medical record reviews). The overall methodological quality of each study was rated as ‘high’ if all or most of the items were fulfilled, ‘moderate’ if some of the items were fulfilled, and ‘low’ if few or no items were fulfilled.

RESULTS

Studies identified

A total of 2256 papers were identified (1106 MEDLINE, 745 Embase, 113 CINAHL, and 292 PsycINFO). Of those papers, only eight were included in the review (Figure 1).
Figure 1

Quality assessment

The overall methodological qualities of included studies were high. The following items were attained by all studies: clearly defined objective, appropriate study design, representative sample, appropriate selection of outcome, appropriate measurement of outcome, standardised data collection, appropriate analysis of outcomes, and numerical description of important outcomes (Table 1).
Table 1

Quality assessment of included studies

StudyQuality-assessment itemsa
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOOverall quality
Balague et al, 199527+++++++++nana+++High
Balague et al, 199429+++++++na+nana+++High
Campo et al, 200734++++++++nanana+++High
Cardol et al, 200635+++++++++nanana+++High
Craig et al, 200224+++++++na+nana+++High
Levy et al, 200423++++++++nana+++High
Levy et al, 200036++++++++nanana+++High
Little et al, 200122++++++++++na++++High

+ = satisfactorily presented.

− absent.

na = not applicable.

See Appendix 1 for detailed description of quality-assessment items.

Quality assessment of included studies + = satisfactorily presented. − absent. na = not applicable. See Appendix 1 for detailed description of quality-assessment items.

Characteristics of included studies

Study characteristics are presented in Table 2. Included studies were published in English and were conducted in four different countries. Six studies were conducted in primary care and two studies identified children from schools. There were four cross-sectional surveys, three case-control studies, and one retrospective cohort study. In four studies, the parent or the child reported information on MUPS and GP consultations, and the remaining studies used either medical records alone or medical records combined with self-reported data. The mean age of children ranged between 8.5 and 14 years. The mean proportion of females was 52% (range 49% to 60%).
Table 2

Characteristics of included studies

StudyCountrySettingDesignChildren’s age, yearsSex, % femalesSample sizePhysical symptomsData source
Balague et al, 199527SwitzerlandSchoolCross-sectional12–1752.5615NLBPHistory of NLBP in parent and children was reported by children
Balague et al, 199429SwitzerlandSchoolCross-sectional8–1650.61716NLBPHistory for NLBP in parent and children was reported by children aged 13–16 years, and by parents for younger children
Campo et al, 200734USPrimary careCase-control8–1548.5135FAPHistory of MUPS in mothers and FAP in children was reported by mothers
Cardol et al, 200635The NetherlandsPrimary careRetrospective cohort1–126065 671MUPSMedical records review for parents and children
Craig et al, 200224UKPrimary careCross-sectional4–852151MUPSMedical records review for mothers; mothers reported on MUPS and GP consultations in children
Levy et al, 200423USPrimary careCase-control8–1551641MUPSMedical records review for maternal IBS and FAP and for MUPS in the child, plus self-report data on MUPS in the child by mother
Levy et al, 200036USPrimary careCase-control3–14491277GI symptomsMedical records review for parents and children
Little et al, 200122UKPrimary careCross-sectional<1650456MUPSHistory of GP consultations for MUPS in parents and children was reported by parents

FAP = functional abdominal pain. GI = gastrointestinal. IBS = irritable bowel syndrome. MUPS = medically unexplained physical symptoms. NLBP = non-specific low back pain.

Characteristics of included studies FAP = functional abdominal pain. GI = gastrointestinal. IBS = irritable bowel syndrome. MUPS = medically unexplained physical symptoms. NLBP = non-specific low back pain.

Association of GP consultations for MUPS between parents and children

Table 3 presents the associations of GP consultations for MUPS between parents and children. Six studies found significant associations between GP consultations for MUPS, history of treated NLBP or IBS in parents, and GP consultations for MUPS in children (Table 3).22–24,27,29,34–36 Four studies reported the strength of associations as adjusted odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and two studies used adjusted P-values. Two studies did not report the strength of association, but stated that it was not significant.
Table 3

Associations of GP consultations for MUPS between parents and their children

StudyMUPSTime periodSummary of associationFactors adjusted for in multivariable analysesStrength of association
Balague et al, 199527NLBP in children and parentsLifetimeNo significant association was found between parental reported history of treated NLBP and children’s lifetime history of NLBPChild sex, age, walk time, sports activity, negative affect, positive affect, siblings’ LBPCrude OR = 1.09, 95% CI was not reported; adjusted OR was not reported

Balague et al, 199429NLBP in children and parentsLifetimeChildren of parents who had been treated for NLBP were more likely to report a history of NLBP themselvesChild age, sex, competitive sports activity, TV watched (hours/week)Crude OR = 1.87, 95% CI = 1.42 to 2.48; adjusted OR = 2.10, 95% CI = 1.56 to 2.83

Campo et al, 200734Children consulting with FAP and maternal MUPSLifetimeNo significant association was found between child GP consultations for FAP and maternal MUPSMaternal age, maternal psychiatric (anxiety and depressive) disorders, and family intact (child lives with biological parents)For IBS: crude OR = 3.9, 95% CI = 1.5 to 10.3; adjusted OR = 1.8, 95% CI = 0.6 to 6.1; for migraine: crude OR = 2.4, 95% CI = 1.1 to 5.3, adjusted OR = 1.4, 95% CI = 0.6 to 3.7

Cardol et al, 200635MUPS in children and parents1 yearThere was an association in GP consultation frequency for headache and abdominal pain between children and their parents compared to other families in which children consulted for physical trauma or chronic disease; association was reported as percentage of shared variance in consultation frequency between familiesChild age and sex and GP practicePercentage of variation in consultation frequency attributed to shared family factors (95% CI):
Family membersHeadacheAbdominal painMinor ailments

Mother/son20.2 (16.4 to 24.1)34.1 (31.0 to 37.1)19 (18.0 to 20.0)

Mother/daughter48.4 (44.5 to 2.3)34.7 (31.7 to 37.7)23.2 (22.1 to 24.3)

Father/son4.7 (2.7 to 7.2)17.1 14.4 to (19.8)8.8 (8.0 to 9.7)

Father/daughter14.4 (11.1 to 18.1)6.9 (5.1 to 8.9)4.9 (4.3 to 5.6)

Craig et al, 200224MUPS in children and mothers3 monthsChildren of somatising mothers had significantly more GP consultations for MUPS compared to children of control mothersChild age and sex, child emotional or behavioural problems, mother’s exposure to adversity in her own childhood, and maternal psychiatric disordersAdjusted P<0.001

Levy et al, 200423GI and non-GI symptoms in children and maternal IBS diagnosis3 yearsChildren of mothers with IBS had significantly more GP consultations for GI and non-GI symptoms than controlsChild age and sex, child sense of competence, child coping style, child psychological symptoms, and maternal stress, and psychological symptomsFor GI symptoms, crude P = 0.005 and adjusted P = 0.006; for non-GI symptoms, crude and adjusted P = 0.001

Levy et al, 200036Children’s GI symptoms and parental IBS diagnosis1 yearChildren of parents with IBS had significantly more GP consultations for GI symptoms compared to control children and parentsChild age and sex, parent age and sex, parental healthcare use for non-GI disordersCrude OR not reported, adjusted OR = 2.2, 95% CI = 1.62 to 2.98

Little et al, 200122MUPS in children and parents1 yearGP consultations for MUPS in high-attending children were significantly associated with parental GP consultations for MUPSChild sex; parental perceived health of the child, willingness to tolerate child symptoms, health anxiety, and council house tenancyCrude OR not reported, adjusted OR = 1.36, 95% CI = 1.10 to 1.70

FAP = functional abdominal pain. GI = gastrointestinal. IBS = irritable bowel syndrome. LBP = lower back pain. MUPS = medically unexplained physical symptoms. NLBP = non-specific low back pain. OR = odds ratio.

Associations of GP consultations for MUPS between parents and their children FAP = functional abdominal pain. GI = gastrointestinal. IBS = irritable bowel syndrome. LBP = lower back pain. MUPS = medically unexplained physical symptoms. NLBP = non-specific low back pain. OR = odds ratio. One study (n = 456) found a significant association between self-reported GP consultations for MUPS in parents and children (OR = 1.36, 95% CI = 1.10 to 1.70).22 Another study (n = 151) showed a significant association between somatisation disorder in mothers and maternal reports of GP consultations for MUPS in children (adjusted P<0.001).24 Three studies looked at IBS; one reported significant associations between IBS in parents and recorded GP consultations for GI symptoms in 1277 children (OR = 2.2, 95% CI = 1.62 to 2.98),36 and another between IBS in mothers and recorded GP consultations for GI and non-GI symptoms in 641 children23 (adjusted P = 0.006 and 0.001, respectively). One study (n = 135) showed no significant association between history of IBS, migraine, and somatoform disorder in mothers and maternal reports of GP consultations for FAP in children (OR was reported as not significant).34 Two studies investigated the association of reported history of treated NLBP in parents and history of NLBP in children; one study (n = 1716) showed a significant association (OR = 2.10, 95% CI = 1.56 to 2.83),29 whereas the other study (n = 615) found no significant association (OR was reported as not significant).27 The final study (n = 65 671) reported the percentage of variance in similarity of recorded GP consultations among family members explained by family influence.35 For example, the variation in GP consultations by mothers and daughters that could be explained by family influence was 48.4% for headache and 34.7% for abdominal pain (Table 3). Owing to the high degree of study heterogeneity between studies, pooled estimates of the strength of associations were not performed.

DISCUSSION

Summary

This review provides evidence that GP consultations for MUPS in parents are associated with GP consultations for MUPS in children. The review included eight papers, of which six found significant associations between GP consultations for MUPS in parents and children. Differences between studies in study designs, settings, data-collection methods, ages and numbers of included children, and types of included MUPS may partly explain the lack of association found in two studies. For example, these two studies examined the association between the lifetime prevalence of reported NLBP in children and history of treated NLBP in parents, and reported mixed findings. In the first study,29 schoolchildren reported information on their lifetime prevalence of NLBP as well as the history of treated NLBP in parents, whereas in the other study,27 both parents and children reported information on the history of their NLBP. Therefore, a possible lack of children’s knowledge of their parents’ history of treated NLBP, or recall bias, may partially explain the contradictory findings of these two studies. The mechanisms underlying the association of GP consultations for MUPS between parents and children are not fully clear. However, there is some evidence that genetic effects,37,38 shared environmental factors,39,40 and childhood social learning of illness behaviour24,36,41,42 may explain this association. Although the majority of studies controlled for some possible confounding factors, it has been suggested that a parental decision to seek health care for their children may reflect parental health attitudes, health beliefs, and consulting behaviour, rather than the child healthcare needs.23,34,36 Therefore, the association of GP consultations for MUPS in parents and children may be explained by biased parental perception of symptoms in children or parental concentration on the symptoms they have themselves. For example, in one study, children with GI symptoms were interviewed independently of their mothers with IBS, and it was found that the difference between children of cases and controls was greater when the mothers reported on symptoms in children compared to children’s reports on their own symptoms.23 Also, the observed association of GP consultations for MUPS between parents and children may perhaps just reflect patterns of GP consultations more generally.

Strengths and limitations

This review included only eight studies. This was despite a comprehensive search covering several electronic bibliographic databases. The citations of all included studies were searched, and no further relevant studies were identified. One relevant paper was identified through searching the references lists of included studies. The search did not address all sources of grey literature. However, local experts were contacted to identify any relevant studies, and the search was not restricted to English language publications. No studies were excluded from the review on the basis of quality assessment. In addition to the high degree of heterogeneity among included studies, there are some limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results of this review. First, the majority of included studies relied on self-reported data, which are prone to recall bias. However, two studies examined agreement between self-reported and documented consultation for MUPS, and they showed good agreement.22,24 Second, four studies used self-reported data on the history of IBS or treated MUPS rather than patterns of GP consultations for these conditions. However, it is reasonable to suggest that those parents had to consult a medical practitioner to receive treatment and diagnosis for those conditions. Third, owing to the small number of included studies, publication bias was not assessed. Therefore, the potential for publication bias remains. Fourth, although all studies were generally of high methodological quality, only two reported a priori calculation of sample size. Finally, four studies were cross-sectional and were therefore unable to distinguish the direction of associations.

Comparison with existing literature

This is the first systematic review to summarise the research evidence on the association of GP consultations for MUPS between parents and children. The findings from this review are in agreement with findings of other studies that specifically focused on the association of self-reported MUPS (without including GP consultations data) between parents and children, which showed mixed results.25,26,28,31,32,43 For example, two studies reported significant associations for self-reported history of FAP between parents and children,31,32 whereas this association was found to be non significant in another study.26

Implications for practice

The potential impact of parental GP consultations for MUPS on the health and GP consultations of their children has implications for primary care. It is important that GPs be aware of this link, as such insights may direct the GP toward alternative management approaches. For example, cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) targeting children’s coping responses to FAP and parents’ responses to pain in their children was associated with significant reduction in pain and MUPS severity in children in the CBT group compared to a control group.44 Another study showed that CBT for children with persistent MUPS and anxiety was associated with significant improvements in anxiety symptoms and reduction in pain severity and discomfort due to GI symptoms, as compared to controls.45 This review provides some evidence of an association between GP consultations for MUPS in parents and children. There are a limited number of studies that have investigated the association of GP consultations for MUPS between parents and children. Further longitudinal research, without relying on retrospective recall of physical symptom experience, is needed to further investigate the association between GP consultations for MUPS among parents and children. Future studies may wish to investigate this association by focusing on the whole spectrum of MUPS, including different age groups of children. Such research may provide more precise measures of the impact of parental MUPS on the health and GP consultations of their children, which has implications for the management and prevention of physical symptoms.
Appendix 1.

Items used to assess the quality of observational studies

AClearly defined study objective
BAppropriate design for study question
CInclusion and exclusion criteria clear and appropriate
DRepresentative sample (and comparison)
ESample size calculation presented
FAppropriate selection of outcome
GAppropriate measurement of outcome
HStandardised collection of data
IAdequate length of follow-up for research question
JBaseline participation >70% (all groups)
KLosses and dropouts <20%
LAdequate description of losses and completers
MAppropriate analysis of outcomes measured
NNumerical description of important outcomes given
OAdjusted and unadjusted calculations provided (with confidence interval if appropriate)
  43 in total

1.  Association between childhood physical abuse and gastrointestinal disorders and migraine in adulthood.

Authors:  Renee D Goodwin; Christina W Hoven; Robert Murison; Mathew Hotopf
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 9.308

Review 2.  Prognostic factors for musculoskeletal pain in primary care: a systematic review.

Authors:  Christian D Mallen; George Peat; Elaine Thomas; Kate M Dunn; Peter R Croft
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 5.386

3.  Descriptive clinical research and medically unexplained physical symptoms.

Authors:  D I Melville
Journal:  J Psychosom Res       Date:  1987       Impact factor: 3.006

4.  All in the family: headaches and abdominal pain as indicators for consultation patterns in families.

Authors:  Mieke Cardol; Wil J H M van den Bosch; Peter Spreeuwenberg; Peter P Groenewegen; Liset van Dijk; Dinny H de Bakker
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2006 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 5.166

5.  Pain among children and adolescents: restrictions in daily living and triggering factors.

Authors:  Angela Roth-Isigkeit; Ute Thyen; Hartmut Stöven; Johanna Schwarzenberger; Peter Schmucker
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 7.124

6.  Increased somatic complaints and health-care utilization in children: effects of parent IBS status and parent response to gastrointestinal symptoms.

Authors:  Rona L Levy; William E Whitehead; Lynn S Walker; Michael Von Korff; Andrew D Feld; Michelle Garner; Dennis Christie
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 10.864

7.  Prognosis of non-specific musculoskeletal pain in preadolescents: a prospective 4-year follow-up study till adolescence.

Authors:  Ashraf El-Metwally; Jouko J Salminen; Anssi Auvinen; Hannu Kautiainen; Marja Mikkelsson
Journal:  Pain       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 6.961

8.  Non-specific low-back pain among schoolchildren: a field survey with analysis of some associated factors.

Authors:  F Balagué; M Nordin; M L Skovron; G Dutoit; A Yee; M Waldburger
Journal:  J Spinal Disord       Date:  1994-10

9.  A prospective school-based study of abdominal pain and other common somatic complaints in children.

Authors:  Miguel Saps; Roopa Seshadri; Marcelo Sztainberg; Gilda Schaffer; Beth M Marshall; Carlo Di Lorenzo
Journal:  J Pediatr       Date:  2008-11-28       Impact factor: 4.406

10.  Is childhood pain associated with future mental health problems? A population based study of young adults in North Staffordshire.

Authors:  Christian D Mallen; Sara Mottram; Elaine Thomas
Journal:  Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol       Date:  2008-10-30       Impact factor: 4.328

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  Central sensitization syndrome and the initial evaluation of a patient with fibromyalgia: a review.

Authors:  Kevin C Fleming; Mary M Volcheck
Journal:  Rambam Maimonides Med J       Date:  2015-04-29

2.  The association between GP consultations for non-specific physical symptoms in children and parents: a case-control study.

Authors:  Mujahed Shraim; Milisa Blagojevic-Bucknall; Christian D Mallen; Kate M Dunn
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-09-24       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Repeated primary care consultations for non-specific physical symptoms in children in UK: a cohort study.

Authors:  Mujahed Shraim; Milisa Blagojevic-Bucknall; Christian D Mallen; Kate M Dunn
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2014-12-05       Impact factor: 2.497

4.  Non-specific Health complaints and self-rated health in pre-adolescents; impact on primary health care use.

Authors:  Dorte Rytter; Charlotte Ulrikka Rask; Claus Høstrup Vestergaard; Anne-Marie Nybo Andersen; Bodil Hammer Bech
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-02-24       Impact factor: 4.379

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.