Kate Sitnikova1, Sandra M A Dijkstra-Kersten2, Lidwine B Mokkink3, Berend Terluin4, Harm W J van Marwijk5, Stephanie S Leone6, Henriëtte E van der Horst7, Johannes C van der Wouden8. 1. Department of General Practice and Elderly Care Medicine, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical Center, Van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: e.sitnikova@vumc.nl. 2. Department of General Practice and Elderly Care Medicine, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical Center, Van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: s.kersten@vumc.nl. 3. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical Center, Van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: w.mokkink@vumc.nl. 4. Department of General Practice and Elderly Care Medicine, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical Center, Van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: b.terluin@vumc.nl. 5. Center for Primary Care, Institute of Population Health, University of Manchester, United Kingdom. Electronic address: harm.vanmarwijk@manchester.ac.uk. 6. Department of Public Mental Health, Trimbos Institute: Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction, Da Costakade 45, 3521 VS Utrecht, The Netherlands. Electronic address: sleone@trimbos.nl. 7. Department of General Practice and Elderly Care Medicine, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical Center, Van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: he.vanderhorst@vumc.nl. 8. Department of General Practice and Elderly Care Medicine, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical Center, Van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: j.vanderwouden@vumc.nl.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review is to critically appraise the evidence on measurement properties of self-report questionnaires measuring somatization in adult primary care patients and to provide recommendations about which questionnaires are most useful for this purpose. METHODS: We assessed the methodological quality of included studies using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. To draw overall conclusions about the quality of the questionnaires, we conducted an evidence synthesis using predefined criteria for judging the measurement properties. RESULTS: We found 24 articles on 9 questionnaires. Studies on the Patient Health Questionnaire-15 (PHQ-15) and the Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ) somatization subscale prevailed and covered the broadest range of measurement properties. These questionnaires had the best internal consistency, test-retest reliability, structural validity, and construct validity. The PHQ-15 also had good criterion validity, whereas the 4DSQ somatization subscale was validated in several languages. The Bodily Distress Syndrome (BDS) checklist had good internal consistency and structural validity. Some evidence was found for good construct validity and criterion validity of the Physical Symptom Checklist (PSC-51) and good construct validity of the Symptom Check-List (SCL-90-R) somatization subscale. However, these three questionnaires were only studied in a small number of primary care studies. CONCLUSION: Based on our findings, we recommend the use of either the PHQ-15 or 4DSQ somatization subscale for somatization in primary care. Other questionnaires, such as the BDS checklist, PSC-51 and the SCL-90-R somatization subscale show promising results but have not been studied extensively in primary care.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review is to critically appraise the evidence on measurement properties of self-report questionnaires measuring somatization in adult primary care patients and to provide recommendations about which questionnaires are most useful for this purpose. METHODS: We assessed the methodological quality of included studies using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. To draw overall conclusions about the quality of the questionnaires, we conducted an evidence synthesis using predefined criteria for judging the measurement properties. RESULTS: We found 24 articles on 9 questionnaires. Studies on the Patient Health Questionnaire-15 (PHQ-15) and the Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ) somatization subscale prevailed and covered the broadest range of measurement properties. These questionnaires had the best internal consistency, test-retest reliability, structural validity, and construct validity. The PHQ-15 also had good criterion validity, whereas the 4DSQ somatization subscale was validated in several languages. The Bodily Distress Syndrome (BDS) checklist had good internal consistency and structural validity. Some evidence was found for good construct validity and criterion validity of the Physical Symptom Checklist (PSC-51) and good construct validity of the Symptom Check-List (SCL-90-R) somatization subscale. However, these three questionnaires were only studied in a small number of primary care studies. CONCLUSION: Based on our findings, we recommend the use of either the PHQ-15 or 4DSQ somatization subscale for somatization in primary care. Other questionnaires, such as the BDS checklist, PSC-51 and the SCL-90-R somatization subscale show promising results but have not been studied extensively in primary care.
Authors: Meredith G Harris; Claudia Sparti; Roman Scheurer; Tim Coombs; Jane Pirkis; Torleif Ruud; Steve Kisely; Ketil Hanssen-Bauer; Johan Siqveland; Philip M Burgess Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-04-20 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Marie Weinreich Petersen; Marianne Rosendal; Eva Ørnbøl; Per Fink; Torben Jørgensen; Thomas Meinertz Dantoft; Andreas Schröder Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-12-10 Impact factor: 2.692