Psychological therapies for medically unexplained symptoms in children and adolescents

Author(s):  
Katharine A Rimes ◽  
Vivien Hunot ◽  
Kaneez Husain ◽  
Trudie Chalder
2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 62-77
Author(s):  
Sam LB Bonduelle ◽  
Johan Vanderfaeillie ◽  
Katrien Denijs ◽  
Annik Lampo ◽  
Lindita Imeraj

Background: Medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) are common among children and adolescents and may be highly impairing. Even after long diagnostic and/or therapeutic trajectories, many of these children and their parents feel dissatisfied with the advice and therapies they were given. Objectives: After a 2-week hospitalisation for somatic and psychiatric reassessment, children and their families were given recommendations for further treatment. This study evaluates which of these recommendations were carried out (primary outcome measure) and which factors influenced the (non-)adherence to therapeutic advice. Methods: Parents of 27 children aged 7–17 with impairing MUS took part in a structured telephone survey to assess adherence to and perceived effectiveness of therapeutic recommendations (cross-sectional study). Influencing factors were analysed retrospectively. Results: Psychotherapy was recommended to all 27 patients and their families; 19 of them (70.4%) carried out this advice. When physiotherapy was recommended, adherence proved lower (6/22 children; 27.3%). No influencing factors were found to have a statistically significant correlation with adherence. Effect sizes may be indicative of clinically relevant influential factors, but should be considered cautiously. Conclusion: Results suggest that more efforts need to be made to ensure adherence to therapeutic recommendations. Known risk factors for non-adherence to treatments for chronic somatic disorders may not apply for children with somatoform disorders.


2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (9) ◽  
pp. 1131-1135 ◽  
Author(s):  
David F Marks

England’s flagship ‘Improving Access to Psychological Therapies’ (IAPT) service has cost around £1 billion yet Scott’s (2018a) study suggests that only 9.2% of IAPT patients recover. This leaves an enormous gap of 40.8% between the observed recovery rate and IAPT’s claimed recovery rate of 50.0%. The spotlight is on patients with ‘medically unexplained symptoms’ (MUS) and ‘long-term conditions’ (LTCs) such as ‘diabetes, COPD and ME/CFS, yet there is no way of knowing whether IAPT is capable of yielding the promised rewards or English patients are being sold an expensive pup. An urgent independent expert review of IAPT recovery rates is necessary to answer this question.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document