28
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Systemisches Denken, subjektive Befunde und das diagnostische „Schubladendenken“ bei ME/CFS – Eine vorwiegend qualitative Public-Health-Studie aus Patientensicht Translated title: Systems thinking, subjective findings and diagnostic “pigeonholing” in ME/CFS: A mainly qualitative public health study from a patient perspective

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Zusammenfassung

          Hintergrund ME/CFS (Myalgische Enzephalomyelitis/Chronisches Fatigue-Syndrom) ist eine vorwiegend als neuroimmunologische Multisystem-Erkrankung betrachtete Krankheit, die vielen Ärzt*innen in Deutschland noch immer unbekannt ist oder die von ihnen als psychosomatische Erkrankung eingeordnet wird. ME/CFS-Patient*innen berichten von den aus ihrer Sicht erheblichen Defiziten hinsichtlich der ärztlichen Behandlung und einer als problematisch empfundenen Arzt-Patienten-Beziehung (AP-Beziehung). Ziel der vorliegenden Studie ist es, aus Sicht der Betroffenen den Ablauf der Diagnosefindung als einen wichtigen Einflussfaktor auf die AP-Beziehung bei ME/CFS genauer zu analysieren.

          Methode Im Rahmen eines explorativen qualitativen Surveys wurden 544 ME/CFS-Erkrankte (> 20 J.; 455 ♀, 89 ♂) mit ärztlicher ME/CFS-Diagnose schriftlich nach ihren Erfahrungen hinsichtlich des Ablaufs der Diagnosefindung befragt. Das Sampling erfolgte zuvor durch Selbstaktivierung und über das Schneeballprinzip. Der zu beantwortende Fragebogen war analog zu einem fokussierten, standardisierten Leitfadeninterview aufgebaut. Die Auswertung erfolgte im Rahmen einer qualitativen Inhaltsanalyse nach Mayring. Einige der Ergebnisse wurden anschließend quantifiziert.

          Ergebnisse Die Proband*innen beschrieben den aus ihrer Sicht mangelhaften Ablauf der Diagnosefindung als zentralen Faktor einer problematischen AP-Beziehung bei ME/CFS. Sie berichteten von unzulänglichem Fachwissen, mangelnder Erfahrung im Umgang mit den Erkrankten und fehlender Fortbildungsbereitschaft der konsultierten Ärzt*innen. Viele Ärzt*innen stritten aus ihrer Sicht die Existenz von ME/CFS ab oder ordneten sie als rein psychosomatische Krankheit ein, beharrten auf ihrem Wissensstand, ignorierten das Patientenwissen und missachteten mitgebrachtes wissenschaftliches Informationsmaterial. Sie gingen nach „Standardprogramm“ vor, dachten in „Schubladen“ und seien unfähig zu systemischem Denken. Dies hätte erhebliche Auswirkungen auf die AP-Beziehung.

          Diskussion Aus Sicht der ME/CFS-Erkrankten sind der Ablauf der Diagnosefindung und die Anerkennung von ME/CFS als neuroimmunologische Multisystem-Erkrankung die zentralen Aspekte einer von ihnen als problematisch erlebten AP-Beziehung. Bereits in der Vergangenheit wurden als „subjektiv“ klassifizierte und damit ignorierte Befunde, das für die biomedizinisch orientierte Medizin charakteristische diagnostische „Schubladendenken“ und ein Gesundheitssystem, das dem systemischen Denken bei der Diagnosefindung entgegensteht, als Faktoren identifiziert, die erheblichen Einfluss auf das AP-Verhältnis haben können.

          Abstract

          Background ME/CFS (Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome) is an illness that is predominantly viewed as a neuroimmunological multisystem disease, which is still unknown to many doctors in Germany or which they classify as a psychosomatic disease. From their perspective, ME/CFS patients report significant deficits in terms of medical treatment and a doctor-patient relationship (DP relationship) that is perceived as problematic. The aim of the present study is to more precisely analyse the process of finding a diagnosis as an influencing factor on the DP relationship in ME/CFS from the point of view of those affected.

          Method As part of an explorative qualitative survey, 544 ME/CFS patients (> 20 years; 455 ♀, 89 ♂) with a medical diagnosis of ME/CFS were asked in writing about their experiences with regard to the process of finding a diagnosis. The sampling was previously done by self-activation and via the snowball principle. The questionnaire to be answered was structured analogously to a focused, standardized guideline interview. The evaluation was carried out as part of a qualitative content analysis according to Mayring. Some of the results were subsequently quantified.

          Results The participants described what they saw as the inadequate process of making a diagnosis as a central factor in a problematic DP relationship in ME/CFS. From their point of view, many doctors deny the existence of ME/CFS or classify it as a solely psychosomatic illness, insist on their level of knowledge, ignore patient knowledge and disregard scientific information provided. They follow the standard program, think in “pigeonholes” and are incapable of systemic thinking. This has a significant impact on the DP relationship.

          Discussion From the point of view of ME/CFS patients, the process of making a diagnosis and the recognition of ME/CFS as a neuroimmunological multisystem disease are the central aspects of a DP relationship that they experience as problematic. In the past, findings classified as “subjective” and thus ignored, the pigeonholing that is characteristic of biomedically oriented medicine and a healthcare system that opposes systemic thinking when making a diagnosis have all been identified as factors that may have a significant impact on the DP relationship.

          Related collections

          Most cited references65

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Myalgic encephalomyelitis: International Consensus Criteria

          Carruthers BM, van de Sande MI, De Meirleir KL, Klimas NG, Broderick G, Mitchell T, Staines D, Powles ACP, Speight N, Vallings R, Bateman L, Baumgarten-Austrheim B, Bell DS, Carlo-Stella N, Chia J, Darragh A, Jo D, Lewis D, Light AR, Marshall-Gradisbik S, Mena I, Mikovits JA, Murovska M, Pall ML, Stevens S (Independent, Vancouver, BC, Canada; Independent, Calgary, AB, Canada; Department of Physiology and Medicine, Vrije University of Brussels, Himmunitas Foundation, Brussels, Belgium; Department of Medicine,University of Miami Miller School of Medicine and Miami Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Miami, FL, USA; Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada; Honorary Consultant for NHS at Peterborough/Cambridge, Lowestoft, Suffolk, UK; Gold Coast Public Health Unit, Southport, Queensland; Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Robina, Queensland, Australia; Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University and St Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Independent, Durham, UK; Howick Health and Medical Centre, Howick, New Zealand; Fatigue Consultation Clinic, Salt Lake Regional Medical Center; Internal Medicine, Family Practice, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA; ME/CFS Center, Oslo University Hospital HF, Norway; Department of Paediatrics, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY; Independent, Pavia, Italy; Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, University of California, Los Angeles, CA; EV Med Research, Lomita, CA, USA; University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland; Pain Clinic, Konyang University Hospital, Daejeon, Korea; Donvale Specialist Medical Centre, Donvale, Victoria, Australia; Departments or Anesthesiology, Neurobiology and Anatomy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA; Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Robina, Queensland, Australia; Department of Medicina Nuclear, Clinica Las Condes, Santiago, Chile; Whittemore Peterson Institute, University of Nevada, Reno, NV, USA; Miwa Naika Clinic, Toyama, Japan; A. Kirchenstein Institute of Microbiology and Virology, Riga Stradins University, Riga, Latvia; Department of Biochemistry & Basic Medical Sciences, Washington State University, Portland, OR; Department of Sports Sciences, University of the Pacific, Stockton, CA USA). Myalgic encephalomyelitis: International Consensus Criteria (Review). J Intern Med 2011; 270: 327–338. The label ‘chronic fatigue syndrome’ (CFS) has persisted for many years because of the lack of knowledge of the aetiological agents and the disease process. In view of more recent research and clinical experience that strongly point to widespread inflammation and multisystemic neuropathology, it is more appropriate and correct to use the term ‘myalgic encephalomyelitis’ (ME) because it indicates an underlying pathophysiology. It is also consistent with the neurological classification of ME in the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Diseases (ICD G93.3). Consequently, an International Consensus Panel consisting of clinicians, researchers, teaching faculty and an independent patient advocate was formed with the purpose of developing criteria based on current knowledge. Thirteen countries and a wide range of specialties were represented. Collectively, members have approximately 400 years of both clinical and teaching experience, authored hundreds of peer-reviewed publications, diagnosed or treated approximately 50 000 patients with ME, and several members coauthored previous criteria. The expertise and experience of the panel members as well as PubMed and other medical sources were utilized in a progression of suggestions/drafts/reviews/revisions. The authors, free of any sponsoring organization, achieved 100% consensus through a Delphi-type process. The scope of this paper is limited to criteria of ME and their application. Accordingly, the criteria reflect the complex symptomatology. Operational notes enhance clarity and specificity by providing guidance in the expression and interpretation of symptoms. Clinical and research application guidelines promote optimal recognition of ME by primary physicians and other healthcare providers, improve the consistency of diagnoses in adult and paediatric patients internationally and facilitate clearer identification of patients for research studies.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            An Integrative Model of Patient-Centeredness – A Systematic Review and Concept Analysis

            Background Existing models of patient-centeredness reveal a lack of conceptual clarity. This results in a heterogeneous use of the term, unclear measurement dimensions, inconsistent results regarding the effectiveness of patient-centered interventions, and finally in difficulties in implementing patient-centered care. The aim of this systematic review was to identify the different dimensions of patient-centeredness described in the literature and to propose an integrative model of patient-centeredness based on these results. Methods Protocol driven search in five databases, combined with a comprehensive secondary search strategy. All articles that include a definition of patient-centeredness were eligible for inclusion in the review and subject to subsequent content analysis. Two researchers independently first screened titles and abstracts, then assessed full texts for eligibility. In each article the given definition of patient-centeredness was coded independently by two researchers. We discussed codes within the research team and condensed them into an integrative model of patient-centeredness. Results 4707 records were identified through primary and secondary search, of which 706 were retained after screening of titles and abstracts. 417 articles (59%) contained a definition of patient-centeredness and were coded. 15 dimensions of patient-centeredness were identified: essential characteristics of clinician, clinician-patient relationship, clinician-patient communication, patient as unique person, biopsychosocial perspective, patient information, patient involvement in care, involvement of family and friends, patient empowerment, physical support, emotional support, integration of medical and non-medical care, teamwork and teambuilding, access to care, coordination and continuity of care. In the resulting integrative model the dimensions were mapped onto different levels of care. Conclusions The proposed integrative model of patient-centeredness allows different stakeholders to speak the same language. It provides a foundation for creating better measures and interventions. It can also be used to inform the development of clinical guidance documents and health policy directives, and through this support the shift towards patient-centered health care.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Dtsch Med Wochenschr
                Dtsch Med Wochenschr
                10.1055/s-00000011
                Dtsch Med Wochenschr
                Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift (1946)
                Georg Thieme Verlag KG (Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany )
                0012-0472
                1439-4413
                14 December 2023
                February 2024
                1 December 2023
                : 149
                : 4
                : e19-e36
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Villingen Institute of Public Health, Villingen-Schwenningen, GERMANY
                [2 ]Sektion für Versorgungsforschung und Rehabilitationsforschung, Universitätsklinikum Freiburg, Medizinische Fakultät, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, GERMANY,
                Author notes
                Korrespondenzadresse Dr. med. Lotte Habermann-Horstmeier, MPH, MSc Villingen Institute of Public Health Klosterring 578050 Villingen-SchwenningenGERMANY Habermann-Horstmeier@ 123456viph-public-health.de
                Article
                DMW-D-23-00061
                10.1055/a-2197-6479
                10824585
                38096913
                b9320d35-ecbe-4aee-8a73-9572cfd85f8d
                The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License, which permits unrestricted reproduction and distribution, for non-commercial purposes only; and use and reproduction, but not distribution, of adapted material for non-commercial purposes only, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                Funding
                Funded by: Landtag Baden-Württemberg
                Award ID: Kap. 0922 Til 684 71
                Dieser Teil der APAV-ME/CFS-Studie wurde größtenteils durch das Ministerium für Soziales, Gesundheit und Integration aus Landesmitteln finanziert, die der Landtag Baden-Württemberg beschlossen hat.
                Categories
                Originalarbeit

                myalgische enzephalomyelitis/chronisches fatigue-syndrom,diagnostische schubladen,fehldiagnose,systemisches ärztliches denken,subjektive befunde,subjective findings,myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome,diagnostic pigeonholes,misdiagnosis,systemic medical thinking

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                6
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                6
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content112

                Cited by4

                Most referenced authors585