When the patient is making the (wrong?) diagnosis: a biographical approach to patients consulting for presumed Lyme disease.

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Family practice Pub Date : 2024-08-14 DOI:10.1093/fampra/cmac116
Romain Lutaud, Pierre Verger, Patrick Peretti-Watel, Carole Eldin
{"title":"When the patient is making the (wrong?) diagnosis: a biographical approach to patients consulting for presumed Lyme disease.","authors":"Romain Lutaud, Pierre Verger, Patrick Peretti-Watel, Carole Eldin","doi":"10.1093/fampra/cmac116","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Media coverage of Lyme disease (LD) has led to an increase in consultations for presumed LD in Europe. However, LD is confirmed in only 10%-20% of patients, with a significant number remaining in a diagnostic dead-end.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To reach a deeper understanding of how patients themselves contribute to the diagnostic process. To describe the genesis of the LD hypothesis in care pathways.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In 2019, 30 patients from a prospective cohort consulting in the infectious diseases department at University Hospital in Marseille for presumed LD were recruited for semistructured interviews. The inclusion criteria were: suffering from subjective symptoms for 6 months, no clinical or paraclinical argument suggesting current LD. The patients' medical trajectories were collected using a biographical approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The diagnosis of LD was primarily triggered by identification with personal testimonies found on the Internet. Most of patients were leading their own diagnostic investigation. The majority of participants were convinced they had LD despite the lack of medical evidence and the scepticism of their referring GP.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>GPs should first systematically explore patients' aetiologic representations in order to improve adherence to the diagnosis especially in the management of medically unexplained symptoms. Long COVID-19 syndrome challenge offers an opportunity to promote active patient involvement in diagnosis.</p>","PeriodicalId":12209,"journal":{"name":"Family practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9619758/pdf/cmac116.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Family practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmac116","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Media coverage of Lyme disease (LD) has led to an increase in consultations for presumed LD in Europe. However, LD is confirmed in only 10%-20% of patients, with a significant number remaining in a diagnostic dead-end.

Objectives: To reach a deeper understanding of how patients themselves contribute to the diagnostic process. To describe the genesis of the LD hypothesis in care pathways.

Methods: In 2019, 30 patients from a prospective cohort consulting in the infectious diseases department at University Hospital in Marseille for presumed LD were recruited for semistructured interviews. The inclusion criteria were: suffering from subjective symptoms for 6 months, no clinical or paraclinical argument suggesting current LD. The patients' medical trajectories were collected using a biographical approach.

Results: The diagnosis of LD was primarily triggered by identification with personal testimonies found on the Internet. Most of patients were leading their own diagnostic investigation. The majority of participants were convinced they had LD despite the lack of medical evidence and the scepticism of their referring GP.

Conclusion: GPs should first systematically explore patients' aetiologic representations in order to improve adherence to the diagnosis especially in the management of medically unexplained symptoms. Long COVID-19 syndrome challenge offers an opportunity to promote active patient involvement in diagnosis.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
当病人做出(错误的?
背景:在欧洲,媒体对莱姆病(Lyme disease,LD)的报道导致因推测患有莱姆病而就诊的人数增加。然而,只有 10%-20%的患者能确诊为莱姆病,还有相当多的患者处于诊断的死胡同中:更深入地了解患者自身如何促进诊断过程。描述护理路径中 LD 假设的起源:2019年,从马赛大学医院传染病科就诊的前瞻性队列中招募了30名假定患有LD的患者,对他们进行了半结构化访谈。纳入标准为:主观症状持续 6 个月,无临床或辅助临床论据表明目前患有 LD。采用传记法收集了患者的医疗轨迹:结果:对 LD 的诊断主要源于对互联网上个人证词的认同。大多数患者都是自己进行诊断调查。尽管缺乏医学证据,转诊全科医生也持怀疑态度,但大多数参与者坚信自己患有 LD:全科医生应首先系统地探索患者的病因表象,以提高诊断的依从性,尤其是在处理医学上无法解释的症状时。漫长的 COVID-19 综合征挑战为促进患者积极参与诊断提供了机会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Family practice
Family practice 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
9.10%
发文量
144
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Family Practice is an international journal aimed at practitioners, teachers, and researchers in the fields of family medicine, general practice, and primary care in both developed and developing countries. Family Practice offers its readership an international view of the problems and preoccupations in the field, while providing a medium of instruction and exploration. The journal''s range and content covers such areas as health care delivery, epidemiology, public health, and clinical case studies. The journal aims to be interdisciplinary and contributions from other disciplines of medicine and social science are always welcomed.
期刊最新文献
Point-of-care ultrasonography for cardiovascular conditions in family practice: between risk and opportunity. Impact of implementing primary care-based medication for opioid use disorder on provider and staff perceptions. The effect and implementation of the COVID Box, a remote patient monitoring system for patients with a COVID-19 infection in primary care: a matched cohort study. Can patient education initiatives in primary care increase patient knowledge of appropriate antibiotic use and decrease expectations for unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions? Clinical effects of accreditation in general practice: a pragmatic randomized controlled study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1