Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
  • Subscribe BJGP on YouTube
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Research

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

Mujahed Shraim, Christian D Mallen and Kate M Dunn
British Journal of General Practice 2013; 63 (610): e318-e325. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp13X667178
Mujahed Shraim
Roles: PhD Student
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Christian D Mallen
Roles: Professor of general practice, director of academic general practice, director of clinical academic training, Arthritis Research UK clinician scientist
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kate M Dunn
Roles: Wellcome Trust reader in epidemiology
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

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.

  • children
  • signs and symptoms
  • parents
  • primary health care
  • review, systematic

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
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1

Process of systematic search and selection of studies.

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).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1

Quality assessment of included studies

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%).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2

Characteristics of included studies

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.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3

Associations of GP consultations for MUPS between parents and their children

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

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)
Appendix 1.

Items used to assess the quality of observational studies

Notes

Funding

Mujahed Shraim is funded by NHS Research and Development Support for New Medical Schools. Kate M Dunn is funded through a Research Career Development Fellowship from the Wellcome Trust (083572). Christian D Mallen is funded by a Clinician Scientist Fellowship (19634) from Arthritis Research UK.

Ethical approval

Ethical approval was not required.

Provenance

Freely submitted; externally peer reviewed.

Competing interests

The authors have declared no competing interests.

Discuss this article

Contribute and read comments about this article on the Discussion Forum: http://www.rcgp.org.uk/bjgp-discuss

  • Received November 2, 2012.
  • Revision received December 11, 2012.
  • Accepted December 17, 2012.
  • © British Journal of General Practice 2013

This is an OpenAccess article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Jordan KP,
    2. Kadam UT,
    3. Hayward R,
    4. et al.
    (2010) Annual consultation prevalence of regional musculoskeletal problems in primary care: an observational study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 11:144.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Latinovic R,
    2. Gulliford M,
    3. Ridsdale L
    (2006) Headache and migraine in primary care: Consultation, prescription, and referral rates in a large population. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 77(3):385–387.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Nimnuan C,
    2. Hotopf M,
    3. Wessely S
    (2001) Medically unexplained symptoms: An epidemiological study in seven specialities. J Psychosom Res 51(1):361–367.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Melville DI
    (1987) Descriptive clinical research and medically unexplained physical symptoms. J Psychosom Res 31(3):359–365.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Kroenke K,
    2. Jackson JL
    (1998) Outcome in general medical patients presenting with common symptoms: a prospective study with a 2-week and a 3-month follow-up. Fam Pract 15(5):398–403.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Jackson JL,
    2. Passamonti ML
    (2001) Symptoms in primary care: outcomes at five years. J Gen Intern Med 16(1 suppl):142.
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.↵
    1. El-Metwally A,
    2. Salminen JJ,
    3. Auvinen A,
    4. et al.
    (2004) Prognosis of non-specific musculoskeletal pain in preadolescents: a prospective 4-year follow-up study till adolescence. Pain 110(3):550–559.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.
    1. Perquin CW,
    2. Hunfeld JA,
    3. Hazebroek-Kampschreur AA,
    4. et al.
    (2003) The natural course of chronic benign pain in childhood and adolescence: a two-year population-based follow-up study. Eur J Pain 7(6):551–559.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Hotopf M,
    2. Carr S,
    3. Mayou R,
    4. et al.
    (1998) Why do children have chronic abdominal pain, and what happens to them when they grow up? Population based cohort study. BMJ 316(7139):1196–1200.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    1. Gold JI,
    2. Mahrer NE,
    3. Yee J,
    4. Palermo TM
    (2009) Pain, fatigue, and health-related quality of life in children and adolescents with chronic pain. Clin J Pain 25(5):407–412.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.
    1. Roth-Isigkeit A,
    2. Thyen U,
    3. Stoven H,
    4. et al.
    (2005) Pain among children and adolescents: restrictions in daily living and triggering factors. Pediatrics 115(2):e152–162.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Hunfeld JA,
    2. Perquin CW,
    3. Hazebroek-Kampschreur AA,
    4. et al.
    (2002) Physically unexplained chronic pain and its impact on children and their families: the mother’s perception. Psychol Psychother 75(Pt 3):251–260.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Mallen CD,
    2. Mottram S,
    3. Thomas E
    (2009) Is childhood pain associated with future mental health problems? A population based study of young adults in North Staffordshire. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 44(6):489–494.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Campo JV
    (2007) Functional abdominal pain in childhood: lifetime and familial associations with irritable bowel syndrome and psychiatric disorders. Prim Psychiatry 14(4):64–68.
    OpenUrl
  15. 15.↵
    1. Berntsson LT,
    2. Gustafsson JE
    (2000) Determinants of psychosomatic complaints in Swedish schoolchildren aged seven to twelve years. Scand J Public Health 28(4):283–293.
    OpenUrl
  16. 16.↵
    1. Eminson M,
    2. Benjamin S,
    3. Shortall A,
    4. et al.
    (1996) Physical symptoms and illness attitudes in adolescents: an epidemiological study. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 37(5):519–528.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Saps M,
    2. Seshadri R,
    3. Sztainberg M,
    4. et al.
    (2009) A prospective school-based study of abdominal pain and other common somatic complaints in children. J Pediatr 154(3):322–326.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Egger HL,
    2. Costello EJ,
    3. Erkanli A,
    4. Angold A
    (1999) Somatic complaints and psychopathology in children and adolescents: stomach aches, musculoskeletal pains, and headaches. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 38(7):852–860.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Fiddler M,
    2. Jackson J,
    3. Kapur N,
    4. et al.
    (2004) Childhood adversity and frequent medical consultations. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 26(5):367–377.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Goodwin RD,
    2. Hoven CW,
    3. Murison R,
    4. Hotopf M
    (2003) Association between childhood physical abuse and gastrointestinal disorders and migraine in adulthood. Am J Public Health 93(7):1065–1067.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Virtanen R,
    2. Aromaa M,
    3. Koskenvuo M,
    4. et al.
    (2009) Prevalence and incidence of headache in adolescent finnish twins. Headache 49(10):1503–1512.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Little P,
    2. Somerville J,
    3. Williamson I,
    4. et al.
    (2001) Family influences in a cross-sectional survey of higher child attendance. Br J Gen Pract 51(473):977–981, 984.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    1. Levy RL,
    2. Whitehead WE,
    3. Walker LS,
    4. et al.
    (2004) Increased somatic complaints and health-care utilization in children: effects of parent IBS status and parent response to gastrointestinal symptoms. Am J Gastroenterol 99(12):2442–2451.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Craig TKJ,
    2. Cox AD,
    3. Klein K
    (2002) Intergenerational transmission of somatization behaviour: a study of chronic somatizers and their children. Psychol Med 32(5):805–816.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Jones GT,
    2. Silman AJ,
    3. Macfarlane GJ
    (2004) Parental pain is not associated with pain in the child: a population based study. Ann Rheum Dis 63(9):1152–1154.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. 26.↵
    1. Huang RC,
    2. Palmer LJ,
    3. Forbes DA
    (2000) Prevalence and pattern of childhood abdominal pain in an Australian general practice. J Paediatr Child Health 36(4):349–353.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Balague F,
    2. Skovron ML,
    3. Nordin M,
    4. et al.
    (1995) Low back pain in schoolchildren. A study of familial and psychological factors. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 20(11):1265–1270.
    OpenUrl
  28. 28.↵
    1. Saunders K,
    2. Korff MV,
    3. Leresche L,
    4. Mancl L
    (2007) Relationship of common pain conditions in mothers and children. Clin J Pain 23(3):204–213.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Balague F,
    2. Nordin M,
    3. Skovron ML,
    4. et al.
    (1994) Non-specific low-back pain among schoolchildren: a field survey with analysis of some associated factors. J Spinal Disord 7(5):374–379.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Salminen JJ
    (1984) The adolescent back. A field survey of 370 Finnish schoolchildren. Acta Paediatr Scand Suppl 315:1–122.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Devanarayana NM,
    2. de Silva DGH,
    3. de Silva HJ
    (2008) Recurrent abdominal pain syndrome in a cohort of Sri Lankan children and adolescents. J Trop Pediatr 54(3):178–183.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    1. Boey CC,
    2. Goh KL
    (2001) Predictors of recurrent abdominal pain among 9 to 15-year-old urban school-children in Malaysia. Acta Paediatr 90(3):353–355.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Mallen CD,
    2. Peat G,
    3. Thomas E,
    4. et al.
    (2007) Prognostic factors for musculoskeletal pain in primary care: a systematic review. Br J Gen Pract 57(541):655–661.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. 34.↵
    1. Campo JV,
    2. Bridge J,
    3. Lucas A,
    4. et al.
    (2007) Physical and emotional health of mothers of youth with functional abdominal pain. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 161(2):131–137.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    1. Cardol M,
    2. van den Bosch WJ,
    3. Spreeuwenberg P,
    4. et al.
    (2006) All in the family: headaches and abdominal pain as indicators for consultation patterns in families. Ann Fam Med 4(6):506–511.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. 36.↵
    1. Levy RL,
    2. Whitehead WE,
    3. Von Korff MR,
    4. Feld AD
    (2000) Intergenerational transmission of gastrointestinal illness behavior. Am J Gastroenterol 95(2):451–456.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    1. Larsson B,
    2. Bille B,
    3. Pedersen NL
    (1995) Genetic influence in headaches: a Swedish twin study. Headache 35(9):513–519.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    1. Morris-Yates A,
    2. Talley NJ,
    3. Boyce PM,
    4. et al.
    (1998) Evidence of a genetic contribution to functional bowel disorder. Am J Gastroenterol 93(8):1311–1317.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    1. Huurre T,
    2. Junkkari H,
    3. Aro H
    (2006) Long-term psychosocial effects of parental divorce: a follow-up study from adolescence to adulthood. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 256(4):256–263.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    1. Troxel WM,
    2. Matthews KA
    (2004) What are the costs of marital conflict and dissolution to children’s physical health? Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev 7(1):29–57.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    1. Levy RL,
    2. Langer SL,
    3. Whitehead WE
    (2007) Social learning contributions to the etiology and treatment of functional abdominal pain and inflammatory bowel disease in children and adults. World J Gastroenterol 13(17):2397–2403.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    1. Cardol M,
    2. van Dijk L,
    3. van den Bosch WJ,
    4. et al.
    (2007) Striking variations in consultation rates with general practice reveal family influence. BMC Fam Pract 8:4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    1. Kashikar-Zuck S,
    2. Lynch AM,
    3. Slater S,
    4. et al.
    (2008) Family factors, emotional functioning, and functional impairment in juvenile fibromyalgia syndrome. Arthritis Rheum 59(10):1392–1398.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. 44.↵
    1. Levy RL,
    2. Langer SL,
    3. Walker LS,
    4. et al.
    (2010) Cognitive-behavioral therapy for children with functional abdominal pain and their parents decreases pain and other symptoms. Am J Gastroenterol 105(4):946–956.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. 45.↵
    1. Warner CM,
    2. Colognori D,
    3. Kim RE,
    4. et al.
    (2011) Cognitive-behavioral treatment of persistent functional somatic complaints and pediatric anxiety: an initial controlled trial. Depress Anxiety 28(7):551–559.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 63 (610)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 63, Issue 610
May 2013
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Download PowerPoint
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
GP consultations for medically unexplained physical symptoms in parents and their children: a systematic review
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
GP consultations for medically unexplained physical symptoms in parents and their children: a systematic review
Mujahed Shraim, Christian D Mallen, Kate M Dunn
British Journal of General Practice 2013; 63 (610): e318-e325. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp13X667178

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
GP consultations for medically unexplained physical symptoms in parents and their children: a systematic review
Mujahed Shraim, Christian D Mallen, Kate M Dunn
British Journal of General Practice 2013; 63 (610): e318-e325. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp13X667178
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • METHOD
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Appendix
    • Notes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • children
  • signs and symptoms
  • parents
  • primary health care
  • review, systematic

More in this TOC Section

  • Advance care planning in primary care for patients with gastrointestinal cancer: feasibility randomised trial
  • Diagnoses after newly recorded abdominal pain in primary care: observational cohort study
  • Early implementation of the structured medication review in England: a qualitative study
Show more Research

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7400
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2022 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242