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
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals

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
Debate & Analysis

The worried well

Denis Pereira Gray, Molly Dineen and Kate Sidaway-Lee
British Journal of General Practice 2020; 70 (691): 84-85. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp20X708017
Denis Pereira Gray
St Leonard’s Practice, Exeter.
Roles: Consultant
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Molly Dineen
St Leonard’s Practice; College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter.
Roles: Medical Student
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kate Sidaway-Lee
St Leonard’s Practice, Exeter.
Roles: Research Fellow
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

INTRODUCTION

The negative phrase ‘the worried well’ is being increasingly used, particularly by policymakers and now by some clinicians as well. Usually, it describes a group of patients who are perceived as using health services inappropriately or disproportionately, when other more deserving patients should be given attention. It thus reflects the old idea of the deserving and undeserving poor, and is equally distasteful. There are numerous other reasons why we believe that this term is always inappropriate and should therefore never be used.

PRIORITISING THE PHYSICAL OVER THE MENTAL

The ‘worried well’ are not a clearly defined group — the only shared characteristic being that the doctor does not see pathology. Patients with this label could range from someone with a concerning symptom that turns out to be nothing, to someone with severe health anxiety. The term suggests that these patients are well; however, for some patients, the condition of health anxiety, for which the term ‘worried well’ is often used, is a serious and potentially debilitating condition. When investigated, one group labelled as ‘worried well’ were found to have substantial mental illness1 and therefore these patients need medical help.2

For doctors, it is wrong to imply that worry in patients does not matter and is a lesser symptom than others. The implication of the phrase is that pathologically based disease is more important than emotionally based disease, so the phrase reflects old-fashioned ideas about mental health being less important than physical health.

UNDERVALUING PATIENT CONCERNS

Patients are (mostly) not doctors and should not be expected to evaluate whether symptoms are serious or not. Public health and charity awareness campaigns are constantly urging patients to see their GP about potentially serious symptoms. Often, very little thought has been put into considering the actual prevalence of these symptoms in the ‘well’. The media is full of stories about people who had some minor symptom or accident that turned into something extremely serious. Such stories often end with the message of ‘if you have this, see your doctor’. Patients are worried about such symptoms when they see these kinds of campaigns or stories and might reasonably want to consult their doctor.

Use of the term may lead to patients being inadequately investigated. The more popular the term becomes, the easier it is for doctors who cannot quickly identify physical signs of disease to label the patient as ‘the worried well’. This can mean that the patients’ symptoms do not get thoroughly investigated and diseases may get missed. Research on this group has revealed that only 14% of those who frequently present without clear physical findings have somatisation disorder and that 86% have organic disease or minor acute illness.3

General practice is considered to have a problem in the early diagnosis of cancer4 and Cancer Research UK has recently called on GPs to react more to ill-defined symptoms.5 Patients continue to report unfortunate anecdotes of missed diagnoses of cancer. It is easier to miss something significant when the doctor is thinking in terms of ‘worried well’. Furthermore, if a doctor is in a negative mindset, they are less likely to take the opportunity provided by the consultation to foster health promotion and build relationships.

DISMISSING THE PATIENT’S CONCERNS

The term itself is now used as a diagnosis,6 despite the fact that it has never been properly defined. Without clinical guidelines, doctors are labelling patients, having made a judgement call over which side of the very hazy rational/irrational line patients’ anxieties fall upon. Making this diagnosis leads to a dead end. Maybe further research in this area, as suggested by Pontious,7 would enable doctors to quantify the problem and then explore the best forms of management.

The phrase inevitably represents a breakdown of communication between doctors and patients. This casual and dismissive term is one used between doctors and almost never between doctor and patient. This breaks transparency and trust in the doctor–patient relationship. Using a term that is more clinical, such as health anxiety, would mean that the doctor can be more open with the patient about their concerns. It also means that the patient is more likely to understand their situation and the doctor’s response. This increased trust is likely to result in better outcomes for the patient.

Ultimately, the term is simply patronising. The mocking tone of the alliteration used is unpleasant and can be seen as doctors stooping to use ‘playground-like’ names. This is unprofessional and, when patients hear about it, it is likely to reduce their confidence in the profession.

In general practice, there is a great emphasis placed on patient education, early detection of disease, patient engagement, and disease prevention, and therefore well patients should be encouraged to take responsibility for their health. The phrase ‘worried well’ represents a misunderstanding of the nature of general practice in the front line of the national health system, where it is important that patients have a place to go when they have feelings and symptoms that they do not understand. An important part of the GP’s job for 200 years has been to provide reassurance, and this is an implicit and valuable aspect of general practice. GPs sometimes see patients who arrive crying and leave laughing, when something that was worrying them greatly was resolved through reassurance. Rather than labelling patients, GPs might share the patient’s relief where appropriate, and also reassure the patient.

CONCLUSION

It is inappropriate to distinguish worthiness between patients, and the essence of person-centred medicine is to respond to each patient as a valuable human being who can be treated with respect. Calling patients ‘the worried well’ is disrespectful and doctor centred. It should stop. It devalues general practice, which is the branch of medicine that has the most to do with the group of patients given this epithet and can do most to help them.

Notes

Provenance

Freely submitted; externally peer reviewed.

  • © British Journal of General Practice 2020

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Amies P
    (1996) Psychotherapy patients: are they ‘the worried well’? Psychiatric Bulletin 20(3):153–156.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Spence D
    (2016) Br J Gen Pract, Bad Medicine: The worried hell. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp16X687361.
  3. 3.↵
    1. Smith RC,
    2. Gardiner JC,
    3. Lyles JS,
    4. et al.
    (2002) Minor acute illness: a preliminary research report on the ‘worried well’ J Fam Pract 51(1):24–29.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Abel GA,
    2. Mendonca SC,
    3. McPhail S,
    4. et al.
    (2017) Br J Gen Pract, Emergency diagnosis of cancer and previous general practice consultations: insights from linked patient survey data. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp17X690869.
  5. 5.↵
    1. Donnelly L
    (Jun, 2019) Revealed: GPs failing to spot two thirds of cancers. Telegraph 28:https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/06/28/revealed-gps-failing-spot-two-thirds-cancers/ (accessed 16 Dec 2019).
  6. 6.↵
    1. Brenes GA,
    2. Miller ME,
    3. Stanley MA,
    4. et al.
    (2009) Insomnia in older adults with generalized anxiety disorder. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 17(6):465–472.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Pontious JM
    (2002) Understanding the ‘worried well’ J Fam Pract 51(1):30.
    OpenUrlPubMed
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 70 (691)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 70, Issue 691
February 2020
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
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.
The worried well
(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
The worried well
Denis Pereira Gray, Molly Dineen, Kate Sidaway-Lee
British Journal of General Practice 2020; 70 (691): 84-85. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp20X708017

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
The worried well
Denis Pereira Gray, Molly Dineen, Kate Sidaway-Lee
British Journal of General Practice 2020; 70 (691): 84-85. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp20X708017
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
    • INTRODUCTION
    • PRIORITISING THE PHYSICAL OVER THE MENTAL
    • UNDERVALUING PATIENT CONCERNS
    • DISMISSING THE PATIENT’S CONCERNS
    • CONCLUSION
    • Notes
    • REFERENCES
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • SAFER diagnosis: a teaching system to help reduce diagnostic errors in primary care
  • An Australian reflects on the Collings report 70 years on
  • Emergencies in general practice: could checklists support teams in stressful situations?
Show more Debate & Analysis

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
© 2023 British Journal of General Practice

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