Understanding Gastrointestinal Distress: A Framework for Clinical Practice

Department of Gastroenterology, VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California, USA.
The American Journal of Gastroenterology (Impact Factor: 10.76). 03/2011; 106(3):380-5. DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2010.383
Source: PubMed


We describe a framework to help clinicians think about health-related quality of life in their gastrointestinal (GI) patients. We introduce "GI distress" as a clinically relevant concept and explain how it may result from physical symptoms, cognitions, and emotions. The GI distress framework suggests that providers should divide GI physical symptoms into four categories: pain, gas/bloat, altered defecation, and foregut symptoms. We describe how these physical symptoms can be amplified by maladaptive cognitions, including external locus of control, catastrophizing, and anticipation anxiety. We suggest determining the level of embarrassment from GI symptoms and asking about stigmatization. GI patients may also harbor emotional distress from their illness and may exhibit visceral anxiety marked by hypervigilance, fear, and avoidance of GI sensations. Look for signs of devitalization, indicated by inappropriate fatigue. When appropriate, screen for suicidal ideations. Finally, we provide a list of high-yield questions to screen for these maladaptive cognitions and emotions, and explain how the GI distress framework can be used in clinical practice.

Download full-text


Available from: Dinesh Khanna, Dec 10, 2014
1 Follower
19 Reads
  • Source
    • "Gastrointestinal (GI) illnesses can lead to physical, mental and social distress.11 For this reason, patients, providers, investigators and regulators are interested in using PROs to guide clinical decision-making, conduct clinical research and achieve drug approval in GI disorders. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Patient-generated reports, also known as Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs), capture the patients' illness experience in a structured format and may help bridge the gap between patients and providers. PROs measure any aspect of patient-reported health (e.g., physical, emotional or social symptoms) and can help to direct care and improve clinical outcomes. When clinicians systematically collect patient-reported data in the right place at the right time, PRO measurement can effectively aid in detection and management of conditions, improve satisfaction with care and enhance the patient-provider relationship. This review article summarizes the latest approaches to PRO measuring for clinical trials and clinical practice, with a focus on use of PROs in gastroenterology.
    Journal of neurogastroenterology and motility 04/2013; 19(2):137-48. DOI:10.5056/jnm.2013.19.2.137 · 2.30 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Cirrhotic patients have an impaired health-related quality of life (HRQOL), which is usually analysed using static paper-pencil questionnaires. The Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) computerised adaptive testing (CAT) are flexible, freely available, noncopyrighted, HRQOL instruments with US-based norms across 11 domains. CAT presents five to seven questions/domain depending on the patient's response, from large validated question banks. This provides brevity and precision equivalent to the entire question bank. To evaluate PROMIS CAT tools against 'legacy instruments' for cirrhotics and their informal caregivers. A total of 200 subjects: 100 cirrhotics (70 men, 53% decompensated) and 100 caregivers were administered the PROMIS and legacy instruments [Sickness Impact Profile (SIP), Beck depression/anxiety inventories, Pittsburgh Sleep-Quality Index (PSQI) and Epworth Sleepiness scale (ESS)] concurrently. Both legacy and PROMIS results for patients were compared with caregivers and US norms. These were also compared between compensated and decompensated patients. Preference for SIP or PROMIS was inquired of a selected group (n = 70, 50% patients). Test - retest reliability was assessed in another group of 20 patients. Patients had significant impairment on all PROMIS domains apart from anger and anxiety compared with caregivers and US norms (P < 0.02 to <0.0001). Decompensated patients had significantly worse sleep, pain, social and physical function scores compared with compensated ones, similar to legacy instruments. There was a statistically significant correlation between PROMIS and their corresponding legacy instruments. The majority (71%) preferred PROMIS over SIP. PROMIS tools had significant test - retest reliability (ICC range 0.759-0.985) when administered 12 ± 6 days apart. PROMIS computerised adaptive testing tools had significant concurrent and discriminant validity, test - retest reliability and subject preference for assessing HRQOL in cirrhotic patients.
    Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics 09/2011; 34(9):1123-32. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2036.2011.04842.x · 5.73 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose: Few qualitative studies have explored patients' experience of food and eating following major upper gastrointestinal cancer surgery. The aim of this article was to explore the longer-term impact of different types of major upper gastrointestinal surgeries on people's relationship with food. Methods: Twenty-six people having had major upper gastrointestinal cancer surgery greater than 6 months ago participated in semi-structured interviews. These interviews aimed to explore a person's physical, emotional and social relationship with food and eating following surgery. Interviews were tape-recorded, transcribed and analysed using an inductive thematic analysis approach. Results: Interview findings revealed a journey of adjustment, grieving and resignation. The physical symptoms and experiences of people differed between types of surgery, but the coping mechanisms remained the same. Conclusions: The grieving and resignation people experienced suggest adjustment and coping similar to that of someone with a chronic illness. Remodeling of health services is needed to ensure this patient group receives ongoing management and support.
    Supportive Care in Cancer 05/2013; 21(10). DOI:10.1007/s00520-013-1858-8 · 2.36 Impact Factor
Show more