Objective:
To evaluate the long-term course and prognosis associated with the irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and to determine the influence of an effective physician–patient relationship on subsequent health care use.
Design:
Prospective review of medical records.
Setting:
Tertiary referral center.
Patients:
112 consecutive Olmsted County, Minnesota, residents who were first diagnosed with IBS at the Mayo Clinic during the period 1961-1963.
Results:
The median follow-up was 29 years (range, 1 to 32 years) and patients made a median of 2 return visits for IBS-related symptoms (range, 0 to 12 visits). In addition to abdominal pain, diarrhea (reported by 50% of patients) was the predominant bowel symptom at diagnosis. Organic gastrointestinal disease occurred in 10 patients a median of 15 years after diagnosis of IBS. Survival in patients with IBS did not differ from expected survival (27 deaths; median survival > 30 years after initial diagnosis). A positive physician–patient interaction, defined a priori using objective criteria in the written record, was associated with fewer return visits for IBS. Of the eight variables examined, notations in the medical record about psychosocial history, precipitating factors, and discussion of diagnosis and treatment with patients were associated with fewer return visits for IBS-related symptoms.
Conclusions:
When diagnosed according to current criteria, IBS is associated with a good prognosis and the diagnosis is unlikely to be changed to that of an organic disease during follow-up. A positive physician–patient interaction may be related to reduced use of ambulatory health services by patients with IBS.
References
- 1. Ryle JA. An address on chronic spasmodic affections of the colon and the diseases which they simulate. Lancet. 1928; 2:1115-9. Google Scholar
- 2. Talley NJ, Zinsmeister AR, Van Dyke C, Melton LJ 3d. Epidemiology of colonic symptoms and the irritable bowel syndrome. Gastroenterology. 1991; 101:927-34. Google Scholar
- 3. Jones R, Lydeard S. Irritable bowel syndrome in the general population. BMJ. 1992; 304:87-90. Google Scholar
- 4. Harvey RF, Mauad EC, Brown AM. Prognosis in the irritable bowel syndrome: a 5-year prospective study. Lancet. 1987; 1:963-5. Google Scholar
- 5. Svendsen JH, Munck LK, Andersen JR. Irritable bowel syndrome—prognosis and diagnostic safety. A 5-year follow-up study. Scand J Gastroenterol. 1985; 20:415-8. Google Scholar
- 6. Chaudhary NA, Truelove SC. The irritable colon syndrome. Q J Med. 1962; 31:307-22. Google Scholar
- 7. Waller SL, Misiewicz JJ. Prognosis in the irritable-bowel syndrome. A prospective study. Lancet. 1969; 2:754-6. Google Scholar
- 8. Klein KB. Controlled treatment trials in the irritable bowel syndrome: a critique. Gastroenterology. 1988; 95:232-41. Google Scholar
- 9. Camilleri M, Prather CM. The irritable bowel syndrome: mechanisms and a practical approach to management. Ann Intern Med. 1992; 116:1001-8. Google Scholar
- 10. Phillips SF, Talley NJ, Camilleri M. The irritable bowel syndrome. In: Anuras S, ed. Motility Disorders of the Gastrointestinal Tract: Principles and Practice. New York: Raven Press; 1992:299-326. Google Scholar
- 11. Drossman DA, Thompson WG, Talley NJ, Funch-Jensen P, Janssens J, Whitehead WE. Identification of subgroups of functional gastrointestinal disorders. Gastroenterology International. 1990; 3:159-72. Google Scholar
- 12. Thompson WG, Dotevall G, Drossman DA, Heaton KW, Kruis W. Irritable bowel syndrome: guidelines for the diagnosis. Gastroenterology International. 1989; 2:92-5. Google Scholar
- 13. Drossman DA, Thompson WG. The irritable bowel syndrome: review and a graduated multicomponent treatment approach. Ann Intern Med. 1992; 116:1009-16. Google Scholar
- 14. Houston WR. The doctor himself as a therapeutic agent. Ann Intern Med. 1938; 11:1416-25. Google Scholar
- 15. Verhoef MJ, Sutherland LR, Brkich L. Use of alternative medicine by patients attending a gastroenterology clinic. Can Med Assoc J. 1990; 142:121-5. Google Scholar
- 16. Smart HL, Mayberry JF, Atkinson M. Alternative medicine consultations and remedies in patients with the irritable bowel syndrome. Gut. 1986; 27:826-8. Google Scholar
- 17. Kurland LT, Molgaard CA. The patient record in epidemiology. Sci Am. 1981; 245:54-63. Google Scholar
- 18. Holmes KM, Salter RH. Irritable bowel syndrome—a safe diagnosis? BMJ. 1982; 285:1533-4. Google Scholar
- 19. Svendsen JH, Munck LK, Andersen JR. Irritable bowel syndrome—prognosis and diagnostic safety. A 5-year follow-up study. Scand J Gastroenterol. 1985; 20:415-8. Google Scholar
- 20. Barfoot M, Beveridge AW. Madness at the crossroads: John Home's letters from the Royal Edinburgh Asylum, 1886-87. Psychol Med. 1990; 20:263-84. Google Scholar
- 21. Allport GW. The Use of Personal Documents in Psychological Science. New York: Social Science Research Council; 1942; Bulletin 49:xii. Google Scholar
- 22. Waitzkin H. On studying the discourse of medical encounters. A critique of quantitative and qualitative methods and a proposal for reasonable compromise. Med Care. 1990; 28:473-88. Google Scholar
- 23. Inui B, Carter WB, Kukull WA, Haigh VH. Outcome-based doctor-patient interaction analysis. I. Comparison of techniques. Med Care. 1982; 20:535-49. Google Scholar
- 24. Hall JA, Roter DL, Katz NR. Meta-analysis of correlates of provider behavior in medical encounters. Med Care. 1988; 26:657-75. Google Scholar
- 25. Putnam SM, Stiles WB, Jacob MC, James SA. Patient exposition and physician explanation in initial medical interviews and outcomes of clinic visits. Med Care. 1985; 23:74-83. Google Scholar
- 26. Lupton D. Discourse analysis: a new methodology for understanding the ideologies of health and illness. Aust J Public Health. 1992; 16:145-50. Google Scholar
- 27. Pagano MP, Jacocks MA. Communicating Effectively in Medical Records: A Guide for Physicians. Newbury Park: Sage Publications; 1992. Google Scholar
- 28. Bertakis KD, Roter D, Putnam SM. The relationship of physician medical interview style to patient satisfaction. J Fam Pract. 1991; 32:175-81. Google Scholar
- 29. Roter D, Hall JA. Doctors Talking With Patients/Patients Talking With Doctors: Improving Communication in Medical Visits. Westport, Connecticut: Auburn House; 1992. Google Scholar
- 30. Freemon B, Negrete VF, Davis M, Korsch BM. Gaps in doctor-patient communication: doctor-patient interaction analysis. Pediatr Res. 1971; 5:298-311. Google Scholar
Author, Article, and Disclosure Information
From the Mayo Clinic and Foundation, Rochester, Minnesota.
Corresponding Author: Daniel K. Nelson, MS, Director of Research, Isaac Gordon Center, Genesee Hospital, University of Rochester, 224 Alexander Street, Rochester, NY 14607.
Acknowledgments: The authors thank Alan R. Zinsmeister for assistance with the survival analysis; Kathleen L. Geisler and Joel B. Worra for computer consultation; Michael J. Ford for critical review; Vel R. Woyczik and Lois A. Law for manuscript preparation; and Richard M. Zaner, Volney P. Gay, Liston O. Mills, Christopher D. Lind, and James H. Hogge of Vanderbilt University for helpful suggestions.
Grant Support: In part by RO1 grant AG09440 from the National Institutes of Health.
Submit a Comment
Contributors must reveal any conflict of interest. Comments are moderated. Please see our information for authorsregarding comments on an Annals publication.
*All comments submitted after October 1, 2021 and selected for publication will be published online only.