Canadian Emergency Physician Attitudes Toward Somatic Symptom and Related Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Somatic symptom disorder (SSD) involves physical symptoms that cannot entirely be explained by an organic medical cause, accompanied by persistent thoughts, feelings and behaviours relating to one’s health. SSD is common yet underdiagnosed in emergency departments (EDs). This study aimed to assess emergency physician (EP) readiness, attitudes and perceptions toward diagnosing SSD and explore demographic trends. Methods: In total, 1339 Canadian EPs were invited to respond to a survey collecting demographic information and assessing attitudes toward SSD in four domains: perceptions of SSD, attitudes toward patients, diagnostic confidence, and physician–patient communication. Data were analyzed using t-tests and ANOVA to determine associations with demographic information. Results: Of the 96 survey respondents, 75 met the eligibility criteria. In total, 44% estimated that emotional stress was the primary cause of symptoms in 11–20% of their patients. Most felt that SSD was underdiagnosed and that effective therapies exist. Concerns included medico-legal implications, managing patients’ emotions, and potential negative reactions to non-organic diagnoses. Most respondents felt prepared and confident broaching the diagnosis. More experienced EPs felt that there was time to broach the topic of SSD, while rural EPs were less concerned about patient offence than urban counterparts. Conclusions: EPs recognize SSD as common and underdiagnosed, acknowledging its diagnosis as part of their role. Challenges identified include managing patients’ emotions, time constraints, and reliance on only diagnosing SSD once an organic etiology is excluded. Training pathway, experience, and practice setting impact perceptions and attitudes around SSD. The findings suggest opportunities for improving SSD care through targeted interventions, communication training, and enhanced diagnostic education.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".