The BDS checklist as measure of illness severity: a cross-sectional cohort study in the Danish general population, primary care and specialised setting.

Marie Weinreich Petersen, Marianne Rosendal, Eva Ørnbøl, Per Fink, Torben Jørgensen, Thomas Meinertz Dantoft, Andreas Schröder
Author Information
  1. Marie Weinreich Petersen: The Research Clinic for Functional Disorders and Psychosomatics, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark mawept@rm.dk. ORCID
  2. Marianne Rosendal: The Research Clinic for Functional Disorders and Psychosomatics, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
  3. Eva Ørnbøl: The Research Clinic for Functional Disorders and Psychosomatics, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
  4. Per Fink: The Research Clinic for Functional Disorders and Psychosomatics, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
  5. Torben Jørgensen: Center for Clinical Research and Prevention, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, The Capital Region of Denmark, Denmark.
  6. Thomas Meinertz Dantoft: Center for Clinical Research and Prevention, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, The Capital Region of Denmark, Denmark.
  7. Andreas Schröder: The Research Clinic for Functional Disorders and Psychosomatics, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. ORCID

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The bodily distress syndrome (BDS) checklist has proven to be useful in the diagnostic categorisation and as screening tool for functional somatic disorders (FSD). This study aims to investigate whether the BDS checklist total sum score (0-100) can be used as a measure of physical symptom burden and FSD illness severity.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional.
SETTING: Danish general population, primary care and specialised clinical setting.
PARTICIPANTS: A general population cohort (n=9656), a primary care cohort (n=2480) and a cohort of patients with multiorgan BDS from specialised clinical setting (n=492).
OUTCOME MEASURES: All data were self-reported. Physical symptoms were measured with the 25-item BDS checklist. Overall self-perceived health was measured with one item from the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). Physical functioning was measured with an aggregate score of four items from the SF-36/SF-12 scales 'physical functioning', 'bodily pain' and 'vitality'. Emotional distress was measured with the mental distress subscale (SCL-8) from the Danish version of the Hopkins Symptom Checklist-90. Illness worry was measured with the six-item Whiteley Index.
RESULTS: For all cohorts, bifactor models established that despite some multidimensionality the total sum score of the BDS checklist adequately reflected physical symptom burden and illness severity. The BDS checklist had acceptable convergent validity with measures of overall health (r=0.25-0.58), physical functioning (r=0.22-0.58), emotional distress (r=0.47-0.62) and illness worry (r=0.36-0.55). Acceptability was good with a low number of missing responses to items (<3%). Internal consistency was high (α ≥0.879). BDS score means varied and reflected symptom burden across cohorts (13.03-46.15). We provide normative data for the Danish general population.
CONCLUSIONS: The BDS checklist total sum score can be used as a measure of symptom burden and FSD illness severity across settings. These findings establish the usefulness of the BDS checklist in clinics and in research, both as a diagnostic screening tool and as an instrument to assess illness severity.

Keywords

References

  1. Med Care. 1996 Mar;34(3):220-33 [PMID: 8628042]
  2. J Psychosom Res. 2013 Jan;74(1):31-40 [PMID: 23272986]
  3. J Psychosom Res. 2017 Dec;103:42-62 [PMID: 29167047]
  4. Patient Educ Couns. 2019 Sep;102(9):1662-1671 [PMID: 31023608]
  5. Chronic Dis Transl Med. 2019 Jun 24;5(2):129-138 [PMID: 31367702]
  6. JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Mar;174(3):399-407 [PMID: 24276929]
  7. J Psychosom Res. 2013 Jun;74(6):459-68 [PMID: 23731742]
  8. Psychosom Med. 2002 Mar-Apr;64(2):258-66 [PMID: 11914441]
  9. Psychother Psychosom. 2018;87(1):12-31 [PMID: 29306954]
  10. J Psychosom Res. 2015 Apr;78(4):352-5 [PMID: 25498316]
  11. J Affect Disord. 2020 Jan 15;261:21-29 [PMID: 31600584]
  12. J Psychosom Res. 2015 Jun;78(6):536-45 [PMID: 25818346]
  13. Sci Rep. 2020 Jan 31;10(1):1595 [PMID: 32005895]
  14. PLoS One. 2016 Mar 01;11(3):e0150664 [PMID: 26930630]
  15. Psychol Assess. 2015 Jun;27(2):552-66 [PMID: 25642930]
  16. Ann Intern Med. 2014 Oct 21;161(8):579-86 [PMID: 25329205]
  17. Psychol Med. 2011 Jun;41(6):1133-42 [PMID: 20843407]
  18. BMC Psychiatry. 2006 Aug 22;6:34 [PMID: 16925825]
  19. Scand J Psychol. 2013 Apr;54(2):112-7 [PMID: 23294182]
  20. J Psychosom Res. 2010 May;68(5):427-37 [PMID: 20403501]
  21. J Psychosom Res. 2017 Oct;101:44-50 [PMID: 28867423]
  22. Lancet Psychiatry. 2017 May;4(5):378-388 [PMID: 28408193]
  23. Psychosom Med. 2017 Nov/Dec;79(9):1008-1015 [PMID: 28691994]
  24. J Psychosom Res. 2020 May;132:109991 [PMID: 32160574]
  25. Int J Behav Med. 2013 Jun;20(2):172-83 [PMID: 22618306]
  26. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012 Jan;65(1):30-41 [PMID: 21764558]
  27. Br J Psychiatry. 2012 Jun;200(6):499-507 [PMID: 22539780]
  28. Sci Rep. 2020 Feb 24;10(1):3273 [PMID: 32094442]
  29. BMC Public Health. 2012 Dec 18;12:1085 [PMID: 23249448]
  30. Psychosom Med. 2018 Jun;80(5):422-431 [PMID: 29621046]
  31. Psychosom Med. 2007 Jan;69(1):30-9 [PMID: 17244846]
  32. J Psychosom Res. 2020 Nov;138:110245 [PMID: 32950761]
  33. Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Feb 23;9:127-139 [PMID: 28275316]
  34. BMC Med. 2020 Mar 3;18(1):34 [PMID: 32122350]
  35. Behav Sci. 1974 Jan;19(1):1-15 [PMID: 4808738]
  36. Psychol Med. 2018 Dec;48(16):2804 [PMID: 30203729]
  37. J Psychosom Res. 2018 May;108:102-117 [PMID: 29602319]
  38. J Psychosom Res. 2017 Apr;95:33-43 [PMID: 28314547]
  39. Br J Psychiatry. 2013 Nov;203(5):373-80 [PMID: 24072756]
  40. J Psychosom Res. 2012 Apr;72(4):311-7 [PMID: 22405227]
  41. J Psychosom Res. 2020 Jan;128:109868 [PMID: 31759195]

MeSH Term

Checklist
Cohort Studies
Cross-Sectional Studies
Denmark
Humans
Primary Health Care
Reproducibility of Results
Surveys and Questionnaires

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0BDSchecklistillnessscoregeneralmeasureddistresssymptomburdenseverityDanishpopulationcohortr=0FSDtotalsummeasurephysicalprimarycarespecialisedsettingdiagnosticscreeningtoolstudycanusedclinicaldataPhysicalhealthfunctioningitemsworrycohortsreflected58acrossresearchmedicineOBJECTIVE:bodilysyndromeprovenusefulcategorisationfunctionalsomaticdisordersaimsinvestigatewhether0-100DESIGN:Cross-sectionalSETTING:PARTICIPANTS:n=9656n=2480patientsmultiorgann=492OUTCOMEMEASURES:self-reportedsymptoms25-itemOverallself-perceivedoneitem36-itemShort-FormHealthSurveySF-36aggregatefourSF-36/SF-12scales'physicalfunctioning''bodilypain''vitality'EmotionalmentalsubscaleSCL-8versionHopkinsSymptomChecklist-90Illnesssix-itemWhiteleyIndexRESULTS:bifactormodelsestablisheddespitemultidimensionalityadequatelyacceptableconvergentvaliditymeasuresoverall25-022-0emotional47-06236-055Acceptabilitygoodlownumbermissingresponses<3%Internalconsistencyhighα≥0879meansvaried1303-4615providenormativeCONCLUSIONS:settingsfindingsestablishusefulnessclinicsinstrumentassessseverity:cross-sectionalepidemiologyseeinternalpsychiatrystatistics&methods

Similar Articles

Cited By