Register for email alerts and news feeds:
This journal | BMJ Group
rss
Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry 2005;76:582-584; doi:10.1136/jnnp.2004.041335
Copyright © 2005 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery and Psychiatry 2005;76:582-584
© 2005 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd

SHORT REPORT

Diseases of the nervous system: patients’ aetiological beliefs

A Croquelois1,2, G Assal1, J-M Annoni1, F Staub1, A Gronchi1, L Bruggimann1, S Dieguez1 and J Bogousslavsky1

1 Neurology Department, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois (CHUV), Lausanne, Switzerland
2 Institute of Cellular Biology and Morphology, University of Lausanne, Rue du Bugnon 9, CH-1005 Lausanne, Switzerland

Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
Dr J Bogousslavsky
Neurology Department, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois (CHUV), Rue du Bugnon 46, 1011 Lausanne, Switzerland; julien.bogousslavsky{at}chuv.hospvd.ch

ABSTRACT

Background: Patients’ opinions about the aetiology of their disease and the implications for compliance have not been well documented at this time.

Objective: To investigate prospectively aetiological beliefs of a cohort of neurological inpatients.

Methods: Within two days of admission, patients orally answered a short questionnaire regarding their beliefs about the aetiology of their disease and the possible influence of psychological factors, stress, fatigue, excessive work or other activities, poor lifestyle, conflict with another person, a tragic event, chance, and destiny.

Results: Of the 342 patients who participated in the study, 49% spontaneously said that they had no idea of what could have caused their disease, 15% gave a congruent medical explanation, 11% mentioned stress and fatigue as a precipitating factor, and 6% evoked a non-congruent medical explanation. Thirty six per cent thought that psychological factors had triggered their disease; such factors being blamed by a higher proportion of young patients and patients with chronic central nervous system diseases. The triggering factors most often blamed were stress (48%, especially by patients with headache), fatigue (51%), chance (54%), and destiny (43%).

Conclusions: Patients’ aetiological beliefs only partially concur with medical opinion and this may influence compliance with treatment. This statement should be explored and confirmed by further studies—for example, in cerebrovascular risk factor follow up.

Abbreviations: CL, confidence limit; CNS, central nervous system; PNS, peripheral nervous system

Keywords: central nervous system diseases; aetiology; patient compliance; adaptation; psychological; doctor–patient relations


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

  • Croquelois, A, Bogousslavsky, J (2006). Risk awareness and knowledge of patients with stroke: results of a questionnaire survey 3 months after stroke. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 77: 726-728 [Abstract] [Full Text]  

This Article

Services
Citing Articles
Google Scholar
PubMed
Topic Collections
Bookmark with

Register for free content

The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.

BMJ Careers - Latest neurology and neurosurgery jobs

Neurology and neurosurgery jobs