Clinical outcomes of patients seen by psychiatrists in a multidisciplinary clinic for disorders of gut-brain interaction 2025 Basnayake et al

[Andy]

Abstract​

Background​

Patients with disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBIs) presenting to specialist care have a high prevalence of psychiatric morbidity. Psychiatrists can provide effective treatments for these disorders; however, care is rarely delivered in an integrated manner.

Aims​

This study aimed to characterise patients seen by psychiatrists in a multidisciplinary gastrointestinal (GI) clinic, describe the treatment provided and examine clinical outcomes.

Methods​

In a single-centre multidisciplinary gastroenterology clinic, clinical records were retrospectively evaluated for patients with DGBIs seen by a psychiatrist. Patient demographics, medical and psychiatric history, records of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and adult trauma were collected. GI and mental health symptom outcomes were assessed using a five-point scale.

Results​

Ninety-seven patients (median age, 35 years; 77% female) were seen by the psychiatrist (median treatment duration 2.5 months) between January 2017 and November 2021. Fifty-six per cent had irritable bowel syndrome and 18% had functional dyspepsia. Common psychiatric comorbidities were anxiety (51%) and depression (43%). Seventy-seven per cent had a history of ACEs and 26% had a history of sexual trauma. Seventy-five per cent had previously seen a psychiatrist or psychologist. DGBI-Clinic psychiatrists provided a range of treatments including psychoeducation (64%), insight-oriented psychotherapy (39%), medication changes (27%) and cognitive behavioural therapy (19%). A majority of patients had improvement (46%) or resolution (11%) in GI symptoms. Forty per cent experienced improvement in mental health symptoms. Improvement in GI and mental health symptoms were correlated (P = 0.002).

Conclusions​

A majority of patients with DGBI who were seen by psychiatrists within a multidisciplinary clinic demonstrated improvement in GI and mental health symptoms.

Open access

 

[rvallee]

You could easily have any alternative medicine clinic report even better results than this. So what? This just keeps getting more and more embarrassing.

 

[Utsikt]

Global improvement in GI and mental health symptoms were assessed using a five-point scale, based on clinicians’ documented impressions of patient progress. The primary outcome was defined as improvement (rating of four) or resolution (rating of five) of GI symptoms. Secondary outcomes were mental health symptom improvement and patient non-attendance.

Marking their own homework. How original..

Association between patient and treatment characteristics and outcomes​

Analysis revealed several associations between clinical variables and symptom improvement following the DGBI psychiatrist. Reflux symptoms at presentation were associated with symptom improvement at follow-up (odds ratio (OR) = 3.38; P = 0.04). Conversely, childhood exposure to domestic violence was associated with poorer symptom outcomes (OR = 0.28; P = 0.046) (Tables 3, S2a–S2c). On adjustment for multiple comparisons, these findings were not significant.

They found nothing.

This descriptive cohort study showed that patients with DGBI who consulted with psychiatrists within a specialised multidisciplinary gastroenterology clinic experienced improvements in both GI and mental health symptoms.

And lied in the conclusion. The patients did not experience improvements, the authors had the impression that they did.

 

[Sean]

At what point does this level of dishonesty become fraud?

 

[Utsikt]

At what point does this level of dishonesty become fraud?

When it’s committed by people that are not protected by the broken system.

 

[rvallee]

It's basically showing how fraud is also a social construct, not even a legal one.

Yes, there is a legal concept of fraud, but it can always be overruled by political agendas and cultural memes. It's more about what's not permitted in a given culture, than what is not allowed in its written code of conduct. Fraud can be made legal as long as it has enough support, and fully permitted behavior can be made forbidden without anything being written down about it, or even if it's explicitly written as permitted. Terms and conditions always apply.

It's punishment that matters. We've seen physicians being punished for daring to help us, even if they did nothing wrong. And we've seen others, hell, entire institutions and systems, do things that are explicitly forbidden, but where enforcement is a matter of judgment, and in their judgment, it was all good.

Human societies still run on the old honor systems. People love to pretend that we're better, but we're clearly not. Rules, laws, even constitutions, they used to be pieces of parchment or paper, now not even that, just bits somewhere on computers. As long as the overall fiction holds, things don't fall apart. For most, anyway. For people in the nexus of all-the-wrong-things, falling apart is the only thing that's allowed.