Social position and functional somatic disorders: The DanFunD study, 2021, Signe et al

Abstract

Background and aim:
It is generally accepted that functional somatic disorders (FSDs) are a product of biological, psychological, and social factors. Social position might be part of this complex, but the literature on this issue is currently heterogeneous and inconsistent. The aim of the present study was – in a population-based cohort – to test the hypothesis that lower social position would be associated with higher a risk of FSD.

Method:
The association between social position and FSD was examined in a cross-sectional study with various measures of social position (education as measured by vocational training; employment; cohabitation; subjective social status) and delimitations of FSD (irritable bowel syndrome, chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, bodily distress syndrome, and symptom profiles). The associations were analyzed using logistic regressions to calculate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Each social measure was analyzed independently and was adjusted for age and sex.

Results:
Lower levels of vocational training, being unemployed, and living alone were associated with higher risk of FSD, regardless of the FSD delimitation. There was also a significant negative association between subjective evaluated social status and FSD. The associations remained after multiple adjustments, and seemed to be strongest for the more severe FSD-types.

Conclusions:
Lower social position is associated with higher risk of FSD, especially the more severe FSD delimitations, which might constitute an especially vulnerable group. However, the mechanisms behind the relations remain unknown.

Paywall, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/14034948211056752

 

The authors state ‘It is generally accepted …‘ when in fact what they mean is ‘we and our narrow peer group believe…’.

Yet again we see an inability to distinguish between correlation and causality, even if you accept their evidence base is in any way reliable.

 

And obviously large puddles on the ground lead to large clouds. And famine is what causes crops to die in the fields. Are these people aware that being sick as a young adult leads to exactly this? Again they are looking at the very obvious and normal outcomes of a situation and simply can't process the outcomes because they arbitrarily reject the context and invent their own. They want to find correlations to carve out their preferred direction of causality but can't imagine the obvious cause-and-effect. When they hear hoofs, they think howling monkeys, I guess.

I also do love the "people are saying". Lots of people are saying lots of things. That this passes editorial review is absurd. It is also generally accepted that medical professionals espousing psychosomatic ideology are perceived as incompetent and useless. This one is actually true. You can even find it as such in thousands of academic articles, all of which happen to conclude that reality is wrong because they themselves can't possibly be wrong. Amazing.

 

Yeah but you know - Yuppy Flu init.

 

Did they look at whether people were unemployed now, or before they got sick?

Sorry, I can't see it behind the paywall.