Jason L A, Taylor R, Wagner L, Holden J, Ferrari J R, Plioplys A V, Plioplys S, Lipkin D, Papernik M
Department of Psychology, DePaul University, Chicago, Illinois 60614, USA.
Am J Community Psychol. 1995 Aug;23(4):557-68. doi: 10.1007/BF02506968.
Most of the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) epidemiological studies have relied on physicians who refer patients having at least six months of chronic fatigue and other symptoms. However, there are a number of potential problems when using this method to derive prevalence statistics. For example, some individuals with CFS might not have the economic resources to access medical care. Other individuals with CFS might be reluctant to use medical personnel, particularly if they have encountered physicians skeptical of the authenticity of their illness. In addition, physicians that are skeptical of the existence of CFS might not identify cases. In the present pilot study, a random community sample (N = 1,031) was interviewed by telephone in order to identify and comprehensively evaluate individuals with symptoms of CFS and those who self-report having CFS. Different definitions of CFS were employed, and higher rates (0.2%) of CFS were found than in previous studies. Methodological benefits in using more rigorous epidemiological methods when estimating CFS prevalence rates are discussed.
大多数慢性疲劳综合征(CFS)流行病学研究都依赖于那些转诊至少有六个月慢性疲劳及其他症状患者的医生。然而,使用这种方法得出患病率统计数据时存在一些潜在问题。例如,一些患有CFS的个体可能没有经济资源去获得医疗护理。其他患有CFS的个体可能不愿就医,特别是如果他们遇到过怀疑其疾病真实性的医生。此外,怀疑CFS存在的医生可能无法识别病例。在本试点研究中,通过电话对一个随机社区样本(N = 1,031)进行了访谈,以识别并全面评估有CFS症状的个体以及自我报告患有CFS的个体。采用了不同的CFS定义,发现CFS的患病率(0.2%)高于以往研究。文中讨论了在估计CFS患病率时使用更严格流行病学方法的方法学优势。