A Dizzying Complaint: Investigating the Intended Meaning of Dizziness Among Patients and Providers

How Do Patients and Otolaryngologists Define Dizziness?

OBJECTIVE

To assess for differences in how patients and otolaryngologists define the term dizziness.

METHODS

Between June 2020 and December 2022, otolaryngology clinicians and consecutive patients at 5 academic otolaryngology institutions across the United States were asked to define the term "dizziness" by completing a semantics-based questionnaire containing 20 common descriptors of the term within 5 symptom domains (imbalance-related, lightheadedness-related, motion-related, vision-related, and pain-related). The primary outcome was differences between patient and clinician perceptions of dizzy-related symptoms. Secondary outcomes included differences among patient populations by geographic location.

RESULTS

Responses were obtained from 271 patients and 31 otolaryngologists. Patients and otolaryngologists selected 7.7 ± 3.5 and 7.1 ± 4.3 symptoms, respectively. Most patients (266, 98.2%) selected from more than 1 domain and 17 (6.3%) patients identified symptoms from all 5 domains. Patients and clinicians were equally likely to define dizziness using terms from the imbalance (difference, -2.3%; 95% CI, -13.2%, 8.6%), lightheadedness (-14.1%; -29.2%, 1.0%), and motion-related (9.4; -0.3, 19.1) domains. Patients were more likely to include terms from the vision-related (23.6%; 10.5, 36.8) and pain-related (18.2%; 10.3%, 26.1%) domains. There were minor variations in how patients defined dizziness based on geographic location.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients and otolaryngologists commonly described dizziness using symptoms related to imbalance, lightheadedness, and motion. Patients were more likely to use vision or pain-related terms. Understanding of these semantic differences may enable more effective patient-clinician communication.

Are you congested? A comparison of definitions between otolaryngologists and their patients

OBJECTIVE

To assess for differences of intended meaning in the description of congestion-related symptoms among otolaryngology patients and clinicians.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between June 2020 and October 2022, a questionnaire consisting of 16 common descriptors of congestion-related symptoms within four domains (obstructive-related, pressure-related, mucus-related, and other symptoms) was completed by patients and otolaryngologists at five tertiary otolaryngology practices. The primary outcome was to assess differences in patient and clinician perceptions of congestion-related symptoms. Differences based on geographic location was a secondary outcome.

RESULTS

A total of 349 patients and 40 otolaryngologists participated. Patients selected a median of 6.8 (standard deviation [SD] 3.0) terms compared with 4.0 (SD 1.6) terms for otolaryngologists (p < 0.001). Otolaryngologists were more likely to select obstruction-related symptoms (difference 6.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.8%, 8.9%). Patients were more likely to describe congestion using pressure-related (-43.7%; -58.9%, -28.5%), mucus-related (-43.5%; -59.3%, -27.8%), and other symptoms (-44.2; -51.3%, -37.1%) compared with otolaryngologists. There were no significant differences identified based on geographic location with regard to symptom domains on multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

There are differences between otolaryngologists and their patients in the interpretation of the symptoms of congestion. Clinicians tended to have a narrower interpretation of congestion that was limited to the obstruction-related symptom domain, while patients defined congestion more broadly. This has important counseling and communication implications for the clinician.

Layperson Perception of Reflux-Related Symptoms

Objective

To assess for differences of intended meaning in the description of reflux-related symptoms among otolaryngology patients and clinicians.

Study Design

Cross-sectional survey-based study.

Setting

Five tertiary, academic otolaryngology practices.

Methods

Between June 2020 and July 2022, a questionnaire consisting of 20 common descriptors of reflux-related symptoms within four domains (throat-, chest-, stomach-, and sensory-related symptoms) was completed by patients. Attending otolaryngologists at five academic medical centers then completed the same survey. The primary outcome was to assess differences in patient and clinician perceptions of reflux-related symptoms. Differences based on geographic location was a secondary outcome.

Results

A total of 324 patients and 27 otolaryngologists participated. Patients selected a median of six terms compared with 10.5 for otolaryngologists (p < .001). Otolaryngologists were more likely to select sensory symptoms (difference: 35.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 19.2%, 52.4%), throat-related symptoms (32.4%; 21.2, 43.6%), and chest-related symptoms (12.4%; 8.8, 15.9). Otolaryngologists and patients were equally likely to consider stomach symptoms as related to reflux (4.0%, -3.7%, 11.7%). No significant differences were identified based on geographic location.

Conclusion

There are differences between otolaryngologists and their patients in the interpretation of the symptoms of reflux. Patients tended to have a narrower interpretation of reflux with symptoms primarily limited to classic stomach-related symptoms, while clinicians tended to have a broader definition of reflux that included extra-esophageal manifestations of disease. This has important counseling implications for the clinician, as patients presenting with reflux symptoms may not comprehend the relationship of those symptoms to reflux disease.

Layperson Perception of Symptoms Caused by the Sinuses

OBJECTIVE

To assess the perceived symptoms caused by the sinuses as defined by otolaryngology patients and clinicians.

STUDY DESIGN

Multi-institutional cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Six academic outpatient otolaryngology practices.

METHODS

We performed a multi-institutional, cross-sectional study using a semantics-based questionnaire. Consecutive patients were enrolled at 6 academic otolaryngology centers from June 2020 to May 2021. The primary outcome examined patient and provider definitions for the symptoms caused by the sinuses from a list of 28 proposed terms covering 6 general categories. These data were also collected from otolaryngology faculty at the same institutions.

RESULTS

Responses were obtained from 451 patients (54% female, mean age 48.3 years) and 29 otolaryngologists (38% female, mean age 37.4 years). Patients selected a median of 12 terms, compared to 8.5 for otolaryngologists. Among patients, the most frequently selected symptom domains were mucus (419, 92.9%), airflow (412, 91.4%), and pain (389, 86.3%). Compared to clinicians, patients more frequently selected symptoms related to the ear (difference, 48.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 34.8%-59.3%), throat (difference, 35.7%, 95% CI, 22.0%-47.5%), systemic (difference, 34.4%, 95% CI, 21.2%-46.0%), mucus (difference, 20.5%, 95% CI, 10.2%-30.6%), and airflow domains (difference, 19.0%, 95% CI, 8.4%-29.3%). Multiple domains were selected by 98% of patients and 79% of providers.

CONCLUSION

Semantic differences exist between patients and clinicians regarding the symptoms caused by the sinus with patients having a broader range of perceived symptoms. These differences may provide clues to improve communication between otolaryngologists and their patients.

What do we mean when we have a "sinus infection?"

INTRODUCTION

Sinus infections are a common reason patients seek medical care. However, the intended meaning of the term sinus infection among patients and otolaryngologists is incompletely understood.

METHODS

In this multi-institutional cross-sectional study, a semantics-based questionnaire was provided to consecutive patients presenting to otolaryngology clinics at six academic centers from June 2020 until May 2021. The primary outcome was respondent definitions for sinus infection from a list of 28 proposed terms covering six general categories. Secondary outcome measures included differences between geographic regions.

RESULTS

Responses were obtained from 560 patients (54% female, mean age 48.9 years) and 29 otolaryngologists (42% female, mean age 37.4 years). Patients and otolaryngologists selected a median of 10 and 11 terms, respectively, to define a sinus infection. Among patients the most frequently selected symptom categories were mucus (500, 89.3%), pressure/pain (480, 85.7%), and airflow (468, 83.6%). Compared to patients, clinicians selected with greater frequency the symptom categories of pressure/pain (14.3% difference; 95% CI, 7.6% to 22.5%), mucus (10.7% difference; 95% CI, 4.7% to 18.3%) and airflow (13.0% difference; 95% CI, 4.8% to 21.7%). Multiple categories were selected by 96% of patients and 100% of providers.

CONCLUSION

The definition of sinus infection appears variable for both patients and otolaryngologists, though patients appear to apply a broader range of symptoms to the term sinus infection. There were no pronounced geographic differences in the description of a sinus infection in this US sample population. Patients commonly described sinus infection in the context of pain-related symptoms. Appreciation of these semantic differences may enable more effective patient-clinician communication.

The hermeneutics of symptoms

The clinical encounter begins with presentation of an illness experience; but throughout that encounter, something else is constructed from it – a symptom. The symptom is a particular interpretation of that experience, useful for certain purposes in particular contexts. The hermeneutics of medicine – the study of the interpretation of human experience in medical terms – has largely taken the process of symptom-construction to be transparent, focussing instead on how constellations of symptoms are interpreted as representative of particular conditions. This paper examines the hermeneutical activity of symptom-construction more closely. I propose a fourfold account of the clinical function of symptoms: as theoretical entities; as tools for communication; as guides to palliative intervention; and as candidates for medical explanation or intervention. I also highlight roles they might play in illness experience. I use this framework to discuss four potential failures of symptom-interpretation: failure of symptom-type and symptom-token recognition; loss of the complete picture of illness experience through overwhelming emphasis on its symptomatic interpretation; and intersubjective feedback effects of symptom description altering the ill person’s own perceptions of their phenomenal experience. I conclude with some suggestions of potential remedies for failures in the process of symptom-construction.

Prevalence and distribution of musculoskeletal pain in patients with dizziness—A systematic review

Background and purpose

Musculoskeletal disorders are among the leading causes of disability globally, but their role in patients with dizziness and imbalance is not well understood or explored. Such knowledge may be important as musculoskeletal pain and dizziness can mutually influence each other, leading to a complex condition requiring more comprehensive approaches to promote successful recovery. We conducted a systematic review to examine the extent and characteristic of reported musculoskeletal pain in patients with dizziness.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search in Medline, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus, Amed, Google Scholar, SveMed+, and Web of Science was conducted in March 2021. Inclusion criteria were studies examining patients with a vestibular diagnosis, patients with cervicogenic dizziness and patients included based on having dizziness as a symptom; and reported musculoskeletal pain. Data regarding age, sex, sample size, diagnosis and musculoskeletal pain was extracted. The Crowe Critical Appraisal Tool was used for assessing methodical quality of the included studies.

Results

Out of 1507 screened studies, 16 studies met the inclusion criteria. The total sample consisted of 1144 individuals with dizziness. The frequency of patients reporting pain ranged between 43% and 100% in the included studies. Pain intensity were scored between 5 and 7 on a 0–10 scale. Pain in the neck and shoulder girdle was most often reported, but musculoskeletal pain in other parts of the body was also evident.

Discussion

In the included studies, musculoskeletal pain was highly prevalent in patients with dizziness, with pain intensity that may have a moderate to severe interference with daily functioning. Pain in the neck and shoulder is well documented, but there are few studies addressing musculoskeletal pain in additional parts of the body. More research is needed to understand the relations between dizziness and musculoskeletal pain.