Table 1 Association between functional somatic disorders and neuroticism.

From: Neuroticism and adverse life events are important determinants in functional somatic disorders: the DanFunD study

 

Questionnaire-based

Interview-based

OR (95% CI)

OR (95% CI)

Overall functional somatic disorder (Q n cases = 1220; I n cases = 394)

1.08 (1.07–1.10)

1.08 (1.06–1.10)

Single-organ type (Q n cases = 1141; I n cases = 311)

1.08 (1.07–1.09)

1.07 (1.05–1.09)

Cardiopulmonary (Q n cases = 71; I n cases = 46)

1.14 (1.10–1.19)1

1.12 (1.07–1.16)2

Gastrointestinal (Q n cases = 279; I n cases = 158)

1.10 (1.08–1.12)

1.09 (1.06–1.11)

Musculoskeletal (Q n cases = 733; I n cases = 102)

1.06 (1.05–1.07)

1.04 (1.01–1.07)2

General symptoms/fatigue (Q n cases = 265; I n cases = 109)

1.15 (1.13–1.18)

1.11 (1.08–1.14)2

Multi-organ type (Q n cases = 79; I n cases = 83)

1.20 (1.16–1.23)3

1.11 (1.07–1.15)3

Irritable bowel (n cases = 257)

1.10 (1.08–1.12)

–

Irritable bowel, pure type (n cases = 144)

1.06 (1.03–1.09)

–

Chronic widespread pain (n cases = 325)

1.08 (1.06–1.10)

–

Chronic widespread pain, pure type (n cases = 176)

1.04 (1.01–1.06)

–

Chronic fatigue (n cases = 658)

1.12 (1.11–1.14)

–

Chronic fatigue, pure type (n cases = 464)

1.11 (1.10–1.13)

–

  1. Odds ratio of having functional somatic disorder comparing two individuals who differ one point on neuroticism.
  2. Adjusted for sex, age, social status, accumulated number of adverse life events, and self-efficacy.
  3. In all analyses, p < 0.05.
  4. Q questionnaires, I interview.
  5. 1Only adjusted for sex, age, social status, and accumulated number of adverse life events.
  6. 2Only adjusted for sex, age, and social status.
  7. 3Only adjusted for sex and age.
  8. Significant values are in italics.
Back to article page