Explain delays in seeking care and misuse of health services
Apply Safer et al.’s three stages of delay and the Health Belief Model, then distinguish the historical Munchausen example from malingering without treating indicators as a diagnosis.
Section OPTION-HE-3.1.3 · 3.1.3 Misusing health services
Original StudyForA teaching mapped to Cambridge 9990 Health Psychology sections 3.1.1–3.1.3, 2028–2030 Version 1. Example studies illustrate a topic and are not official Cambridge materials or mark schemes. Do not use these lessons to diagnose or advise a real person.
Before you begin
- This lesson covers Cambridge Psychology 9990 Health Psychology section 3.1.3. Use the historical Munchausen terminology only to understand the syllabus example; this is not a current diagnostic checklist or medical advice.
Work on paper. Try each question before revealing help, and explain why your method works.
Quick readiness check
Which order correctly describes Safer et al.’s three delay stages?
What you will learn
- Reasons for delay in seeking treatment; Safer et al. (1979)
- Alternative explanations for delay using the Health Belief Model
- Munchausen syndrome versus malingering and the historical essential and supporting features discussed by Aleem and Ajarim (1995)
- Evaluate case-study, interview and generalisation limits using idiographic and nomothetic explanations
Delay can occur at different stages of seeking care
Safer, Tharps, Jackson and Leventhal (1979) divided reported time from first noticing a symptom to using a medical clinic into three stages. Appraisal delay is the time to interpret a symptom as a sign of illness. Illness delay is the time from deciding one is ill to deciding to seek professional care. Utilisation delay is the time from deciding to seek care until attending the clinic.
In their study, patients seeking treatment for the first time for a particular symptom at clinics in a major inner-city hospital reported the sequence retrospectively. Painful symptoms and not reading about the symptom were associated with shorter appraisal delay. Older symptoms and imagining severe possible consequences were associated with longer illness delay. Utilisation delay was shorter among people less concerned about treatment cost, those with painful symptoms and those confident the symptom could be cured.
These are associations in retrospective reports, not proof that one belief caused a delay. Recall may be imperfect and the clinic sample and symptoms may not represent everyone. A person can also face barriers such as cost, transport, language access, opening hours, caring responsibilities, work, appointment availability or prior experience. A delay should not automatically be blamed on an individual’s attitude.
The Health Belief Model offers one individual-level explanation
The Health Belief Model asks how perceived susceptibility (could this affect me?), perceived severity (how serious might it be?), perceived benefits (would the proposed action help?), perceived barriers (what makes action difficult?), cues to action (what prompts action?) and self-efficacy (can I carry it out?) may relate to health behaviour.
For example, a person who thinks a symptom is unlikely to be serious may wait, while someone who believes an appointment could help and can access it may act sooner. This is a way to organise possible beliefs, not a tool for diagnosing the cause of one person’s delay or predicting every action. Practical service access and social context also matter.
The model can be reductionist if it explains delay only through beliefs inside the individual. A more complete account can combine beliefs with situational constraints and personal history. Ask what a person understood and what options were accessible before proposing an explanation.
Factitious disorder and malingering are distinguished by the role of external incentives
Cambridge’s 2028–2030 syllabus uses the historical term Munchausen syndrome and asks learners to distinguish it from malingering. In current clinical terminology, severe or dramatic Munchausen presentations are discussed under factitious disorder imposed on self. Factitious behaviour involves identified deception or falsification/induction of illness without an obvious external reward; malingering refers to intentional symptom presentation motivated by an external incentive. The distinction concerns evidence and motivation, which can be difficult to establish.
Aleem and Ajarim (1995) described one adult patient referred for possible immunodeficiency and presented a historical table of ‘essential’ and ‘supporting’ Munchausen features. The table’s essential features were pathological lying, peregrination (moving between services) and recurrent feigned or simulated illness. Supporting features included repeated hospitalisations, unusual presentation, medical knowledge and evidence of self-induced physical signs. The paper is a single case report and review, not a representative sample.
That 1995 table reflects a historical framework, not a current diagnostic checklist. A listed supporting feature is not proof: repeated visits, complex symptoms, medical knowledge or inconsistent information may have many explanations. The 1995 article also included demographic or personal-history indicators that should not be used to stereotype or label people. Current assessment belongs to qualified clinicians and requires careful evidence; genuine illness can coexist with other concerns.
The case illustrates how a single case can show the complexity of assessment, but it cannot estimate prevalence, establish a typical patient, or prove that one feature caused the behaviour. Treat the person with dignity and do not use these descriptions to diagnose a friend, family member or learner.
Evaluate explanations without turning them into blame or diagnosis
An idiographic account examines an individual’s experience, interpretation and constraints in depth. A nomothetic account looks for patterns across groups. Safer et al.’s staged model and questionnaire study help compare reported patterns; a personal interview could reveal how a particular person interpreted a symptom or experienced access barriers. Each method answers a different question.
For delay, define when each stage begins and ends, distinguish an association from a cause, and consider practical barriers as well as beliefs. For suspected factitious disorder or malingering, absence of an obvious explanation is not evidence of deception. Do not equate uncertainty, repeated care-seeking or an unusual presentation with deliberate symptom fabrication.
If a symptom is severe, rapidly worsening or concerning, a psychological model should never be used as a reason to postpone professional assessment. This lesson explains research concepts; it is not medical advice or a diagnostic guide.
Sources for this lesson
- Cambridge International AS & A Level Psychology 9990 syllabus, 2028–2030
- Cambridge International AS & A Level Psychology 9990 Reference List, 2028–2030
- Safer et al. (1979), Determinants of Three Stages of Delay in Seeking Care at a Medical Clinic
- Aleem and Ajarim (1995), Munchausen Syndrome: Presenting as Immunodeficiency
- Merck Manual Professional, Factitious Disorder Imposed on Self
Pause and explain
Which feature best distinguishes malingering from factitious disorder imposed on self in the broad clinical distinction?
Worked example
A person waits several days after noticing a symptom, then says they thought it was probably minor and could not easily travel to a clinic. Apply Safer et al. and the Health Belief Model without blaming them.
Show the worked solution
- Locate the time before the decision to seek care within appraisal or illness delay, depending on when the person recognised illness.
- Use perceived susceptibility, severity and barriers to describe possible beliefs, while treating access to transport as a situational constraint.
- Explain that the account is a possible interpretation, not a causal diagnosis; ask what information or access options were available.
Answer If the person had not yet interpreted the symptom as illness, the interval fits appraisal delay; if they had decided they were ill but postponed deciding to seek care, it fits illness delay. The Health Belief Model can organise possible perceived risk and severity, but travel is also a practical barrier. One account cannot show which factor caused the delay, so ask about the person’s circumstances and avoid blame.
Try a topic test
Choose Easy, Normal or Difficult. Save your answers and open worked review after finishing.
Test this topic →From guided practice to a new situation
Write your answer and reasoning first. Use a hint only if you are stuck. The model solution is for self-checking; your written work is not automatically marked.
A participant reports first noticing a symptom, deciding it might mean illness, deciding to seek help, and then waiting for transport. Label the three time intervals.
Give me a hint
Use the decision points in order: symptom appraisal, decision to seek, actual attendance.
Compare my reasoning
- From first noticing to interpreting the symptom as illness is appraisal delay.
- From deciding one is ill to deciding to seek professional care is illness delay.
- From deciding to seek care until reaching and using a clinic is utilisation delay; transport can be a situational barrier.
The first interval is appraisal delay, the second is illness delay and the transport wait after deciding to seek help is utilisation delay. The labels describe stages; they do not assign blame or prove why the time passed.
Look for these in your work
- Three stages correctly ordered
- Decision boundaries identified
- Barrier described without blame
Use Safer et al. and the Health Belief Model to explain how a person might delay seeking help, then evaluate one limit of your explanation.
Give me a hint
Choose a belief construct and a practical or methodological alternative.
Compare my reasoning
- A person may perceive low susceptibility or severity, expect little benefit from a visit, or see barriers such as cost; a cue to action may prompt reassessment.
- Safer et al. associated different reports and circumstances with different delay stages, including symptom pain, perceived severity and cost concern.
- The data were retrospective and correlational, so they do not prove that a belief caused one individual’s delay; transport, access and other circumstances may also matter.
The Health Belief Model can organise how perceived risk, severity, benefits and barriers may relate to a decision, while cues to action and self-efficacy may affect whether someone acts. Safer et al. reported associations across three delay stages, not causal proof for one person. Retrospective reports, sample context and practical access constraints limit the explanation.
Look for these in your work
- Relevant HBM constructs applied
- Safer result qualified
- Alternative and limitation included
A classmate says repeated appointments prove that a person is malingering. Correct the claim and explain what evidence the 1995 case study can and cannot provide.
Give me a hint
Distinguish a behaviour from evidence of intent and external reward; identify the design of the cited source.
Compare my reasoning
- Repeated appointments alone do not prove deliberate symptom fabrication, the person’s motivation or an external incentive.
- The broad distinction is that factitious disorder involves deception without an obvious external reward, whereas malingering is motivated by an external incentive; both require careful professional assessment.
- Aleem and Ajarim presented a single historical case report and review, which can illustrate assessment complexity but cannot establish prevalence or typical features.
The claim is not justified. Repeated appointments can have many explanations and do not establish intent or an external reward. A single 1995 case report can illustrate one assessment and the authors’ historical criteria, but it cannot define all patients, estimate frequency or serve as a current diagnostic checklist. Only qualified clinicians should assess a real person, and genuine illness may coexist with other concerns.
Look for these in your work
- No diagnosis from one behaviour
- Current distinction stated cautiously
- Case-study generalisation limit explained
Common mistakes
- Collapsing appraisal, illness and utilisation delay into one undifferentiated interval
- Treating retrospective associations in Safer et al. as causal proof
- Using the Health Belief Model to blame a patient or ignore structural barriers
- Confusing factitious disorder with malingering or with genuine unexplained illness
- Treating historical supporting features as current diagnostic criteria or proof
- Diagnosing a real person from a lesson, case study or isolated behaviour
What can you explain now?
How do factitious disorder and malingering differ in the broad clinical distinction, and why can a behaviour alone not establish either?
Compare with the explanation
Factitious disorder involves deliberate falsification or induction without an obvious external reward; malingering is motivated by an external incentive. A behaviour or unusual presentation alone cannot establish deception, intent or motivation; diagnosis requires careful professional assessment.
The distinction depends on evidence and motivation, neither of which can safely be inferred from one symptom, repeated visit or personal characteristic.
After trying it yourself, choose your next review. This is your self-assessment.
Your review choice appears on Today. Sign in to sync it across devices.
Make it stick
Name Safer et al.’s three delay stages, identify two Health Belief Model constructs, and explain why one case or supporting feature cannot diagnose a person.
If you needed the solution, close it and solve the problem again from a blank page. A correct answer is stronger when you can explain the reason for each step.