The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Cognitive and affective reassurance and patient outcomes in primary care: A systematic review
Abstract
In the context of uncertainty about aetiology and prognosis, good clinical practice commonly recommends both affective (creating rapport, showing empathy) and cognitive reassurance (providing explanations and education) to increase self-management in groups with nonspecific pain conditions. The specific impact of each of these components in reference to patients' outcomes has not been studied. This review aimed to systematically evaluate the evidence from prospective cohorts in primary care that measured patient-practitioner interactions with reference to patient outcomes. We carried out a systematic literature search and appraisal of study methodology. We extracted measures of affective and cognitive reassurance in consultations and their associations with consultation exit and follow-up measures of patients' outcomes. We identified 16 studies from 16,059 abstracts. Eight studies were judged to be high in methodological quality. Pooling could not be achieved as a result of heterogeneity of samples and measures. Affective reassurance showed inconsistent findings with consultation exit outcomes. In 3 high-methodology studies, an association was found between affective reassurance and higher symptom burden and less improvement at follow-up. Cognitive reassurance was associated with higher satisfaction and enablement and reduced concerns directly after the consultations in 8 studies; with improvement in symptoms at follow-up in 7 studies; and with reduced health care utilization in 3 studies. Despite limitations, there is support for the notion that cognitive reassurance is more beneficial than affective reassurance. We present a tentative model based on these findings and propose priorities for future research.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The biopsychosocial approach to chronic pain: Scientific advances and future directions.
Gatchel, R. J., Peng, Y. B., Peters, M. L., Fuchs, P. N., & Turk, D. C. (2007) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.133.4.581 · Cited by 3,392
Chapter 4 European guidelines for the management of chronic nonspecific low back pain
Airaksinen, O., Brox, J. I., Cedraschi, C., Hildebrandt, J., Klaber-Moffett, J., Kovacs, F., Mannion, A. F., Reis, S., Staal, J. B., Ursin, H., et al. (2006) · European Spine Journal · doi:10.1007/s00586-006-1072-1 · Cited by 2,594
Interventions for providers to promote a patient-centred approach in clinical consultations
Dwamena, F., Holmes-Rovner, M., Gaulden, C. M., Jorgenson, S., Sadigh, G., Sikorskii, A., Lewin, S., Smith, R. C., Coffey, J., Olomu, A., et al. (2012) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd003267.pub2 · Cited by 1,227
Joosten, E. A. G., DeFuentes-Merillas, L., de Weert, G. H., Sensky, T., van der Staak, C. P. F., & de Jong, C. A. J. (2008) · Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics · doi:10.1159/000126073 · Cited by 1,135
Meta-analysis of correlates of provider behavior in medical encounters
Hall, J. A., Roter, D. L., & Katz, N. R. (1988) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-198807000-00002 · Cited by 1,069 · cited 1×
“Practitioner–patient collaboration has been found to predicts treatment adherence, but the effect size is small [2,23,24]; meeting patient expectations has a modest effect on satisfaction, but the evidence is inconclusive for other outcomes [54].”
Effectiveness of empathy in general practice: a systematic review
Derksen, F., Bensing, J., & Lagro-Janssen, A. (2013) · British Journal of General Practice · doi:10.3399/bjgp13x660814 · Cited by 1,034
Hall, A. M., Ferreira, P. H., Maher, C. G., Latimer, J., & Ferreira, M. L. (2010) · Physical Therapy · doi:10.2522/ptj.20090245 · Cited by 641
Ring, A., Dowrick, C. F., Humphris, G. M., Davies, J., & Salmon, P. (2005) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.03.014 · Cited by 281
Mead, N., Bower, P., & Hann, M. (2002) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(01)00171-x · Cited by 275
The effect of unmet expectations among adults presenting with physical symptoms
Jackson, J. L., & Kroenke, K. (2001) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-134-9_part_2-200105011-00013 · Cited by 218
Cited by
Enhance placebo, avoid nocebo: How contextual factors affect physiotherapy outcomes
Testa, M., & Rossettini, G. (2016) · Manual Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.math.2016.04.006 · Cited by 256
Psychological factors and treatment opportunities in low back pain
Pincus, T., & McCracken, L. M. (2013) · Best Practice & Research Clinical Rheumatology · doi:10.1016/j.berh.2013.09.010 · Cited by 144
Self-citationProbyn, K., Bowers, H., Mistry, D., Caldwell, F., Underwood, M., Patel, S., Sandhu, H. K., Matharu, M., & Pincus, T. (2017) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016670 · Cited by 149
Self-citationRoenneberg, C., Sattel, H., Schaefert, R., Henningsen, P., & Hausteiner-Wiehle, C. (2019) · Deutsches Ärzteblatt international · doi:10.3238/arztebl.2019.0553 · Cited by 111
Psychological Treatment Strategy for Chronic Low Back Pain
Ikemoto, T., Miki, K., Matsubara, T., & Wakao, N. (2019) · Spine Surgery and Related Research · doi:10.22603/ssrr.2018-0050 · Cited by 67
Metadata
- Authors
- Pincus, T., Holt, N., Vogel, S., Underwood, M., Savage, R., Walsh, D. A., & Taylor, S. J. C.
- Venue
- Pain
- Published
- 2013-11
- Volume
- 154
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 2407-2416
- ISSN
- 0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2084492014
- Cited by
- 222
- References
- 10
- FWCI
- 2.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Cognitive and affective reassurance and patient outcomes in primary care: A systematic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.pain.2013.07.019
- The paper
- Pincus, T., Holt, N., Vogel, S., Underwood, M., Savage, R., Walsh, D. A., & Taylor, S. J. C. (2013). Cognitive and affective reassurance and patient outcomes in primary care: A systematic review. Pain. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2013.07.019
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
