Cited by 128Psychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcarePrimary Care and Health Outcomes

Explanation and relations. How do general practitioners deal with patients with persistent medically unexplained symptoms: a focus group study

Open access
olde Hartman, Tim C, Hassink-Franke, Lieke J, Lucassen, Peter L, van Spaendonck, Karel P, van Weel, Chris·2009·BMC Family Practice

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Persistent presentation of medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) is troublesome for general practitioners (GPs) and causes pressure on the doctor-patient relationship. As a consequence, GPs face the problem of establishing an ongoing, preferably effective relationship with these patients. This study aims at exploring GPs' perceptions about explaining MUS to patients and about how relationships with these patients evolve over time in daily practice. METHODS: A qualitative approach, interviewing a purposive sample of twenty-two Dutch GPs within five focus groups. Data were analyzed according to the principles of constant comparative analysis. RESULTS: GPs recognise the importance of an adequate explanation of the diagnosis of MUS but often feel incapable of being able to explain it clearly to their patients. GPs therefore indicate that they try to reassure patients in non-specific ways, for example by telling patients that there is no disease, by using metaphors and by normalizing the symptoms. When patients keep returning with MUS, GPs report the importance of maintaining the doctor-patient relationship. GPs describe three different models to do this; mutual alliance characterized by ritual care (e.g. regular physical examination, regular doctor visits) with approval of the patient and the doctor, ambivalent alliance characterized by ritual care without approval of the doctor and non-alliance characterized by cutting off all reasons for encounter in which symptoms are not of somatic origin. CONCLUSION: GPs feel difficulties in explaining the symptoms. GPs report that, when patients keep presenting with MUS, they focus on maintaining the doctor-patient relationship by using ritual care. In this care they meticulously balance between maintaining a good doctor-patient relationship and the prevention of unintended consequences of unnecessary interventions.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1471-2296-10-68

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Bass Ce Somatisation: Physical Symptoms and Psychological disorder 1990 Oxford: Blackwell
  2. Sturmberg JP The foundations of primary care Daring to be different 2007 Oxford - Seattle: Radcliffe Publishing Ltd

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
olde Hartman, T. C., Hassink-Franke, L. J., Lucassen, P. L., van Spaendonck, K. P., & van Weel, C.
Affiliations
Radboud University Medical Center (NL)
Venue
BMC Family Practice
Published
2009-09-24
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
68-68
ISSN
1471-2296 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1989998067
Cited by
127
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 7
FWCI
3.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Family Practice (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
ZonMw
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
Keywords
medically unexplained symptoms, persistent symptoms, general practitioners, physician-patient relationship, patient reassurance, alliance model, unnecessary interventions, patient return visits
MeSH terms
Adult, Attitude of Health Personnel, Communication, Family Practice, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Psychological, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Physician-Patient Relations, Physicians, Family, Referral and Consultation, Somatoform Disorders, Focus Groups

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