Cited by 112Psychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareMedicine, History, and Philosophy

Cluster randomised controlled trial of training practices in reattribution for medically unexplained symptoms

Open access
Morriss, Richard, Dowrick, Christopher, Salmon, Peter, Peters, Sarah, Dunn, Graham, Rogers, Anne, Lewis, Barry, Charles-Jones, Huw +4 more·2007·British Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract

Background: Reattribution is frequently taught to general practitioners (GPs) as a structured consultation that provides a psychological explanation for medically unexplained symptoms. Aims: To determine if practice-based training of GPs in reattribution changes doctor–patient communication, thereby improving outcomes in patients with medically unexplained symptoms of 3 months' duration. Method: Cluster randomised controlled trial in 16 practices, 74 GPs and 141 patients with medically unexplained symptoms of 6 hours of reattribution training v. treatment as usual. Results: With training, the proportion of consultations mostly consistent with reattribution increased (31 v. 2%, P=0.002). Training was associated with decreased quality of life (health thermometer difference −0.9, 95% CI −1.6 to −0.1; P=0.027) with no other effects on patient outcome or health contacts. Conclusions: Practice-based training in reattribution changed doctor–patient communication without improving outcome of patients with medically unexplained symptoms.

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 · 10.1192/bjp.bp.107.040683

Cites

30 of 30 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?

  • Only 10%-15% of the 14 common physical symptoms seen in half of GP consultations over 12 months were found to be caused by an organic illness, resulting in 85-90% being of unknown biological aetiology.

    “only 10% -15% of the 14 common, physical symptoms seen in half of GP consultations over 12 months were found to be caused by an organic illness (Morriss, Dowrick, Salmon, 2007), resulting in 85-90% being of unknown biological aetiology.”

    From Clinical outcomes from The BodyMind Approach™ in the treatment of patients with medically unexplained symptoms in primary health care in England: Practice-based evidence (2016) · cites this paper as Morriss et al., 2007

    The introduction says medically unexplained symptoms are common in primary care, but it gives none of the claimed figures. The Results and Possible methodological limitations sections describe this trial’s patients, not 14 symptoms across GP consultations over 12 months. Searches for the 10–15% organic-cause figure and the resulting 85–90% figure found no supporting passage in our copy; page numbers were unavailable. (LLM, conf=0.73)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Morriss, R., Dowrick, C., Salmon, P., Peters, S., Dunn, G., Rogers, A., Lewis, B., Charles-Jones, H., Hogg, J., Clifford, R., Rigby, C., & Gask, L.
Affiliations
  • University of Nottingham (GB)
  • University of Liverpool (GB)
  • University of Manchester (GB)
  • Health Education North West (GB)
Corresponding author
Morriss, Richard
Venue
British Journal of Psychiatry
Published
2007-12
Volume
191
Issue
6
Pages
536-542
ISSN
  • 0007-1250 (ISSN-L)
  • 1472-1465
OpenAlex
W2117435902
Cited by
112
References
30
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 14
FWCI
6.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The British Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Medical Research Council
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 › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Medicine, History, and Philosophy
Keywords
reattribution, medically unexplained symptoms, general practice training, physician-patient communication, psychological explanation, quality of life, primary care
MeSH terms
Workforce, Communication, Education, Medical, Continuing, Female, Humans, Male, Mental Health Services, Middle Aged, Physician-Patient Relations, Somatoform Disorders, Reproducibility of Results, Program Evaluation, Cluster Analysis, Problem-Based Learning

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