Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26381400›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2015

Training Medical Specialists to Communicate Better with Patients with Medically Unexplained Physical Symptoms (MUPS). A Randomized, Controlled Trial.

Anne Weiland, Annette H Blankenstein, Jan L C M Van Saase, Henk T Van der Molen, Mariël E Jacobs, Dineke C Abels, Nedim Köse, Sandra Van Dulmen, René M Vernhout, Lidia R Arends

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Functional Somatic Symptoms.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2019
    Pooled it
  6. Intervention Descriptions in Medical Education: What Can Be Improved? A Systematic Review and Checklist.Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges · 2019
    Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. The Fingerprints of Biomedical Science in Internal Medicine.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2022
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Anne WeilandDepartment of Internal Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Institute of Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Annette H BlankensteinDepartment of General Practice and Elderly Care Medicine, VU University Medical Centre Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Jan L C M Van SaaseDepartment of Internal Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Henk T Van der MolenInstitute of Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Mariël E JacobsDepartment of Internal Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Department of General Practice and Elderly Care Medicine, VU University Medical Centre Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Dineke C AbelsDepartment of Internal Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Faculty of Psychology, Open University, Heerlen, the Netherlands.
Nedim KöseDepartment of Internal Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Faculty of Psychology, Open University, Heerlen, the Netherlands.
Sandra Van DulmenDepartment of Primary and Community Care, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands; NIVEL (Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research), Utrecht, the Netherlands; Faculty of Health Science, Buskerud and Vestfold University College, Drammen, Norway.
René M VernhoutClinical Trial Center, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Lidia R ArendsInstitute of Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Biostatistics, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Institute of Pedagogical Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients with medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS) are prevalent 25-50% in general and specialist care. Medical specialists and residents often find patients without underlying pathology difficult to deal with, whereas patients sometimes don't feel understood. We developed an evidence-based communication training, aimed to improve specialists' interviewing, information-giving and planning skills in MUPS consultations, and tested its effectiveness.

methodsThe intervention group in this multi-center randomized controlled trial received a 14-hour training program to which experiential learning and feedback were essential. Using techniques from Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, they were stimulated to seek interrelating factors (symptoms, cognitions, emotions, behavior, and social environment) that reinforced a patient's symptoms. They were taught to explain MUPS understandably, reassure patients effectively and avoid unnecessary diagnostic testing. Before and after the intervention training, specialists videotaped a total of six consultations with different MUPS patients. These were evaluated to assess doctors' MUPS-focused communicating skills using an adapted version of the Four Habit Coding Scheme on five-point Likert scales. Participants evaluated the training by self-report on three-point Likert scales. Doctors in the control group received training after completion of the study.

results123 doctors (40% specialists, 60% residents) and 478 MUPS patients from 11 specialties were included; 98 doctors completed the study (80%) and 449 videotaped consultations were assessed. Trained doctors interviewed patients more effectively than untrained ones (p < 0.001), summarized information in a more patient-centered way (p = 0.001), and better explained MUPS and the role of perpetuating factors (p < 0.05). No effects on planning skills were found. On a 3-point scale the training was evaluated with 2.79.

conclusionMUPS-focused communication training increases the interviewing and information-giving skills of medical specialists. We recommend that the training is incorporated in postgraduate education for medical specialists and residents who frequently encounter patients with MUPS.

trial registrationDutch Trial Registration NTR2612.

Indexed as

CommunicationPhysician-Patient RelationsPhysiciansAdultEducation, Medical, ContinuingFemaleHumansInternship and ResidencyMaleMiddle AgedSocial SkillsSomatoform DisordersSpecialization

Identifiers

PMID26381400
PMCPMC4575077

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.