Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33569982›Full record

ArticleScandinavian journal of primary health care2021

How to learn skilled communication in primary care MUS consultations: a focus group study.

Juul Houwen, Peter L B J Lucassen, Hugo W Stappers, Karel van Spaendonck, Aniek van Duijnhoven, Tim C Olde Hartman, Sandra van Dulmen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Patient and Clinician Perspectives on Communication in Primary Care Centres in Qatar-A Focus Group Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. How should a general practitioner say no to a patient?Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2023
    Article
  5. Observational
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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Juul HouwenDepartment of Primary and Community Care, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Peter L B J LucassenDepartment of Primary and Community Care, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Hugo W StappersDepartment of Primary and Community Care, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Karel van SpaendonckDepartment of Primary and Community Care, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Aniek van DuijnhovenDepartment of Primary and Community Care, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Tim C Olde HartmanDepartment of Primary and Community Care, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Sandra van DulmenDepartment of Primary and Community Care, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Radboud University Medical Center · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany general practitioners (GPs) experience communication problems in medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) consultations as they are insufficiently equipped with adequate communication skills or do not apply these in MUS consultations.

objectiveTo define the most important learnable communication elements during MUS consultations according to MUS patients, GPs, MUS experts and teachers and to explore how these elements should be taught to GPs and GP trainees.

methodsFive focus groups were conducted with homogeneous groups of MUS patients, GPs, MUS experts and teachers. MUS patients and GPs formulated a list of important communication elements. MUS experts identified from this list the most important communication elements. Teachers explored how these elements could be trained to GPs and GP trainees. Two researchers independently analysed the data applying the principles of constant comparative analysis.

resultsMUS patients and GPs identified a list of important communication elements. From this list, MUS experts selected five important communication elements: (1) thorough somatic and psychosocial exploration, (2) communication with empathy, (3) creating a shared understanding of the problem, (4) providing a tangible explanation and (5) taking control. Teachers described three teaching methods for these communication elements: (1) awareness and reflection of GPs about their feelings towards MUS patients, (2) assessment of GPs' individual needs and (3) training and supervision in daily practice.

conclusionTeachers consider a focus on personal attitudes and needs, which should be guided by opportunities to practice and receive supervision, as the best method to teach GPs about communication in MUS consultations.KEY POINTSMany GPs experience difficulties in communication with patients with MUS.There is a need to equip GPs with communication skills to manage MUS consultations more adequately.Role-playing with simulation patients, reflection on video-consultations and joint consultations with the supervisor may increase the GPs' awareness of their attitude towards MUS patients and may help GPs to identify their individual learning-points.

Indexed as

General PractitionersPhysician-Patient RelationsCommunicationFocus GroupsHumansPrimary Health CareReferral and Consultationcommunicationconsultationeducationfocus groupgeneral practiceinterventionMedically unexplained symptoms

Identifiers

PMID33569982
PMCPMC7971340
OpenAlexW3127983508

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.