Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35655143›Full record

ArticleBMC primary care2022

Knowing the entire story - a focus group study on patient experiences with chronic Lyme-associated symptoms (chronic Lyme disease).

M E Baarsma, S A Claassen, H E van der Horst, J W Hovius, J M Sanders

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC primary care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Evaluation and 1-year follow-up of patients presenting at a Lyme borreliosis expertise centre: a prospective cohort study with validated questionnaires.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

M E BaarsmaAmsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Center for Experimental and Molecular Medicine, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. lyme@amsterdamumc.nl.
S A ClaassenDepartment of Language & Communication, Radboud University, Centre for Language Studies, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
H E van der HorstAmsterdam UMC, location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of General Practice/Family Medicine, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
J W HoviusAmsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Center for Experimental and Molecular Medicine, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
J M SandersDepartment of Language & Communication, Radboud University, Centre for Language Studies, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Radboud University Nijmegen · NLAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NLUniversity of Amsterdam · NLVrije Universiteit Amsterdam · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealthcare providers frequently struggle to provide effective care to patients with chronic Lyme-associated symptoms (chronic Lyme disease, CLD), potentially causing these patients to feel misunderstood or neglected by the healthcare system. This study is the first to use a combined medical and communication science approach, and aims to assess patients' experiences with CLD & CLD-related care, identify themes and repertories in these patients' narrations, and provide potential ways to improve communication with them.

methodsInformed by the principles of 'clean language', we conducted focus groups with self-identified CLD patients (N = 15). We asked participants about their experiences with CLD and CLD-related healthcare. We performed thematic analyses using a bottom-up approach based in discourse analysis. We also sought to identify specific types of verbalizations (repertoires) across themes.

resultsParticipants thematised a heterogeneous set of CLD-associated symptoms, which they frequently labelled as 'invisible' to others. Their illness significantly affected their daily lives, impacting their work, social activities, relationships with loved ones, hobbies and other means of participating in society. Negative experiences with healthcare providers were near-universal, also in patients with short-lived CLD-associated symptoms. Verbalizations were notable for frequent use of communicative modes that implicitly create common ground between participants and that give a certain validity to personal experiences (impersonal 'you' and other forms of presupposition).

conclusionCentral themes found in CLD patients' communication are 1. the experience of significant symptoms, 2. for which adequate relief is only rarely found from conventional medical practitioners, and 3. that are largely invisible to the outside world. Verbalizing these themes, patients use various repertoires for their shared experiences, such as a feeling of abandonment or not being heard by the medical system, feelings of loss with respect to their previous health, and the idea that they might have been better off had they been diagnosed sooner. Working with these repertoires will enable healthcare providers to establish a shared perspective with their CLD patients, thus engaging in more fruitful doctor-patient communication. We hypothesize that these findings are not unique to CLD, but may also be applicable to other conditions with an uncertain aetiology, such as Long COVID.

Indexed as

COVID-19Post-Lyme Disease SyndromeFocus GroupsHumansPatient Outcome AssessmentPost-Acute COVID-19 SyndromeChronic Lyme diseaseFocus groupHealth communicationLyme diseaseNarrative analysisPatient perspective

Identifiers

PMID35655143
PMCPMC9160505
OpenAlexW4281644097

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.