ArticleBMJ open2022
Experiences of general practitioners explaining central sensitisation to patients with persistent physical symptoms: a focus group study.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Acceptance of pain neuroscience education in chronic musculoskeletal pain conditions: qualitative systematic review.Pain reports · 2026Review
- US military veterans' perceived concordance with their providers regarding persistent physical symptoms prospectively predicts satisfaction with care and adherence to care plans.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2025Article
- The role of sensory attenuation in symptomatic and healthy individuals: a scoping review.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Review
- Explaining persistent physical symptoms to patients in general practice: can tests to measure central sensitisation add value? A mixed-methods study.BMC primary care · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivePatients with persistent physical symptoms (PPS) require an explanation that is acceptable and comprehensible to them. Central sensitisation (CS) is an explanatory model for PPS and chronic pain that has been broadly applied in the context of pain medicine, but, until recently, not by general practitioners (GPs). We explored how GPs used the CS model in their consultations with patients with PPS. DESIGN AND
settingA qualitative focus group study among GPs in the Netherlands.
methodsWe instructed 33 GPs on how to explain CS to patients with PPS. After 0.5-1.5 years of using the CS model, 26 GPs participated in focus groups and interviews to report and discuss their experiences with CS as an explanatory model. Audio recordings were transcribed and two researchers independently analysed the data. The text was coded, codes were organised into themes and discussed until consensus was reached.
resultsWe identified eleven themes and grouped these into four categories.The GPs regarded the CS model as evidence-based, credible and giving recognition to the patient. On the other hand, they found explaining the CS model difficult and time-consuming. They tailored the CS model to their patients' needs and used multiple consultations to explain the model. The GPs reported that the use of the CS model seemed to improve the understanding and acceptance of the symptoms by the patients and seemed to reduce their need for more diagnostic tests. Furthermore, patients seemed to become more motivated to accept appropriate therapy.
conclusionGPs reported that they were able to provide explanations with the CS model to their patients with PPS. They regarded the model as evidence-based, credible and giving recognition to the patient, but explaining it difficult and time-consuming.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.