ArticleBMJ open2025
Patient experiences in multidisciplinary care for persistent somatic symptoms across four European countries: a cross-sectional comparison.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study is to explore patients with persistent somatic symptoms and functional disorders' (PSS/FD) experiences of and preferences for multidisciplinary care across Europe. A further aim is to compare the experiences of and preferences for multidisciplinary care of patients to those of healthcare professionals (HCPs) in the Netherlands.
designCross-sectional online survey.
settingPatients with PSS/FD from across Europe (Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Poland) and HCPs working in the care for PSS/FD across all levels of care in the Netherlands. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome measures for both patients and HCPs related to experiences of multidisciplinary care, communication between professionals and patients, as well as the main point of contact for patients.
results600 patients responded (Germany: n=198; Italy: n=174; Netherlands: n=137; Poland; n=91), and 152 HCPs responded from the Netherlands. Compared with the other countries, patients from the Netherlands generally received less multidisciplinary care, from fewer disciplines. Regarding most variables related to interprofessional communication, patients in Italy rated their experience significantly better than in most other countries. Generally, patients preferred either their general practitioner (GP) or a medical specialist as their main point of contact, and not mental health professionals. In contrast, HCPs preferred mental health professionals as the main point of patient contact, followed by GPs. In all variables, patients in the Netherlands rated interprofessional communication significantly lower than HCPs in the Netherlands did.
conclusionsPatients have different experiences of interdisciplinary communication, also reporting lower-quality communication than HCPs, though differences are seen between countries. Future studies should look at the reasons for this and how this can lead to improved care for PSS/FD.
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.