Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41536465›Full record

ArticleQualitative research in medicine & healthcare2025

Spheres of uncertainty: A phenomenological inquiry into healthcare practice surrounding the care for people with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.

Eva C van Reenen, Alistair R Niemeijer, Leo H Visser, Janet W K de Beukelaar, Bob W van Oosten, Stephan T F M Frequin, Erwin L J Hoogervorst, Inge A M van Nistelrooij

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Qualitative research in medicine & healthcare, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

8 authors.

Eva C van ReenenCare Ethics, University of Humanistic Studies, Kromme Nieuwegracht 29, 3512 HD Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Alistair R NiemeijerCare Ethics, University of Humanistic Studies, Kromme Nieuwegracht 29, 3512 HD Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Leo H VisserCare Ethics, University of Humanistic Studies, Kromme Nieuwegracht 29, 3512 HD Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Janet W K de BeukelaarNeurology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Albert Schweitzerplaats 25, 3318 AT Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Bob W van OostenNeurology, Amsterdam UMC - VU Medical Centre, De Boelelaan 1117 / 1118, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Stephan T F M FrequinNeurology, St. Antonius Hospital, Soestwetering 1, 3543 AZ Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Erwin L J HoogervorstNeurology, St. Antonius Hospital, Soestwetering 1, 3543 AZ Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Inge A M van NistelrooijCare Ethics, University of Humanistic Studies, Kromme Nieuwegracht 29, 3512 HD Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Uncertainty is pervasive in healthcare and permeates every clinical encounter between patients and medical professionals. Patients with specifically uncertain diagnoses or treatments such as multiple sclerosis (MS) are more likely to respond negatively to a lack of clear information. Research into MS has a narrow focus on scientific issues of uncertainty, such as causal explanations or treatment recommendations. Inquiry into the interplay between various dimensions, contexts, and subjects of uncertainty in a relational practice and institutional context, is scarce. The objective of this research is to investigate the phenomenon of uncertainty as it appears in hospital practice surrounding outpatient care for people with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). Methods: This study followed a phenomenological research design, inspired by the work of Les Todres on embodied enquiry. Fifteen people with a recent (less than one year) diagnosis of RRMS were included and prospectively shadowed during hospital appointments over the course of two years. Results: The phenomenon of uncertainty is captured as occurring in four different spheres: 1) precarious spaces, 2) elusive technology, 3) hidden expectations, and 4) unsure communication. The image of spheres points to their varied and sometimes opposing (sur)faces when rotated around their axis. The spheres can increase or decrease a sense of doubt, confusion, restlessness, or anxiety in both patients and healthcare providers. Conclusion: The four different spheres never seem to fully surface, making uncertainty a masked phenomenon. The findings imply a need for an "unveiling" of uncertainty through 1) examining and debating the course of action at the outpatient clinic, 2) reconsidering the promises and perils of technology, and 3) through metacommunication with patients.

Indexed as

Embodied enquiryMultiple sclerosisPhenomenologyQualitative researchShadowingUncertainty

Identifiers

PMID41536465
PMCPMC12796103

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.