SynthesisBMJ open2026
Challenging history taking encounters: a systematic review, meta-analysis and phenomenological framework.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAll physicians will experience challenging history taking encounters, where communication is impaired and negatively impacts the diagnostic process. The aims of this systematic review were to (1) undertake a meta-analysis of the frequency of challenging encounters; (2) collate adverse outcomes of challenging encounters; (3) identify underlying causes of challenging encounters; (4) identify strategies to deal with different challenges; and (5) align these strategies with our published phenomenological framework of history taking challenges.
designThis was a systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence data adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses and the Meta-analyses of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines. DATA SOURCES: A literature search in MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases was performed on 12 July 2020, and updated on 4 August 2025, focusing on challenging history taking encounters in any clinical setting. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Articles reporting on the frequency, adverse outcomes, causative factors or strategies used to address challenges in the history taking process in any clinical area of medicine. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Factors associated with challenging history encounters (causative or consequential) were categorised using inductive coding and referenced to a phenomenological framework. Meta-analysis was used to estimate the prevalence of history taking encounters using a restricted maximum likelihood model with
results73 articles were included in the analysis. The overall prevalence of challenging history taking encounters was 19.5% (95% CI 14.2% to 24.7%). Adverse outcomes of patient dissatisfaction (level 1 evidence) and diagnostic uncertainty (level 3 evidence) were identified. Factors associated with (n=22) and strategies to mitigate challenging encounters (n=13) were categorised. Correlation of factors and strategies with a phenomenological approach created a framework to assist novice history takers in approaching such circumstances.
conclusionsChallenging history taking encounters are common. Little is known of the relative importance of factors associated with challenging history taking encounters or the impact of suggested strategies. Many of the suggested strategies to facilitate meaningful communication in these situations involve a departure from standard history taking. More research is required to better define the nature of challenges encountered in history taking with a view to develop better educational models for trainee physicians.
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.