ArticlePEC innovation2026
Thwarted credibility work and double binds in medically unexplained pain in Japan: a qualitative study.
Article in PEC innovation, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study examined how people living in Japan with medically unexplained pain (MUEP) perform credibility work across clinics and everyday life, where and why credibility work falters, and the interactional double binds organizing these failures. Methods: We qualitatively analyzed first-person illness narratives from 16 adults with MUEP in the DIPEx-Japan Chronic Pain Archive, including cases of fibromyalgia, complex regional pain syndrome, chronic pain disorder, and undiagnosed persistent pain. An inductive reflexive thematic analysis was conducted using credibility as a guiding sensitizing concept. Results: Credibility work appeared cyclical and attritional rather than a direct route to belief. Information-seeking and efforts to translate invisible pain met test-centric norms and role expectations. During treatment negotiations, scarce options and firm professional boundaries narrowed shared decisions, leading patients to titrate what to say and when. Defensive practices (appearance normalization and economizing talk) thinned the information reaching clinicians, ending in expectation deflation and withdrawal. Recurring double binds organized this drift as follows: search suppression versus delegation, clinical translation versus test supremacism, preference expression versus resource constraints, and appearance normalization versus preventive silencing. Conclusion: In Japanese MUEP care, diagnostic uncertainty and power imbalance shift credibility work from trust-building to damage limitation. Clear communication, recognition of non-test evidence, and concrete 'next-step' planning can help sustain credibility. Innovation: We extend credibility work by identifying four MUEP-specific double binds and showing how scarcity and hierarchy invert credibility.
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.