ArticleCommunications medicine2026
Patients' experience with medical communication about medically unexplained symptoms.
Article in Communications medicine, 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
backgroundHow physicians communicate explanations about Medically Unexplained Symptoms and how patients experience this communication remains insufficiently studied. We aimed to explore patients' experiences with medical communication about medically unexplained symptoms.
methodsWe conducted a national cross-sectional survey among adult patients recruited through the french ComPaRe e-cohort. Patients with chronic unexplained symptoms completed a questionnaire assessing symptoms characteristics, diagnoses received and experiences of medical communication. Open-ended narratives were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. Quantitative data were weighted to represent the national population.
resultsHere we show that the primary determinant of patient experience is not the diagnostic label itself, but rather the way physicians communicate and recognize patient suffering. Among 2,673 respondents with persistent symptoms, 1,868 report experiencing unexplained conditions. Three main types of explanations are identified: explicit diagnoses (80.5%), explanations denying the disease ("It's in your head") (65.8%), or an acknowledgment of physician's uncertainty ("I don't know"). Explanations denying the disease are poorly received, with nearly all associated comments expressing negative reactions like shame or guilt. In contrast, explicit diagnoses are better accepted. Functional disorder labels frequently trigger positive experiences when framed within an explanatory model, whereas explicit disease labels are often accompanied by frustration regarding therapeutic options.
conclusionsMedical communication plays a central role in shaping patient experience. Explanations denying the presence of a disease are poorly accepted by patients and should be avoided. Explicit diagnoses, including functional disorders, are well received when framed within explanatory models offering targeted therapeutic options.
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.